The Evidence on "Inhanced Interrogation"

It has been in the news for a while about the enhanced interrogation, basically a light word for water boarding and sleep deprivation. Bush and his crew have been accused of using torture to get information from their prisoners, which of course, is illegal. However, Bush has admitted that they have interrogated, but have done nothing to shock the conscience. The question is if simulating drowning really is a shocker, to me it is. When asked for security tapes, they somehow were destroyed by the CIA, a real coincidence. Now though, Bush has enabled for Congress to receive some testimony and evidence of the interrogation of two prisoners. I believe that this new information really wont be that much help to discover the truth. Bush will only give enough to make it seem that they have not done anything bad, when they probably have because the disappearing video tapes and other evidence is just stupid. If our own CIA cannot hold onto a couple of tapes, then how are they supposed to find Osama or other terrorists, they definitely are not as good as we though, or, their just covering it up. Basically, Bush is just trying to cover, he knows just saying it doesn't happen wont do enough, so hes going to release some info, but its going to be so censored it will not be able to prove enough.

Do Cancer and Politics Mix?

Cancer is a disease that in many different forms attacks people all over the world. This disease often times is terminal, and annually kills about 560,000 Americans. Cancer has even been a factor in many of the presidential candidates lives. It is public news of what John Edwards wife has gone through with breast cancer, as well as Giuliani’s prostate cancer, McCain’s skin cancer, Thompson’s lymphoma, Brownback’s melanoma, Huckabee’s wife’s spinal cancer, Obama’s mothers ovarian cancer, and finally Clinton’s mother in law’s breast cancer. If all this cancer has been present in their lives, then it is strange that cancer has not been used in politics or campaign. The last time that cancer was used was with Nixon in 1971, where he tried to rush to find a cure for the disease. However, this may change, in the coming election, politicians may try using cancer to push them to the presidency. It actually has already started, as six candidates, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, Richardson, Brownback, and Huckabee spoke in a forum on cancer sponsored by Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong foundation and MSNBC. However, cancer is hard to use for politics, and will probably be removed as an issue in the campaign. Cancer is hard first of all because the cure for cancer may be a long way off, most likely after the campaign, meaning that putting a war against it would most likely fail, resulting in the failure of an issue of a candidate. Next, there is no strong political organization against cancer, because there are so many sub divisions of cancer that there is no unified fight against it. Lastly, it is a sad fact that only a couple organizations fund basic cancer research, making finding any support a hard task. Overall, I think that the pursuit of using cancer, as a method for winning the presidency will soon be dropped. It may put one candidate in the limelight for a short time as a good person, but after a while it will be overlooked and forgotten. Candidates will shift their focus on their policies, speeches, etc, and forget about using cancer as a force. Furthermore, the most they would be able to do is help fund cancer, in no way will a cure come around directly from their own actions.

What should we do with Iran?

This author has decided to make a statement, that basically, the US should keep the ability to produce and use nuclear arms away from Iran. He saw this is Iraq four years ago as a threat, and had agree to enter the country in order to stop it. The author believed that the Iraq war was caused by “competition for the region's abundant reserves of fossil fuels, (b) demographic pressures arising from the region's high birthrates, (c) the growth of radical Islamism and (d) the determination of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”., however he sees the nuclear weapons as a huge threat to the safety of the US. Iran is starting to develop the technology and the resources that it could be assumed to be used on one target, Israel, a hated enemy but a great US ally. An attack of this nature could make a huge problem occur between these two countries, and the US would be stuck in the middle of it and become a threat. Furthermore, the United Nations has decided to not allow force or intervention to stop the nuclear arms development, which the author believes is the wrong decision. He thinks that diplomacy on this great of an issue between the great of rival nations will never work, force behind however could produce results. He wished that the US gets immediately involved in this issue either by examining the facilities and not letting their production continue, or but battleships close enough to where their air missiles can pin point and destroy nuclear facilities, removing the danger of this threat. The author even criticises Bush for not doing this, only because he is worried about his own reputation.
Personally, I would not like to use force, because we are already spread insanely thin, no like we were before the Iraq War. However, if we saw that development was clear and that a clear launch against Israel could happen, I would not use force, but show off my power. I would place battleships near and let Iran know that if they do decide to launch against Israel, we would quickly respond to them, hopefully detering a massive loss of life.