I wonder which of the two, yours or Tom's has the most credibility.

Let's see. You understand that actual laws were broken but instead use actual neurons to consider the human side of the equation and the political price that must be paid when you take risks. Reasoned, articulate and a highly likely outcome, one I could live with although not nearly as much fun or satisfying to my sense of justice.

Tom's response as always tries to move the topic to an area where he can conjure up a bogeyman, in this case Obama's release of CIA interrogation memos which pretty much prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that torture was indeed used extensively and fully authorized by the Bush administration. Of course the release of the memos is the evil and not the deeds. He seems so confused that we question his logic as he states firmly that the "attack" backfired as if it's some universal truth that there was an attack or that the eventual outcome was bad for the party in power. It's just stated as Tom's Law where we must atone and live with his pronouncement.

ER, it's so refreshing to have someone else on this board that spots the snake oil salesman among us and refuses to let him get away with it. Your responses to Tom often make my day.

Art