Just one detail ...torture is a crime in each and every case, not only when the victim is "innocent". The victim's status is irrelevant. As soon as you start differentiating there, you already find yourself on the slippery slope.
Gee, is that so hard to understand? TORTURE IS A CRIME. IN AND OF ITSELF, AND ALWAYS. No matter who is the victim and who the victimizer.
Posted by European at June 16, 2005 12:47 AMWhere do these Senators ---like Leahy and Levin--- get the idea that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are recruiting tools for the jihadists? Because al-Jazeera says so? Because a media-savvy Zarqawi references these places in his diatribes? We necessarily take prisoners in these conflicts and we must house them somewhere, so why are these liberal handwringers tying our military's hands by insisting that we withdraw from Gitmo?
It's really starting to piss me off.
Posted by Toby Petzold at June 16, 2005 12:54 AMbecause dear Toby, both gitmo and Abu Garihb are symbols of our lost humanity, where we crossed the line and lost our moral standing.Your pissed off?
I've been pissed off for a while now. Ever since your godhead and fuhrer decided to act like an inbred idiot and do everything wrong.
BTW...I put in my enlistment papers, and am waiting on some waivers(age and medical).
When are you shipping out?
Posted by SnarkyShark at June 16, 2005 02:29 AMI just love the WSJ! Check out their faux outrage opinion piece
Let me see if I understand this argument. Sen Durbin says that descriptions of the actions of US troops could conceivably be mistaken for that of the Nazis. According to the WSJ, this means that Sem Durbin is calling our troops Nazis.
Since when did noting that things are similar automaticaly mean that things are equal.
My car drives like a Porsche.
My wife spends money like we are millionaires.
If only it were that easy...
Posted by the professor at June 16, 2005 05:13 AMSnarky, take care! You sure are brave!
Posted by Art of Noise at June 16, 2005 05:27 AMIf you're so pissed off Toby, DO something about it. The military needs recruits so badly I'm sure they would even take you at this point.
Posted by Joe at June 16, 2005 05:34 AMDscmfrt qls trtr n sm frtl mgntns. Th srry rgmnt tht by nt cddlng yr frry frnds, w r smhw xpsng r wn trps t svg rcprctn s ldcrs, s n prrqst prvctn hs vr bn ndd by th bldthrsty slmbrts t flfll thr myhm mndt. Yt lftst trmt wngrs cntn t ply thm wth sphmrc xcss.
[Editor: ignore=off]Toby,
I would have to agree with the mood here on Gitmo. It would be lot less of a headache if we just shut it down. That way we don't have to listen to all this whining all the time.
I have a few choices for the people that want to close Gitmo.
a.) Every cry baby liberal that thinks Gitmo is evil gets to house one terrorist for a year.
b.) We ship all the terrorists back to the Middle East. Give them their gun's back and say have a nice day. The Americans are that way --->
c.) We hand them all over to another Country like Pakistan or maybe Kuwait and them "watch" them for us. I'm sure they will be much nicer than those evil Americans.
d.) Or how about this. Let our men and women do their fucking jobs.
I prefer "d" but choice "a" would be nice also.
Posted by Centrist at June 16, 2005 05:49 AMCentrist,
You are a witty one.
d.) Or how about this. Let our men and women do their fucking jobs.
That's what Lyndie England and her buddies where doing right? Their 'fucking jobs'? There was a lot of fucking going on from all accounts.
If you can't understand how the abuses that have been documented at these places effect our moral standing in the world you can not possibly be a centrist. Are you one of those Bush voters who can't bring yourself to admit publically that you drink from the kool-aid vat?
Posted by muckcat at June 16, 2005 06:01 AMmuck,
..and your solution to the problem is... if there is one bad apple in the tree you cut all the trees down!
My god we have people torturing our prisoners. CLOSE THE MILITARY!!
That's what Lyndie England and her buddies where doing right?
Nice flash back by the way. I thought the issue at hand today was Gitmo and those awful American soldiers. It really amazes me that you would take the word of a terrorist (at Gitmo) over the word of an American solider. Even knowing that it's written in the "al Qaeda hand book" to lie and make claims of mistreatment. You far left wackos are the fools these terrorists are attempting to manipulate. It seems it's working.
If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."
Are you one of those Bush voters ...
Lesser of two evils at the time. No kool-aid required.
Posted by Centrist at June 16, 2005 06:53 AMSaddam torture= Bad? USA torture=good? interesting
Posted by goose1 at June 16, 2005 06:53 AMSaddam torture= Bad? USA torture=good? interesting
no.
USA torture = hypocrites
No one here ever said it's good or even hinted that way.
Posted by Centrist at June 16, 2005 07:16 AMNice flash back by the way. I thought the issue at hand today was Gitmo and those awful American soldiers.
I'm not the first one on this thread to make reference to Abu Ghraib. Toby, who you were agreeing with did. So you'll have to try a little harder with your snark.
It really amazes me that you would take the word of a terrorist (at Gitmo) over the word of an American solider.
Well there's a lot of 'word taking' going on. For instance you're taking the administrations word that all those people at Gitmo are terrorists. See I was raised in a country where the facts and the courts were used to determine a persons guilt. Not the word of the military, the CIA or the executive branch. What I don't understand is how you can't understand how occurances of abuse, limited as they may be, are incredibly more offensive to people like me than the acts of the terrorists are because the acts of our soldiers are being commited in our name. If my kid and the neighbors kid are both behaving equally poorly I'm more embarrassed by my own kids behavior than by that of my neighbors kid. How about you?
You far left wackos are the fools these terrorists are attempting to manipulate. It seems it's working.
If you want to call me a far left wacko because I believe our actions need to be held to a higher standard that's fine. You're the one who is comfortable with the possibility of our soldiers engaging in activities that lower them closer to the status of the terrorists. So who's being manipulated. The terrorists seek confrontation. They want us to be drawn down to their level. Contrary to what George Bush likes to say they thrive not on their hate for our freedom but rather on their ability to drag us down to their level.
You can publish the entire manual if you'd like but the actions of the few at Abu Ghraib are what opened the door to reasonable doubt at Gitmo. That's a fact. I'm not responsible for the acts of the terrorists. I do consider myself to have a responsibility for things that are done in the name of America.
Posted by muckcat at June 16, 2005 07:20 AMNot the word of a "detainee." How about the word of the FBI (see Sen. Durbin's statement)? Centrist and Toby, and all your fellow travelers, it must be getting exhausting being in denial about so many things simultaneously--hope you have the stamina to keep it up.
Charles
mudcat,
You can't argue with a fundamentalist crack pot like Toby. He has no ability to reason. By his own simplistic black and white reasoning he's a domestic terrorist.
Centrist,
It would be useful if you actually bothered to read Dick Durbin's quote. You'd have found that he wasn't quoting a "terrorist" but an FBI agent.
Very clearly, you're high on kool-aid to think this is the work of a "few" bad apples here and there. Clearly, you haven't been following the large number of incidents and how widespread this phenomenon has been - even based on the large number of investigations in the Bush administration focused on torture in different places here (and the link is not even up-to-date). And clearly, you are willing to take the word of a President who claimed that all his (fake) assertions about Iraq's WMDs, Al Qaeda links, blah blah, were also based on "damn good intelligence" - until of course the time came to make the CIA take the fall for his book-cooking. So, you want us to believe a guy on his say-so (the "few bad apples" theory) even though he's been a pathological liar for years. Sure, you're a "centrist" all right.
I personally don't think that this is a common practice in the U.S. military; but the evidence shows it is also not just a "few bad apples". The evidence shows that the authorization to torture came from the top. If you actually believe torture is unacceptable, then I see no reason why you would not support an independent inquiry to see how far up the chain this goes, so that a bunch of servicemen and servicewomen who are in the war zone are not made scapegoats for the actions of those at the top.
I don't necessarily think Guantanamo Bay should be shut down. I believe that Gitmo (and other locations) should NOT be used for extra-legal torture. If they are guilty, certainly house them in prison per the Geneva Conventions. But if you have no real way to prove they are guilty (even using watered down criteria for proof), then you have no business keeping them there (as many were and were then subsequently released after a long period), let alone torturing them.
Posted by eriposte at June 16, 2005 07:43 AMmuck,
I'm more embarrassed by my own kids behavior than by that of my neighbors kid. How about you?
Nice analogy. I would agree to a point. But I also would not be so blind to the fact that these things do happen and will continue to happen long after we are dead. Our soldiers are only human and some do make mistakes. Don't judge the military as a whole based on the actions of a few. That is exactly what you are doing by demanding the closing of Gitmo. Do you demand the closing of a prison when a guard beats the hell out of an inmate? No you don't. You deal with the prison guard. Why the double standard? You seem to have this view that all military personnel are insane wackos intent on torture and killing. That's the way I see it.
courts were used to determine a persons guilt
Oh yea...I can see it now.
Judge: Are you a terrorist or part of any other group that intends harm on American's?
Detainee: No.
Judge: O.K. Your free to go. Next.
Since no one here seems to want to actually come up with a way to keep Gitmo open without suspicion. I will offer a few logical solutions.
a.) A full staff of Red Cross or pick your group will remain at Gitmo during the "detainees" stay to monitor all activities. (I would not want that job)
b.) Camera's will be installed (if not already) and viewed off base by the Red Cross or pick your group. If any allegations of torture are filed then a tape will be available to prove or disprove the allegations.
Hell I like "b". That would make a great reality TV show if it wasn't illegal to do so. ..... Next on NBC it's Big Brother Gitmo.
I too thought torture would be appropriate for Bin Laden but nothing so trivial as dog collars, electric shock or physical torture -merely have him share a cell with Dubya for the remainder of their days.
Posted by CJ at June 16, 2005 08:30 AMDon't judge the military as a whole based on the actions of a few. That is exactly what you are doing by demanding the closing of Gitmo. Do you demand the closing of a prison when a guard beats the hell out of an inmate? No you don't.
Not a nice analogy. American prisons are filled with people who have been tried and convicted. They have access to representation before the law. They have access to their families. The people at Gitmo do not. They have not been tried or convicted. Most have not even been charged. I think Gitmo should be closed. I didn't say anything about punishing those who are stationed there. Is Gitmo the military as a whole? Bullshit.
You seem to have this view that all military personnel are insane wackos intent on torture and killing. That's the way I see it.
Please point out something here that I wrote that conveys that impression to you. I'll wait.
Oh yea...I can see it now.
Judge: Are you a terrorist or part of any other group that intends harm on American's?
Detainee: No.
Judge: O.K. Your free to go. Next.
You conveniently skipped over the part of the narrative where the prosecution has to present evidence of the suspects guilt. Very revealing. It's disturbing that you hold a persons right not to incriminate themself in such low regard. Again, I find your moniker 'Centrist' a bit inappropriate.
a.) A full staff of Red Cross or pick your group will remain at Gitmo during the "detainees" stay to monitor all activities. (I would not want that job)
b.) Camera's will be installed (if not already) and viewed off base by the Red Cross or pick your group. If any allegations of torture are filed then a tape will be available to prove or disprove the allegations.
And if you could get Donald Rumsfeld or any of the other goons running this administration to agree to that I'd die of shock.
Toby,
You ask where liberals get the idea that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are recruiting tools for terrorists, Al-Jazeera? How about Scotty McClellan when he was trying to silence Newsweek and blamed Newsweek for widespread rioting because of a report of Koran abuse at Gitmo?
Centrist and Toby,
You start every contention with the assumption that everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist. Upon what do you base that conclusion? You have no idea who these people are or what they are even accused of because it's all secret. You see, that's the problem, it's all in secret. No Red Cross as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, no due process, no charges, no hearings, no trials, not even disclosure of the names of those who are being held.
I have 2 brothers who are currently fighting in Iraq. They are patriots who believe in American ideals of Justice and Human Rights and dignity. They have been told that they are over there to spread the freedom of democracy. What Muslims see is the freedom of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Gitmo.
If one of my brothers is captured and held in a secret cave or prison, stripped naked, left in 100 degree temps.,made to humiliate themselves by being placed on all fours and bark like a dog, held in chains on a bare floor in a fetal position for days at atime, made to urinate and defecate on themselves, held without any notification to the US Military, or our family, held without charge or trial indefinately, I'm not only coming after and blaming our goddamn politicians, I'm blaming all you sick fucks who allow this kind of shit to go on in the name of America, without apology, just saying it's just a little harsh, fraternity like hi-jinks and besides we've got to protect ourselves. Well, dickheads, we're occupying 2 countries. We're taking people in those countries and throwing them in prisons. Don't you think they might feel justified taking our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters and doing the same or worse to them? And when they do, are you going to stand up and say, quit your goddamn whining GIs, its just a "little harsh" treatment?
Moral midgets like you make me physically ill. True patriots stand up for the true ideals of America, truth, justice, human rights, and liberty. Patriots don't excuse violations of those ideals when those violations are politically embarressing.
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 16, 2005 08:57 AMNo one here ever said it's good or even hinted that way.
No, you said it was acceptable.
I do love the way you nuts equate giving canned peaches to "detainees" as somehow being in a country club environment. It's the same way you equate providing clothing and shelter to your children as justification for the abusive environments you force them to live in. It's all perspective, and you apparently have none.
We necessarily take prisoners in these conflicts and we must house them somewhere, so why are these liberal handwringers tying our military's hands by insisting that we withdraw from Gitmo?
Ridiculous argument, even for you. That prisoners are taken is not a contested issue. How they are treated and what is done to them is. Torture is unacceptable at any level. But we have become a punishment society, reminiscient of what the idiot christians were doing when they first came to this country. I can't wait until we get a chance to lock you up for the treason you're committing as we write here, and "Abu Ghraib" your stupid butt.
Posted by phidipides at June 16, 2005 09:04 AMy'know, last year SCOTUS ruled that gitmo detainees have a right to be heard in federal courts. not some "military tribunal" that commander codpiece pulled out of his ass.
bushco ignored the supremes cause they're on a mission from god and this "rule of law" and "separation of powers" stuff is just so quaint.
Clearly, you haven't been following the large number of incidents and how widespread this phenomenon has been.
"Two guards at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were disciplined for misuse of force against detainees in 2002 and 2003, according to Col. David McWilliams of the U.S. Southern Command.
Three other cases were investigated but those involved were cleared of wrongdoing, McWilliams said."
Yep....wide spread at Gitmo alright.
Moral midgets like you make me physically ill.
Where you actually vomiting on your keyboard after that rant? Impressive.
You conveniently skipped over the part of the narrative where the prosecution has to present evidence of the suspects guilt. Very revealing. It's disturbing that you hold a persons right not to incriminate themself in such low regard. Again, I find your moniker 'Centrist' a bit inappropriate.
Your right on the narrative. But wrong on my moniker. Just because I disagree with your views on this issue does not make me a right wing wacko. You must think that the people in the middle have no point of view on anything and just don't give a shit. That's not the case at all. If I was to agree with every point you guys make then I would have to consider myself a Liberal wacko. Would I not?
JUDGE: How does the defendant plead to the charges of being a terrorist?
LAWYER: Not guilty your Honor.
JUDGE: Very well, proceed with the evidence against the detainee.
JAG: I will now read from the military record of events for the day of ####. "A group of men were shooting at us. We surrounded them and they surrendered. We took them prisoners."
LAWYER: My client says he was out walking he dog, with a gun for protection only, and happened to be caught in the middle of this gun fight.
JUDGE: hmmm very interesting. I will have to rule not guilty due the fact that the military lie and can't be trusted. Give him his gun back. NEXT!
Point being, any trial would be considered a joke. Did we give the Germans or Japanese prisoners a trial every time we captured one? Nope we didn't. Straight to the camp for interrogations. hmmmm I wonder how many of them we tortured?
any response to that SCOTUS ruling, cult members? or are you just opposed to the american system of justice? (the latter, i'll guess)
Posted by benjoya at June 16, 2005 10:42 AMor are you just opposed to the american system of justice
Not at all. Then after everyone of the detainees are considered combatants you can then say how the military panel was biased and therefore all rulings are null and void and all of them should be released. That is what you want right? All of them to be released. Otherwise why all the hype to shut it down?
All I hear is SHUT GITMO DOWN!! Then what???!! Come one Left Wingers then what? What's your big plan? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!!! (sigh)
If you can answer that one please try not to digress into Bush this and Bush that, bla bla bla. Yes we all know he is a turd. Get over it.
Just because I disagree with your views on this issue does not make me a right wing wacko.
You're the one calling people wacko in this discussion. Not me. From what you've now written here it seems your political spectrum goes like this - Leftist wacko - Centrist - Rightwing wacko. Strange that. Such a flippant attitude toward the concept of habeas corpus is not something I would expect from a self described centrist.
Point being, any trial would be considered a joke.
Why? If a detainee was taken into custody after engaging in a gun battle with our troops why would that be joke? I'd be perfectly willing to accept explainations like that. Problem is that hasn't taken place. All these people are being held anonymously, incommunicato with no access to international humanitarian organizations or representatives of their home countries. The Supreme Court has ruled that these people must be dealt with in the civilian courts.
Did we give the Germans or Japanese prisoners a trial every time we captured one? Nope we didn't. Straight to the camp for interrogations. hmmmm I wonder how many of them we tortured?
At least you recognize what has taken place at Gitmo and other places as torture.
Posted by muckcat at June 16, 2005 11:09 AMCentrist,
You're going around in so many circles the dizziness must be keeping you from coherent thought. Of course, we didn't try German and Japanese prisoners of war, because they were POWs subject to the Geneva Conventions. They were held humanely and returned to their homes when the war ended. They were visited by the Red cross, and their names were released to their countries.
However, W. and Rummy contend that those held at Gitmo aren't entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions because they're nontraditional combatants. (Never mind that they were in Afghanistan, their country, when we took them into custody and flew them to Gitmo). The only war going on was our invasion of Afghanistan.
I'll type real slowly so you can comprehend. The Supreme Court has held that these prisoners are entitled to due process because the administration has determined that they are not POWs. They are being imprisoned on US land, not in their own country. People held by the government on US land are entitled to due process.
Remember, there is no declaration of war against Afghanistan or even the Taliban. There is no declaration of war against Iraq either. So is it your position that they are pows entitled to the Geneva Conventions like the Germans and Japanese and are entitled to be returned to their homeland since W. has declared "Mission Accomplished"? Or is it your position that pursuant to the rule of American law that they're entitled to due process? Or is it your position that you don't care about international law, U.S. law and screw all them pussies on them courts?
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 16, 2005 11:14 AMSo is it your position that they are pows entitled to the Geneva Conventions like the Germans and Japanese and are entitled to be returned to their homeland since W. has declared "Mission Accomplished"?
I consider them terrorists, non-freedom fighters, insurgents or whatever the P.C. term of the day is. They don't meet all the requirements to be entitled to the Geneva Conventions. As for being returned to their homeland. Yes after we leave. Otherwise we will have to deal with them again.
Or is it your position that pursuant to the rule of American law that they're entitled to due process?
I have no problem with them getting the hearing. If you read my previous posts you would understand that. I feel that even after they do get a "fair" trial you would dismiss the rulings anyway. My biggest bitch is you want it closed down, but you don't say what we are to do with them after that. It's the knee jerk reaction you have that makes absolutely no sense.
Or is it your position that you don't care about international law,
yea somewhat. We don't recognize the international courts now.
U.S. law and screw all them pussies on them courts?
Considering how most of my friends are Assn't D.A's, Lawyers, Cops & Politicians, I don't hold that attitude.
Posted by Centrist at June 16, 2005 12:05 PMI have no problem with them getting the hearing. If you read my previous posts you would understand that. I feel that even after they do get a "fair" trial you would dismiss the rulings anyway. My biggest bitch is you want it closed down, but you don't say what we are to do with them after that. It's the knee jerk reaction you have that makes absolutely no sense.
The problem that most here have with Gitmo is the fact that these people aren't getting hearings. They aren't getting anything. Their just being held. And they're being held there for the very reason that it's easy for the military to do just that. Hold them and keep anyone away from them who's going to ask questions that the military would need to answer. That was the genesis of Amnesty's gulag comment. Gitmo is a no man's land of unaccountability. People go in and you don't hear from or of them again. An ill advised comment at best but if you really try to understand what Amnesty was trying to say it's not as bad as it's been made out to be.
Posted by muckcat at June 16, 2005 12:22 PMDidn't you know that torture would happen when you heard Bush and his Administration say:"The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to illegal combatents?" I wish the Press would do re-runs of them saying this and the Democrats that spoke a rebuttal. I heard lots of exchange of oppenions when the Bush Administration first said that?
Posted by oneforall at June 16, 2005 01:40 PMCan you believe anything that the GOP says? Have you counted the lies they have told? I mean just the ones everyone knows about? How many times does a GOP have to lie before you stop believing in them? It seems logic to me that no excuse would be good enough to kill people over?
Posted by Varie at June 16, 2005 01:49 PMcentrist, i assume you're being cute/evasive, rather than stupid. i'll be more specific: do you condone the bush administration's ignoring SCOTUS's ruling or do you just like "the american system of justice" when dear leader feels like it?
what i want is for everyone to follow the law. even if, like you and your prophet, they are on a mission from god.
Posted by benjoya at June 16, 2005 02:08 PMwhat's SCOTUS? some kinda french peacenik group, I'll bet.
Posted by bendittohead at June 16, 2005 02:34 PMActually, I never said "Close it down". What I did say is that if we run it, run it according to american principles. You say you don't object to the prisoners being released after the conflict is over. There's a little problem there, though. The government takes the position that they're there for life.
Just today, Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins was asked by a Senate committee whether the administrationhad defined when the war on terror would be over and he answered, "No". He was then asked if that meant they could be held at Gitmo forever and Wiggins responded, "It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity."
That's the problem. Since the people who run Gitmo do so in secrecy, with no oversight by congress and the Red cross, with no due process, and with life sentences for those who are never charged, tried, or convicted, How can we say to the world that we are a nation of justice and liberty?
If you were travelling in a foreign country and were picked up by the police based upon an anonymous person saying that you were a terrorist or spy and held under the same conditions, do you think that would be just hunky-dory with you, or would you hope that there would be an international outcry about you being held in perpetuity?
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 16, 2005 02:38 PMSCOTUS=Supreme Court of the U.S.
Posted by at June 16, 2005 04:01 PMWe necessarily take prisoners in these conflicts and we must house them somewhere, so why are these liberal handwringers tying our military's hands by insisting that we withdraw from Gitmo?
Phidipides:
Ridiculous argument, even for you. That prisoners are taken is not a contested issue. How they are treated and what is done to them is.
Are we beheading prisoners on tape and then spreading it around the Internet? Do we not have established military procedures for how the goddamned Koran is to be treated? These people are getting a hell of a lot better treatment than we get credit for. And Big Media so desperately wants another My Lai that they'll take these charges and run as far as they can with them. Don't doubt for a second that these Islamofascist murderers are playing the media card as well as the commies did in Viet Nam. And you're helping them.
Torture is unacceptable at any level. But we have become a punishment society, reminiscient of what the idiot christians were doing when they first came to this country.
Yeah. Christian civilization was a real failure in the development of this society. And, of course, it was all about inflicting physical harm. What a load of crapola.
I can't wait until we get a chance to lock you up for the treason you're committing as we write here, and "Abu Ghraib" your stupid butt.
Hmm. So, using your own standards and beliefs, you look forward to rounding me up and torturing me? What a winning argument! Loser.
Posted by Toby Petzold at June 16, 2005 04:43 PMDick:
You ask where liberals get the idea that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are recruiting tools for terrorists, Al-Jazeera? How about Scotty McClellan when he was trying to silence Newsweek and blamed Newsweek for widespread rioting because of a report of Koran abuse at Gitmo?
Shrill hyperbole. McClellan tried to "silence" Newsweek by suggesting that they write about why they passed off an unsubstantiated rumor as the truth? I guess you believe in the freedom of the press to lie.
I think the question that people like you should answer is what aspect of our War against the Terrorists isn't a "recruiting tool" for them. Orange jumpsuits and disrespected Korans? These people's hatred for us is vast. They'll use any symbol or incident to get their message out. And anti-war Leftists aid and abet them.
Posted by Toby Petzold at June 16, 2005 05:28 PMAre we beheading prisoners on tape and then spreading it around the Internet?
No, we are dropping 1000 lbs JDAMs on residential neighborhoods blowing up small children along with the occasional insurgent, and then suppressing the news media, with no risk whatsoever to the brave pilot involved.
Those guys do those gruesome things(beheadings) so weak kneed cowards like you will scream for us to move further away from the ideas that make us unique in the world. Or used to make us unique anyway. Now we just act like any other third world banana republic that likes to torture and kill.
The world used to like Americans personally, even if they did or did not like our leaders. After we cravenly endorsed this crap with our accountability moment...not so much.
Thsi makes it so much easier to find people who are willing to kill Americans, where as before ...not so much.
Now do you see why this aids terrorist recruiting?
See ya in Iraq big boy!
Centerist....you've enlisted to fight in the glorious cause?
If not, why not?
Posted by SnarkyShark at June 16, 2005 05:37 PMNo Toby, they are using your own standards. Why do you always blame someone else? Bush is the reason we have all these problems, not the media. There would be no torture to report if it wasn't happening. Saudi suckups like you have no right to call anyone names. Man, if that picture of Bush making love to Prince Bandar wasn't enough to make you see the truth, nothing will
Scapegoating people about Viet Nam, well, how typical. Do the math Toby. Or can you even add? When you have millions of people in a country who don't want you there, there is no way you can win. What is it in Iraq? 20 million vs. 140,000?
If you sincerely believe in the neconfantasy, then you should be kicking Jr.'s incompetent butt from here to timbuktu.
Be gone fundamentalist idiot!
Posted by ga6thdem at June 16, 2005 05:38 PMJeebus, this centrist feller is stupider then ROOF, and that's sayin something.
His arguments say guilty until proven innocent, but let's not even try.
Okay, centrist, you're a troll. Fuck off.
See how that works?
Posted by Duckman GR at June 16, 2005 09:49 PM