Now we know why it's called "The View" rather than "The Views"

From Newsbusters.org...

"View" co-host Rosie O’Donnell displayed her disdain for opposing "views" when she shut off the show’s only non-liberal, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Rory Kennedy appeared on the March 20 edition to promote her film for HBO, "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib."

Hasselbeck gently asked what our government should do to extract vital information from captured terrorists. Rosie jumped in and asserted "before you answer that" then proceeded to ask an unrelated question regarding a general’s transfer from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. Elisabeth responded by noting that detainees at Guantanamo are allowed to pray five times a day, and are well fed.

At that point the "Queen of Nice" cut her off, stating that Elisabeth "can’t just blather on" her "opinion" and she needed to ask a question. Obviously offended, Elisabeth stated that she did ask a question when Rosie interrupted with her own question. Rosie said it was because Hasselbeck dared to imply that Abu Ghraib was a result of a few bad apples and not condoned by the government. Those beliefs are not allowed in Rosie’s world.

Justin McCarthy (at Newsbusters) also has a transcript and video. There's also some interesting comments. Apparently, the Liberal line is that any and all abuses are proof that such actions are sanctioned by, and are common practice for the Bush Administration. One commenter asks...

Question for those of you who support
torture:

Should children be tortured in order to obtain
information?

How can we determine if these people are guilty or
innocent?

Should police officers in America be allowed to torture people that have
been arrested?

As usual the argument starts with a false presumption as well as convenient definitions. What exactly constitutes torture? Anything unpleasant or does it have to involve pain? Where's the dividing line between punishment and torture? Since such definitions are left open-ended, then an assumption that the Bush Administration supports torture lacks any foundation.

And to answer the questions...

1. Social agencies torture hundreds if not thousands of children each year by unnecessarily ripping them from their families and putting them with strangers. Liberals defend this abuse by claiming it's "for the children"

2. Few things cause as much anguish for an honest citizen as being accused of a crime, and put on trial. So how exactly would a society determine the guilt or innocence of a person without causing any suffering?

3. Police are indeed allowed to use physical intimidation to coerce a confession. A Liberal packed Supreme Court has continued to allow this. Why do Liberals then whine about the Bush Administration?

Finally I leave you with the immortal words of America's #1 hypocrite, Al Franken, who said, in 2002 interview at the National Press Club...

We have like 300 detainees -- not all the detainees, by the way -- just like the guy who has an apartment in Paterson, New Jersey, and who was inquiring about crop-dusting. (Laughter.) That guy knows something -- right? (Laughter.) Now, you know that he's willing to die for this perverse cause. My question is: Is he willing to take a red-hot poker up the butt for it? This is not, by the way, the NCRC policy. (Laughter.) You know he wants to service the 72 virgins in paradise. Does he think he can do that after we have crushed his testicles? That's just --

Posted by Danny Carlton at March 21, 2007 5:34 AM