Democrats & Liberals: Archives

(It would appear that the MORE link is broken…)

What do you expect from a Energy Task Force with an oil spoils map of Iraq.

McClellan has the worst job on the planet. He’s never allowed to answer anything. It’s terrible.

AP, welcome to George Orwell’s 1984, where the government defines, and redefines, and redefines the language and concepts as dictated by their own agenda. The only difference between 1984 and today - voters in 1984 had to be coerced and brainwashed to accept the government’s methods, whereas, today in America, 2/3 of its population is goes along willingly; since TV sports, beer, parties, jobs, the kids, vacations, haircuts, etc., etc., etc. is already more than they can keep on their plate at one time. Americans in general do not see how their paychecks, their bill, their vacations, all the other things I mentioned above on their plates is absolutely dependent upon the government. If the government goes down or fails, their plates will be emptied in big damn hurry.

But who will enlighten the public? Certainly not the FEC or Commission for Public Debates whose purpose is to disinform, and disengage the public from the real core issues which will in large part determine the long term success or failure of our government.

I guess it all depends on the definition of “is”.

I for one could not agree more with Amnesty International, and the United States has hit a pretty low International point when Amnesty is calling us on the carpet. I don’t know about the rest of you, but the Bush Administration and it inept, irresponsible, and blind-leading-the-blind leadership style keeps me up at night, wondering when the next shoe will fall.

What has happen to us as a people and society from the WWII to now when Americans paid attention and sacrificed in whole for the greater good; when our government had vision, direction and firm intelligent leadership?

I’ve donated to Amnesty International a couple of times and still get their mailings. I’m aware of some of their very noble and important work, and still believe in many of their initiatives. But now,in pandering to the hate-America prejudices of their by and large leftist donors in Europe and America, they’ve basically made fools of themselves. They’ll probably make some cash off their America-bashing, but they’ll hopefully spend it on their more worthy causes.

To talk about America and say “Not since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 has there been such a sustained attack on its values and principles” is to take themselves out of serious debate and straight into what even Maureen Dowd is now calling the world of the wackadoo left. MILLIONS died in Stalin’s gulags after 1948. How about Tibet? Rwanda? Sudan? Chechnya?

The ones discrediting Universal Human Rights are those who employ this grossest kind of distortion, who in effect make common cause with tyrants and terrorists as part of some fever dream about defeating a Republican president.

MILLIONS died in Stalin’s gulags after 1948. How about Tibet? Rwanda? Sudan? Chechnya?

None of which are “sustained attack[s] on [America’s] values and principles”…

Come November, Martin, I am comforted to know that regardless of how bad, horrible, atrocious things get, our democracy can count on folks like yourself to stand up for the status quo. Give me Bush or give me death, eh! The man orders a war based on wrong information and bad intel, and diverts resources from OBL and al-Queda who killed thousands of our own, to pursue the death of some 60,000 people in Iraq, and regrets not a thing, and you will defend him.

Now if marriages could be based on that kind of loyalty and devotion, there would be no divorce in America. It’s just gotta be love! :)

Hey Martin.

You’ve got it backwards. People and organizations like Amnesty International are criticizing the policies of torture, disregard of civil liberties and human rights, and unprovoked agression that this administration has formulated and executed, precisely because they love America.

That’s true in both leftist America and Europe. It may be seen as “tough love” by Bush fans, but it’s love nonetheless.

It’s those who are ravaging the values and ideals that once made this country so respected around the world that hate America.

How does the type of behavior with which Amnesty International is charging us, and then the total denial with which the administration greets the charge (even though everyone’s following Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and has seen the torture videos - they’re the hottest selling VCDs on the street in Baghdad), help with capturing or killing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda?

Ceejayoz, Amnesty International was referring to an attack on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not American values. That’s the ‘it’ in “its values.” Pronoun confusion?

David, “bad, horrible and atrocious” is the status quo, yes. But not the one I’m standing for. Like Bush, it’s the status quo I want to see changed—and the purpose of the war in Iraq.

Please remember that if weren’t for Bush, Saddam would still be president of Iraq. Abu Ghraib would be to this day a place where people were murdered by the thousands instead of sexually humiliated by the dozens.

That, my friend, is the status quo that YOU are defending.

“Unprovoked agression,” American Pundit? That is definitely a new one. Those Taliban and Baathist altar boys never really impressed me that much with all of their acts of humanitarian good will.

Again, I don’t want to slam Amnesty International too hard because I know the comments of their leadership don’t entirely reflect the sentiments of those (including me) who believe in much of what they stand for. Unfortunately, they’re a body with no power to actually DO anything about the issues they champion—unlike Bush, who does DO something about them. Their influence ultimately depends on being right when they proclaim about something, which is what saddens me that they’d ignore history and start making absurd moral equivelences between what the administration does and those the administration has steadfastly confronted.

From my perspective, there reaches a point when the petition-signing, the benefit concerts, the mass mailings and consiousness-raising feel-good postures of our “moral” paragons needs to give way to daisy cutters and boots on the ground.

That’s what I love about Bush (a nod to David who has figured out that yes, I am having a love affair with W). Bush cuts through the crap and actually does something tangible in defense of humanitarian principles. All the rest is just bla bla bla and crying into our cereal.

>>>Strangely I have to go along with the republicans a lil’ bit here. Yes these photos are shocking, yes inquiry, yes court marshall proceedings, yes congressional hearings.

But war is ugly, real f-n ugly and this is the least of it. charred bodies and mutilated limbs and bombs dropped and missiles fired ripping out football field size swaths blowing homes sky high and people into nothing. Stray bullets hitting bystanders and kids losing parents and visa-versa. This is bloody s-t that Bush and his bravado have gotten us into here. AND just because on CNN they don’t show the death and maming and bodies, does not mean this isn’t the case daily. Christian Ammanpour may be just cozy fine where she’s reporting from but this is war and so with it high death tolls and legless kids.

These photos aren’t the worst of Bush policies in that area (not to mention jihadist policies). I support our intervening to some extent but twenty minutes after we leave CIVIL WAR will erupt and we will be back in there for another 2 years and 200 billion dollars plus. It’s almost as if it would be best to make four or five different countries out of Iraq for the sake of not having a civil war there.

So about the photos of Abu Ghraib, yes we need to abide by the Geneva convention certainly but there is worse, lots worse, this is war.

“Unprovoked agression,” American Pundit? That is definitely a new one. Those Taliban and Baathist altar boys never really impressed me that much with all of their acts of humanitarian good will.

C’mon Martin, you know damned well the Democrats were all for going into Afghanistan. That was a no brainer - we wanted to get bin Laden. And what do acts of unhumanitarian badwill have to do with provoking our agression?

Iraq was no threat to us. Inspectors were crawling all over the place. If Bush wanted to stop Saddam’s tortures, he could have said so from the start without making up some cock’n’bull WMD story.

Bush cuts through the crap and actually does something tangible in defense of humanitarian principles.

I hear that from you all the time, yet I never hear you yelling about the need for Bush to lead us into Sudan and Ethiopia and other places where bad people are doing bad things.

Martin (and skunkbud), people are making a big deal out of the abuses at Abu Ghraib because it was America that committed them. People are slamming Bush’s “unprovoked aggression” because it’s America. We’re supposed to be the guys who fight fair. The guys that the rest of the world admires and wants to emulate. The reason people are shocked at what’s going on is because there shouldn’t even be a comparison between us and Saddam, let alone a matter of degree.

American Pundit wrote:

>>Who gives a crap? I want bin Laden’s head on a plate!

They already *have* bin Laden… why do you think they so suddenly turned their eyes to Baghdad and Saddam Hussein? Why do you think that bin Laden is but a mere afterthought these days?

Because he is tucked away in a prison in Pakistan.

Patrick, we need to keep that a SECRET. (for fear the ACLU, Amnesty International, or Johnnie Cochran find out, and jump on the next plane to Islamabad). Also, you will ruin the big October surprise!!! {ssshhhhh…}

Patrick, don’t ruin the October surprise! We got game here, sshhh…