In a press conference on Wednesday, our President and Commander in Chief said, “I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees… And Churchill said, ‘We don’t torture,’ when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.”

Seems straight forward. He’s comparing our situations with theirs. Their situation was worse, and their leader still didn’t advocate torture.

And of course, the conservative are jumping all over the statement. “The president needs to learn some history. The British used enhanced techniques on captives during WWII!” One blogger wrote: “The premise here is that the Brits didn’t resort to harsh interrogation techniques in WWII… But if the premise relied upon fails — as it seems to here…”

No, that’s not the premise– so it doesn’t “fail”. The premise is that the president was struck by an article that he read, and that Churchill said “we don’t torture.” The phrase “enhanced techniques” is not in there.

Remember, conservatives, you’re the ones who were insisting that what the US was doing to those prisoners was not ‘torture.’ You insisted it was ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Or something. Hannity is for ‘enhanced interrogation.’ O’Reilly is for ‘enhanced interrogation.’ And the reason they’re for it is so they can be against torture.

So don’t compare what Churchill, and now Obama, are saying about torture, to what the British actually did to German PoWs in WWII. You guys are the ones who insisted there is a distinction. If anything, you’re the ones making Obama look more like Churchill with these statements.

And, please, let’s not start a discussion about our President’s needing a history lesson; let’s not start talking about education, intelligence, and being articulate. Let’s not starting quoting Bush. That joke is played out..

So everyone except our guv’ment ofishuls knows that we aren’t really fighting Iraq anymore, we’re fighting Saudi Arabia. That’s embarrassing, because Bush I is great pals with the royal family over there. Sure, they behead some folks now and again (including a teenage girl from Sri Lanka who was babysitting a baby who died– her fault? Nope, nor was she given a lawyer to help state that.) But for the most part they just can’t control their citizens.

That stings, because it’s not the ofishuls who are getting blown to pieces, its citizens. You see the problem? Our government sticks its head up its ass, pleasing another government but not the people, but rather than attack the gluteus ostriches, they attack citiznes who also aren;t pleased by their government’s actions. It’s like a wife, against her husband’s wishes yelling at another man for the sake of his wife, so he hauls off and hits the yeller’s husband.

I’m trying to find an article about Senator Sam Brownback, who I heard on the radio the other day saying something about how we can’t dismiss the possibility of invading Iran. Yes, Iran. Because Bush I doesn’t have any friends there, see. Meanwhile, Osama’s probably somewhere in Pakistan, and is that an option for Sammy? Nope.

Let me paraphrase the Dixie chicks. I am from Kansas, originally, and I am ashamed that Sam Brownback is from Kansas. Not quite as heavy as what they said. Still true though.

(articles of inspiration: Saudi fighters pose special problem , Death Sentence Draws Near as Maid Waits for Appeal )