Democrats & Liberals Archives

Right vs. Wrong Not Right vs. Left

“The head of a European investigation into alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe said Tuesday there was evidence the United States outsourced torture to other countries and it was likely European governments knew about it.”
“There is a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to the existence of a system of ‘relocation’ or ‘outsourcing’ of torture,” Marty said in a report presented to the Council of Europe, the human rights watchdog investigating the alleged secret prisons.

From the Associated Press:
Quotes from Dick Marty of Switzerland

'Deprived of their liberty and all rights'
“On the other hand, it has been proved that individuals have been abducted, deprived of their liberty and all rights and transported to different destinations in Europe to be handed over to countries in which they have suffered degrading treatment and torture,” the report said.

In the report, Marty analyzed the cases of an Egyptian cleric allegedly kidnapped in Italy and sent back to Egypt and a German captured in Macedonia and taken to Afghanistan.

Last week, Italy’s justice minister formally asked the United States to allow Italian prosecutors to question 22 purported CIA operatives they accuse of kidnapping the Egyptian cleric, Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, in 2003 from a Milan street.

Prosecutors say Nasr, believed to belong to an Islamic terror group, was taken by the CIA to a joint U.S.-Italian air base, flown to Germany and then to Egypt, where he claims he was tortured.

Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, is suing the CIA for wrongful imprisonment and torture, saying he was seized in Macedonia on Dec. 31, 2003, and taken by CIA agents to Afghanistan, where he was allegedly abused before being released in Albania in May 2004.

Citing an American lawyer, Marty also said six Bosnians were abducted by American agents on Bosnian soil and taken to the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, despite a Bosnian judgment ordering their release.

Which is more disturbing, the fact that our President bypassed the legal system to spy on Americans, the fact that our President not only supports but utilizes torture and kidnapping, or the fact that half of the United States is alright with this?
Are we that scared that we would abandon that which makes us America in the first place?
Liberty, Freedom and Justice are now obstacles for our government, not the American way of life.
If you want to believe that the President had to act fast and therefore was justified when he bypassed the FISA courts then by all means do so, but remember he could have started the wiretaps immediately and asked the very compliant courts to give authorization within 72 hours. If you want to compare the torture of prisoners and detainees to an episode of Fox T.V.'s 24, then do so, just remember that one of the reasons the President is justifying the war in Iraq is that Saddam Hussein kidnapped and tortured his own people ( That was the justification that came after WMD, regime change and before Iraqi Freedom). I guess it's our turn to torture them.
Should America be safe? Absolutely!
Should America turn into a Police State because our President thinks he is some supreme being who can use fear and the division in the United States to erase the checks and balances that make our government a Democracy and the United States the land of liberty and freedom?
Absolutely not!

"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once."
~ David Hume
"If our democracy is devolving into a manipulated nation of inattentive spectators, we have the responsibility to speak honestly about our national choices, and to do so even if we feel hesitant or scared."
-Paul Loeb,

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at January 24, 2006 8:51 AM
Comments
Comment #116182

Andre

You are absolutely on target. If the allegations are proven true, there should be legal sanctions applied to anyone and everyone involved. This type of activity violates international law as well as U.S. law.

As to anything happening, there may well be some low level operatives punished. There will be some show trials to prove our “opposition” to torture. Just as there was after the My Lai incident during Viet Nam.

However, I think the average person in this country will not get too highly upset about torture or misuse of power. We want to be safe and secure, no matter what the niceties of law say. What they don’t understand is that when we stoop to these tactics, we are playing on the same level as the enemy. Yes, such activities may gain valuable information and might even prevent an attack, but with each case, we become more like the barbarian murderers we fight and less like the beacon of moral behavior that we should be.

Posted by: John Back at January 24, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #116185

Good post, except for the mistake of calling our government a democracy- it’s a republic. If the drive to complete the transformation of America into an imperial police state is successful the Islamists will have won. That’s the kind of government thay’re trying to impose on the whole world.

Posted by: steve at January 24, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #116187

Excellent article, Andre. The Republican rush to desecrate our values in the never-ending War on Terror is disturbing. It’s like the old Vietnam excuse: “We needed to destroy the village in order to save it.”

There are legal and effective alternatives to what the Bush administration is doing.

We want to be safe and secure, no matter what the niceties of law say.

I live in Singapore. I understand how seductive it is to crave security at any cost. It’s not worth it. Freedom isn’t free. It comes with a certain amount of risk.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #116322

So many good posts today, so little time.

Andre,

Bush’s ‘extremism’ doesn’t even approach a tenth of the founding fathers themselves. Imagine Bush passing the Alien and Sedition Acts today and actually shutting down newspapers and jailing leftists slandering the administration?

It kind of makes left’s characterization a bit silly doesn’t it?

Posted by: esimonson at January 24, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #116330

esminonson,

I know this must have been intentional on your part, but I’ll take it anyway:

Under this administration’s rules for detaining enemy combatants within our borders, ANYONE can be detained without access to counsel. If they were detaining people hostile to the administration who were entirely innocent of terrorist links, no one would know. Padilla was detained for three years before being charged - what makes you think they could be prevented from locking up one of us indefinitely on false charges?

Posted by: CPAdams at January 24, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #116332
I think the average person in this country will not get too highly upset about torture or misuse of power… Posted by: John Back at January 24, 2006 10:33 AM


Does that make people who feel like Ben Franklin (para: Those who give freedom for security deserve neither) better than average citizens?

Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #116341

esimonson,

please don’t answer with some version of “it would never happen”. If we were certain that injustices could never be carried out under the color of authority, we would not need laws. But injustices do happen, even within the letter of the law.

Vigilance against abuses of power is necessary because human nature dictates that people in power will try to exercise greater power when given the freedom to do so.

After all, isn’t this the standard conservative argument against the Supreme Court - that it is usurping the power of the executive and the congress by legislating from the bench instead of interpreting laws?

Isn’t this also part of the push for lobbying reform in the legislative branch - because, unchecked, the Congress will abuse power?

So how can you argue that the executive branch is immune from this behavior? Or are you saying that the indefinite detention of individuals without habeas corpus, domestic evesdropping, and exposing the identity of a secret government operative for political retribution do not qualify as abuses of power?

Posted by: CPAdams at January 24, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #116342

Why is this in the archives?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 24, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #116357

⦣x20AC;œ ⦣x20AC;™ ⦣x20AC;™ or ⦣x20AC;™outsourcing ⦣x20AC;™ of torture,⦣x20AC; Please tell me what this crap means to you people []X20AC;tm ?

Posted by: OHIO at January 24, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #116374

Does anyone remember when Bush presented a bunch of Iraqi prisoners whose hands had been cut off for stealing as examples of why we went to Iraq? It was kind of memorable, partly because Bush told them he wanted to “shake their hands”…

So what’s the new government’s punishment for stealing… Yep, you guessed it, chopping off their hands. Nice.

Posted by: Max at January 24, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #116380

CPAdams,

This essentially the dumbing down of totalitarianism. How many American citizens have been wisked away to foreign countries to be tortured?

If they were detaining people hostile to the administration who were entirely innocent of terrorist links, no one would know. Padilla was detained for three years before being charged - what makes you think they could be prevented from locking up one of us indefinitely on false charges?

No one would know? How is it that you know Padilla was being held for three years? If you were arrested would no one know?

Look, I’m just pointing out that Harry Bellefonte wing of the left does not have a winning political strategy for Democrats. Bush is not Hitler, the Gestapa is not Homeland Security, and Bush is not listening to all your phone conversations.

But if you want to go the Bellefonte route, you’re welcome to it.

No Republican is going to allow the wholesale roundup of innocent folks by a gestapo intent on creating a police state. Get a grip.

The huffing and puffing on this amounts to arguing that the next Mohamed Atta should not be picked up and put in a cell unless he’s rammed a plane into a building.

Wolf Blitzer: The “new Gestapo.” You know, those are powerful words, calling an agency of the US government, the Department of Homeland Security, with what about 300,000 federal employees, the new Gestapo. Do you want to take that back?

HB: No not really. I stand by my remarks. I am very much aware of what this has provoked in our national community, and I welcome the opportunity for us to begin to have a dialouge, that goes other than where we have been having one up until now. People feel that I talk in extremes, but if you look at what’s happening to American citizens, a lot is going on in the extreme. We’ve taken citizens from this country, without the right to be charged, without being told what they are taken for, we have spoirited them out of this country, taken them to faraway places, and reports come back with some consistency that they are being tortured, they are not being told why, what they have done, and even some who have been released have come back and testified to this fact.

WB: But let me interrupt for a second. Are you familiar and I am sure you are because you are an intelligent man, what the Gestapo did to the Jews in World War II.

HB:: Absolutely.

WB: And you think that what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to some US citizens suspected of terrorism is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews?

HB: Well, if you are taking people out of the country, and spiriting them someplace else, and they are being tortured, and they are being charged or not being charged so they will know what it is that they have done, it may not have been directly inside the, inside the Deaprtment of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system, it is what the system does, it is what all thses different divisions have begun to reveal in their collective. I mean, my phones are tapped, my mail can be opened. They don’t even need a court warrant to come and do that as we once were required to do.

WB: But no one has taken you or anyone else as far as I can tell to an extermination camp and by the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, even millions decided to kill them which is what the Nazis did.

HB: Mr. Blitzer, let me say this to you. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Jews of Germany and people spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon, perhaps we would never have had Adolph Hitler and the Gestapo. hugh hewitt

Posted by: esimonson at January 24, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #116386

esimonson,


“Look, I’m just pointing out that Harry Bellefonte wing of the left does not have a winning political strategy for Democrats. Bush is not Hitler, the Gestapa is not Homeland Security, and Bush is not listening to all your phone conversations.”

I know those of us who do not think like you are wasting our time speaking out against this administration, but these issues are troubling to to some of us.
I wish I could be like you and trust those in power unconditionally, but I’m the kind of person who likes to examine what’s being said versus what’s being done by our leaders.
Like I said this is not “right vs. “left”, it’s a matter of right and wrong.
Torture bad. Humane treatment of detainees good.
Spying on Americans bad. Civil liberties respected and the laws upheld by our elected officials good.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 24, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #116400

Great article and followup post, Andre.
These Neocon’s are nothing more than despots and lawless thugs.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 24, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #116436

Gonzales is trying to say that if the warrentless wiretapping is illegal, then the law is unconstitutional. How’s that for twisted logic.

Last week, Gonzales sent leaders of Congress a 42-page legal defense of warrantless eavesdropping which suggests that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is unconstitutional if it prevents the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping.

From here

Talk about convoluted thinking. This is a real reach.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 24, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #116437

Gonzales is trying to say that if the warrentless wiretapping is illegal, then the law is unconstitutional. How’s that for twisted logic.

Last week, Gonzales sent leaders of Congress a 42-page legal defense of warrantless eavesdropping which suggests that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is unconstitutional if it prevents the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping.

From here

Talk about convoluted thinking. This is a real reach.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 24, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #116438

Moderators:

What’s up with being told my post didn’t go through, and to try again later?

Just wondering, so I don’t double post again.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 24, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #116455

It never ceases to amaze me how cheaply the Republicans sold their Rights in exchange for FEELING safe. Take note that FEELING safe is not equal to BEING safe. The Republicans sold their only cow for some Bush Magic Beans.

How pathetic.

Posted by: Aldous at January 24, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #116466

Bless you Steve!
I’ve been trying to make that point since I first started here. Maybe someone will learn something.
Linda

Posted by: Linda H. at January 24, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #116467

Oh and great post, Andre!!
Linda

Posted by: Linda H. at January 24, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #116474

So this report now alleges torture (which on this blog we have never really defined). But it found no evidence of the secret prisons in Eastern Europe previously alleged.

Re spying – we still have an argument about separation of powers. It is not yet decided. Remember IF is the operative word.

Some calls were monitored when one of the parties was calling from a foreign country. I know you all have extrapolated to include all sorts of things that nobody has yet demonstrated.

You guys would probably enjoy this BBC program. You can speculate about things that haven’t happened.

Oh yeah, merry Fitzmas.

PS - This year is Franklin’s 300th birthday. Maybe you guys should read some of the many biographies so you would stop quoting him out of context.

Posted by: Jack at January 24, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #116524
we still have an argument about separation of powers. It is not yet decided. Remember IF is the operative word.

Jack,

The seperation of poweres were decided on September 17, 1787. Or do we need the Supreme Court to explain plain english to us?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 25, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #116585

Jack,

“But it found no evidence of the secret prisons in Eastern Europe previously alleged.”

I love the glass half full philosophy but come on, we’re talking about torture. Where it takes place is irrelevant. The fact that our government is behind kidnapping and toturing people is the real issue, don’t you think?

Adrienne,

Thank you very much. I have a feeling the Bush defenders are getting just as frustrated with this administration as we are. It shows in their responses.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 25, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #116689

Andre

Has there been one single instance where a call placed INSIDE the United States to a recipient INSIDE the United States been intercepted without a wiretap?

Haven’t calls made by known Al Quida operatives from within the US to people OUTSIDE the US been intercepted?

What’s the big deal?

This is a war,my friend.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 25, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #116708

Sicilianeagle,

Happy New Year.

I’m aware of the fact that we’re at war, but that does not give this already questionable administration blanket immunity from the law.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 25, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #116731

How the French fight terror. We could learn a few things.

Posted by: Jack at January 25, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #116739

Womanmarine:

Gonzales is trying to say that if the warrentless wiretapping is illegal, then the law is unconstitutional. How’s that for twisted logic.

The attached link will give you a pretty good overview of the legal and constitutional issues regarding the wiretaps. I was reading an article by Cass Sunstein, a rather liberal professor at University of Chicago, and his article suggested this one. Reading it might give you more insight as to why there are legal experts on both sides of the fence regarding the NSA wiretaps.

http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #116814

sicilianeagle

“Has there been one single instance where a call placed INSIDE the United States to a recipient INSIDE the United States been intercepted without a wiretap?”

How do we know? It is entirely possible but without true Congressional oversight, how will we know for sure? BTW… isn’t there a Republican majority in Congress? Don’t they hold all the positions of power? Can’t they hold secret meetings concerning our enegry policy or the belated Christmas gift to HMOs? They should be able to be trusted to provide their constitutional obligation of checks and balances.

“Haven’t calls made by known Al Quida operatives from within the US to people OUTSIDE the US been intercepted?”

Yeppers. There is not an argument against that. I cannot understand why some people are unable to handle the subtleties of this argument… but I will give it an “intellectual” try…

1) There is a law called FISA giving the President authority to listen in… President Bush chose to disregard it.
2) The law provides for 72 retroactive warrants… President Bush chose to disregard it.
3) The concern is proper oversight of this extraordinary use of such powers so they aren’t abused. (Sworn to secrecy briefings to congressmen is not the intent of oversight.) President Bush met the minimum requirement by “briefing” congressional members and swearing them to secrecy that insured that “oversight” was impossible.
4) The argument is not about calls from terrorists inside or outside of America. Period! Trying to tie this in with the disagreement just brings it back to a circular argument.

What’s the big deal?

Nothing more than the protection of American civil rights. Doesnt’ mean much. Right? If we have nothing to hide, then why worry? Right? If the administration has nothing to hide then why worry.

This is a war,my friend.

Thank you for the clarification. That explains all those body bags and flag covered coffins. Are there any other insignificant civil liberties you wish to disregard as being inconvenient?

The 1st Amendment? If we got a tighter grip on those pesky MSM people we could definitely make sure that stories about what our government is doing wouldn’t compromise this war. It might also shut up those people that disagree with the war such as Quakers and little old lady singing groups.

The 2nd Amendment? No, we will need all those guns when the entire Al-Qaeda march into our cities. (I do own a gun… a cheapo Saturday Night special… $75 .380 that is designed for nothing more than killing someone. No fancy, I need an M-16 for hunting. I am honest. I have my cheap little gun to shoot someone… so I am a Democrat but I am not anti-gun…that would be a very dangerous assumption… sneaking into only Democrat’s homes becaue they are all anti-guns nuts! ‘Cuase my cheapo killer may jam after the first shot but it should be enough.)

How about the 5th? Do they (or anyone) really need protection from self-incrmimination? After all, only criminals can, by definition, incriminate themselves.

Miranda schmanda… a small, non-lethal shock to the testicles would really clear the court dockets. We have to stop coddling these people. There is a war on drugs too!

It is late and I am too tired to go through the bill of rights… but if you wish, please be my guest and let us know which ones you feel should be changed into “The Bill of Priveleges.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 25, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #116892

Darren7160

Carrying the discussion from the other post,you like guns then you must be a neocon,no?

Again you didn’t answer my query:There is not one instance of a call made Inside the US to another INSIDE the US that has been reported.Even the ACLU cant’s find one.

Plus,there is historicial reference for this going back to only WWII.Roosevelt created the Office of Censorship where tens of thousands of letters,ect made from people WITHIN the Us to other people WITHIN the US were intercepted.

Why?

Because it was war.

Yes there are warrant requirements that I am well familiar with..too well actually.Yes there are abuses.Courts hear suppression motions thousands of times a day across this land.High priced criminal defense attorneys nail overworked assistant district attorneys every day of the week over this very topic,and many criminals and drug lords and mafia figures,not to mention potential terrorist walk the street right now as a result.

People want to blow us up..kill us…and they know the rules that constrict us all too well.

Obviousouly something has to be done now by the president.Some sort of oversight committee has to be convened in secret,but honestly,Washington leaks like a sieve and what is sectre at 10 o’clock in the morning is in print oand on a blog several hours later for purely politicially politicial reasons.

By the way,Daren ,I do not own a gun nor do I particuliarily believe that one needs to shoot a bear(or an eagle for that matter) with an aotomatic weapon.However,this is America and the second amendment was created to give weapons the right to bear arms with no particuliar limit as to type and caliber,last I looked.If it needs to be changed,there is a constitutionial process available to change that amendment,no?

Regarding torture..that’s what you are alluding to I believe…again it was wrong to torture for torture’s sake.However,I am sure that the president or the Secretary od Defense did not order that a shock be placed on anyone’s testicles.Please show me the evidence on that allegation.

Did over-exuberent,ill-trained, third shifters,however do that at Abu Grahabe prision?

Probably.

It’s called the Fog of War.

I like Free Speech the best,though.You know that one?

It’s the one that yesterday a bunch of Georgetown Law third year idiots,still wet behind the years and brainwashed by a left-leaning faculty(check it out…..90-10%) who embarrased the Attorney General over this very issue.Instead of exercising their right and engaging in a debate on the issue,they chose theateritics…to the glee of the faculty there.

Sad.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 26, 2006 6:46 AM
Comment #116981

The main purpose of the Federal Government is to protect us against attack from any who would seek to destroy us.The Constitution gives Dem Presidents and Repubs the same job and the same authority.There is real evidence that past Presidents did not use the authority granted in the Constitution and we were attacked and then went to get the attacker,Pearl Harbor,after which a Dem President entered WWII and both Dems and Repubs backed him and WWII was won by the Allied Forces and put down The Axis,then the World Trade Towers TWICE,the 1st time the leader was procecuted but no war on terror and the leader siad if he gets the chance he will do a better job next time and the second time they were destroyed and a Repub President and Congress declared war on all terrorists and the Repub President set out to stop the terrorists and is using the authority given by the Constitution to gather info however he can to fight terrorist and to prevent another attack and we have not been attacked.Demo Presidents have the same authority and responsibility and some have used it effectively in the distant past but in the recent past with a Demo President and Congress it was not used effectively and we were attacked again (9/11/01). Now we have a Repub President and Congress who are doing what the Constitution allows a President to do for National Security and Demos and Repubs voted authority to do what he is doing and now for political purposes the Demos have revealed secrets that all Presidents Dem or Repub have been doing or should have been doing to protect us and say it is illegal and are causing a world wide stir and revealing our secret intelligence procederes to the enemy and hampering the Repub Presidents ability to effectively gather intelligence.The 911 commission revealed that good reliable intelligence was needed to prevent 911 but the intell although believed by both Demo and Repub Presidents was not reliable,bare in mind,not made up,just not reliable.It seems to me the Dems Leaders will accuse a Repub of crimes publicly when they know they are wrong but think if a Dem is found guilty of a crime and I mean evidence proves he commited a crime (Lieing to a GRAND JURY and LIEING to Congress and his wife and all America)it’s OK Nobody died.Evidence shows that same Dem did spy and eavesdrop on Americans who were not even suspected terrorists but instead political opponets and no Dem is even talking about it much less demanding action but a Repub is trying to protect us from those who would kill us and they are crying foul.I have nothing to hide but if someone who is tied to terrorism,I hope they ARE listening.I want nothing to do with a terrorist even if he or she is my best friend or a relative.If I know about it I should be listened to and even if I dont’t knowhe or she is a terrorists I still want them stopped.If the Dems were honest they feel the same but they are not honest they are political.They would and should spy on terrorists and listen too so we do not have a repeat of a 911 horror.I want our President,Dem or Repub,to protect us and uphold the Constitution.In my 58 years,the only ones who have used the government powers illegally or worse failed to use them to protect us have been Dems.The Repubs are the only ones who have acted in a crises instead of trying to talk the enemy to death and plead with them and give in to them in the hopes they will play nice.The only stand the Dems leaders have taken lately has been against President Bush and President Bush is against TERRORISM.If the Dems were as interested in protecting America as Bush is they would not be against him,but they are only interested in stopping BUSH and the REPUBS and they are using what they say is their freedom of speech to stop Bush from stopping the terrorists who would kill ALL of us just so the Dems can win an election and recapture the Whitehouse and Congress.Their BLIND SELFISH AMBITION is going to get more people killed not save any.All congresspersons take a oath to uphold the Constitution just as the President does,not to use it against us,but to protect us.Dems if you want to win elections and run things,then live up to your oath of office and DO everything the Constitution allows you to do and if there is not a provision in it that is needed to protect us then get busy and fix it,but do nothing to stop those who are trying to protect us against those who would destroy us,for in doing so,you are helping our enemy.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 26, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #117025

RDAVIDC,
“I want our President,Dem or Repub,to protect us and uphold the Constitution.In my 58 years,the only ones who have used the government powers illegally or worse failed to use them to protect us have been Dems.”

I guess Nixon was a democrat? Sir, you clearly said that they used their power illegally then used an additional “or”. This however was not the case. President Nixon did specifically use his powers illegally. A small point maybe, but when rhetoric becomes overwhelming and the “always”, “evers” and “everyones” are used then distinctions must be made.

Sir, I am sure you are aware of the serious opposition by the majority of Americans towards entering WWII. Churchill needed us desperately and FDR wanted to help and did everything within his powers to assist them. However, it was not until Dec. 7th, 1941 when we were attacked did we rise up to declare war. And… it was declared ONLY on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany until later when Hitler declared war on us.

Rhetoric and nostolgia based on myth create a wonderful sense of unity but do not give us the truth which is vital to assess situations, past or present.

After Pearl Harbor, there were (and still today) those who believed that FDR intentionally goaded the Japanese to the point where he knew that they would feel themselves compelled to attack. Japanese military history shows that during the Sino-Russian war the sneak attack was used very successfully and was considered a valid military option to use prior to declaring war.

So, the presumed falling behind our leader in the time of war should be tempered with the realization that in truth, there was oppostition.

Interestingly, one of the masterminds of the first World Trade bombing was arrested in Pakistan and brought back for trial. This was done through law enforcement and intelligence cooperation between nations and did not require the invasion of a country. It was not only very effective… it was cost effective and gave a Muslim country the opportunity to work with America as a partner against terrorism instead of being thought of as a refuge to terrorists.

Pakistan is an incredible paradox… when the Afgans were fighting the Russians they were “freedom fighters” that not only received money and arms from the US, but also made for a very partiotic Sylvestor Stallone Rambo movie.

One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. When they were fighting the Russians they were brave freedom fighters. When they turned their attention towards us they became terrorists. I am not supporting terrorists in the least, just noting how the same actions from different perspectives can be viewed so differently. Like I said, a paradox. To not acknowledge it would be intentionally blinding myself to the truth.

Pakistan became the haven for the “freedom fighters” and were applauded… once they became terrorsits they are condomed. Same basic people but completely differnt interpretations.

The Democrats did not object to the invasion of Afganistan because there was a clear connection between the Taliban, Osama and Al-Qaeda and the attack on Sept. 11th.

We did not see the same clear connection with Iraq. Regadless of what a person may believe was the reason behind this… there was not as clear of a connection.

While many Democrats did support the President in Iraq based on the information he supplied to them I still see nothing wrong with questioning the goals of the President’s invasion. To simply believe that defeating the Republican Guard on the battle field would attain everything needed is a criminal lack of awarness of the proper use of a military.

War is the attainment of goals… it is facilitated by the winning on the battlefield, but the winning of the battle is a mean to an end… not the end.

If Churchill, FDR and Truman did not have their plans for afer the war then they would not be seen as they great leaders that we see them today. Much consideration was made over what to do once hostilities ended. No leader had a blank check from their government. Churchill didn’t even last the next election after the war!

Accusing the democrats of being less patriotic, less against terrorism or anything else is wrong. As I have shown in my statments above… even in WWII there were concerns about how to fight the war, which theater to fight first (it was decided the European theater would have priority even though it was the Japanses that attacked us), the division of Europe after the war and so on.

One of the sickest arguments I have heard is the belief that the Democrats are willing to let soldiers die or allow America to be attacked just to win an election.

In a civilized and polite society where different views are seen as different and not “evil” or “traitorous” dissention can be accomodated. It was during the Civil War where the enemy was much closer to the overthrow of this government and the capturing of Washington than is happening today. Lincoln included members of the opposition into his cabinet because he believed in the value of opposing views.

Sir, to suggest that I, as a Democrat, would ever allow a soldier to die to win an election debases me, my service to this country when I was in the service and all those democrats in uniform today. It really is not worthy of an honest discussion.
For the life of me… I cannot see a connection between someone exercising their freedom of speech and it stopping the President. Rhetoric?

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #117035

WAR
Its never pretty
What are we doing about world genocide against
christians?
Sudan, and indonesia for instance.

I asked a congressman who was proud to tell me “We are watching the situation”

I guess they do not grow drugs or pump oil.

Posted by: scott at January 26, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #117067

Scott,
That is an excellent and very thought provoking point and question.

I did adress this a bit during the holidays when the big fuss was all about whether or not this was a Christian nation or whether or not because Christians are a majority they should have their beliefs sanctioned by the government in the form of nativitey scenes or what have you.

You see… there are Christians throughout the Islamic countries… and they are the minority in all of them.

Therefore, I belive that it is especially important that we do not condone, support or sanction a religion based on its being the religion of the majority. Otherwise, we are left with the delicate issue of minority rights for Christians in a majority Muslim world.

So, do we want to insist on “majority rules” and force religous beliefs, holiday and symbols on all Americans” Or, do we want to set an example that the government should have absolutely no part in supporting one religion over another?

Even something like the 10 Commandments in the courtroom of the judge in Alabama can come around to bite us! If we argue that our jucical system is based on the Juedo-Christian religion which includes the 10 commandments then an Arabic country can do the same based on the Koran, Fatawahs and Jihad.

People need to step back and look at the real world implications of their beliefs.

I, for one, do not want to face my Maker and tell Him I cared more about a nativity scene in our town hall than I did for His children in a Muslim country.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #117179

“Which is more disturbing, the fact that our President bypassed the legal system to spy on Americans, the fact that our President not only supports but utilizes torture and kidnapping, or the fact that half of the United States is alright with this?” — Andre 01/24/06

For myself, I would have to say that the fact that half of the US is alright with all of this is the most disturbing…

I often wonder whether these supportive people are truly monsters in the disguise of human flesh; or, if they are truly as naive and ignorant as they seem in order to believe that what is being done is “okay” and “legal.”

Somtimes I think it’s less a matter of right vs. left, etc. blah, blah, blah; but more a matter of evolution. Think about it: a more evolved individual would be concerned only with the welfare and emotional happiness of others, whereas a less evolved individual would dwell on another’s race, religion, sexuality, etc.

Quite frankly, I can’t think of a more likely reason for the behavior and dedication of this “half” that dotes on our current administration. It is sad to think as a species we may very well be regressing instead of progressing in terms of our evolvement.

Posted by: MJ Shaw at January 26, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #117230

MJ,
What I find interesting in your description of an evolved human being is actually what Christ was trying to describe about 2,000 years ago.

The solution He had was so deceptively simple though that people could not see it… and they messed up His message by layering their hatred, pettiness and bigotry onto His life.

Funny, isn’t it? I am a liberal democrat which some people believe by definition means that I am atheist or anti-Christian.

Why am I a liberal? Because, I believe that this party more closely represents what Christ said. That caring for our fellow human beings is not a weakness. That wanting to make sure each person has health care is more important that adherence to a capitalistic system. Is it possible? I believe it is but there are so many people who profess to believe in Christ that only do so on the most shallow level… and then it seems so they can feel superior to others.

Think about it. Those that do have health care from work are paying the full amount anyway. They let themselves believe that they are only paying a portion and the company is paying the bulk… but the truth is that through lower wages the company is actually having the employees pay for it.

Take that money, make individual rates reasonable for the people who are self employed or get nothing from their company and we might be able to swing a national healt care system. One not based on the money they can pay, but based on their being a child of God and an American citizen.

Instead, that thinking is labeled as “communist” which is automatically anti-American, anti-capitalistic and thus anti-Christian.

You are right… we are evolving morally. Slowly but surely. It is this evolution that allows people like Ghandi, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King to defy the law because their moral belief system is based on a higher plane.

This is not the same as those that strap bombs onto their body… blow up government buildings in the heartland of America.

Reading your thoughts, whether you agree with my beliefs or not, gives me hope that there are people out there that do think about how society is changing, its direction and hope that it is for the better. Sometimes I lose hope.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 26, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #117270

Darren7160,Nixon did not use his war powers illegally,but he did cover up a crime.There are other disagreements I have with Nixon and Kissenger.I did not mention Patriotism but I did mentioned getting more people killed.The actions of the Dems are hindering not helping and it is not going unnoticed by the enemy and our soldiers and their families and enough Americans to defeat in elections anyone Dem or Repub who does anything to aid the enemy no matter why they do it,on purpose or out of ignorance.I am not a Dem or a Repub,but I have a problem with giving away secrets that hurt the security of this nation by anyone who does it.It is every Presidents main duty to protect us and no one has the right to deny him the Constitutional provisions to do it and what they are should never be argued in a public forum and they enemy should not ever know about the arguments until after the battle is won.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 26, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #117272

Darren,Christ drove out the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip because they were desecrating His Heavenly Father’s house and His Heavenly Father did not object.This is our country and we all should lay down our lives for it.That is the ultimate Patriotic act indefense of America.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 26, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #117419

Daren

Here,on this thread,you admit you are a liberal democrat.

Then you said that this party more closely represents what Christ said.

Your words,not mine.

Liberals democrats believe in pro-choice.

Christ believed in the sanctity of life both with the living and unborn.

Liberal democtats who speak out of both sides of their mouths are hypocrites.

Liberal democrats who espouse abortion are unchristian hypocraties.

So,are you a liberal democrat that espouses abortion?

If you are,the preeceeding sentence applies to you,no ifs,ands or buts.

Talking from both sides of one’s mouth is convienient,isn’t it?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 27, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #117444

RDAVIDC,
Conspiracy and obstruction of justice are crimes. Asking the FBI to spy on political opponents is an illegal use of Presidental powers. (I know, I know, Clinton’s people looked at FBI records of their political opponents which I believe is entirely wrong! Two wrongs does not make a right. Right?) While being in office and doing them… do you think he was trying to do this as a private citizen?

Moneychangers…I am sorry…. I just won’t accept that Christ’s attempts at removing a desecration of the temple is the same thing as distorting His message to justify bigotry, hatred, intolerance, Crusades (Holy Land and European), suffering of the poor, discrimination because of race or sex, or any of the other actions justified in His name.

Sir, I did serve. 10 years. I am a disabled vet and whenever people claim that their’s is the only party that “cares” about the military, America or is against terrorists then it is completely untrue. It also insults my service to this country and the service of all other democrats in uniform.

There are democrats in uniform you know. So, maybe the qualification should be that republicans support all those brave republicans that are serving and giving their lives for our country. The democrat soldiers are pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-American, soft on terrorists cowards.

Ridiculus? Distorting your beliefs and what you are saying? I really don’t think so.

While serving in Greece in the early 1980s the Greek communist party strapped a bomb to my car that would have killed me, my Greek wife and our son if it had gone off.

The TWA flights that were constantly being hijacked at the same time were flights I had been on countless times during those years and left me just as vulnerable as that navy diver that was killed and dumped from the plane (TWA Flight 847).

I do understand that we are in a battle with a group of people that wish us no good at all.

When a bully stands before you and tries to intimidate you and uses the treat of force to make you change your ways… you are faced with a decision.

Do you conform to his demands? Do you change your life, your beliefs, what you hold dear to protect yourself from the possibility of his actions? Or, do you make a stand and refuse to change?

Altering our behavior to suit the terrorists, limiting our speech because of a fear of “upsetting or causing a reaction” (positive or negative) means he has already won in part.

No matter what we do, it can always be twisted by the other. Increasing troops could be said that they were,”Forcing America to shed more blood in their futile war against those of the One True God who glady give their lives to die martyrs.” Decreasing troops can also be claimed to be a vistory by the terrorists. Basing our decisions, our rights and our freedoms, or what may be said based upon the enemy is nothing more than giving power to them.

Do we worry about the “message” the terrorists might give based upon our actions? They do not have nearly the resources we do… we can make this a triumph of standing up against those that wish to limit our way of life… to stiffle the ability to discuss without violence and bloodshed… that we are winning because we are still able to be America regardless of what they try to do! We can be an example to the fledging Iraqi people that disagreement is healthy in a democracy… that speaking out will not result in being killed, jailed or is sinful.

It saddens me that people are so easily willing to sacrafice all these things that soliders for over 200 years have died for in the name of “not upsetting” the enemy or of giving them comfort. I really did think that we were made of stronger stuff. I guess not.

The first time someone bloodies our nose so many want to cower and whisper as to not upset the terrorists.

When I moved here to WI there was a punk who lived upstairs who just got out of prision. Everyone whispered about him… fearful of drawing his attention. He and I had quite a few run ins because of his behavior that affected me and my family. I did not cower… I confronted him and stood against him. Just a small example of how we should face these people… not by whispering or hiding our light.

sicilianeagle,
I really do not know if you are being intentionally disingenous or just unable to comprehend. Really, I don’t. (nice playing with the name by the way. I am glad to see that a request to you is nothing more than an opportunity to find out a way to “stick it to someone.” I bet you were a ton of laughs on the playground… surrounded yourself with a group that laughed as you “had fun” at the expense of others. Isn’t that all just a bit lame and weak for a lawyer? Maybe you are just “slumming” with us unintelligent types… you know… trying to be “one of the guys?)

I believed you when you told me that you were much more intelligent than me… so I just assumed that meant you would be able to understand what I was saying when I was saying that your characterization of my name as being of a particular political persuasion was what I was talking about. Not my name or my political persuasion.

I have never hid the fact that I am a liberal. What I objected to was (one more time in simpler terms)…

When you say that a name has a “good” “typical” “whatever” liberal sound to it, this means that a name (ethnic, racial, sexual) will reflect what a person believes in.

Thus, a person named Habib, must be _____ and believe ______.

A person named Brenda, must be female and believe ______.

A person named ________ must believe ________.

What that does is change the focus from the content of the argument to minimizing the person’s contribution based upon a preconceived idea of who that person is.

As far as choice… my relationship with God is personal and not based upon what you, Pat Robertson, Rove or anyone else tells me it should be based on. That was one of the neat things to come out of the reformation… a personal relationship with God based upon the belief of Christ as my savior… not conformance to a creed, the will of the person standing behind a pulpit or sitting on a throne here on earth. Thus… I can call myself a Christian whether others like it or not. Is it paradoxical? Probably. I am a liberal so I can be a bit more “complicated in my beliefs” I guess.

I have posted a website on another topic proclaiming to be Christian and Pro-life. It has received quite a bit of attention. This site lists all the people in jail for murdering, kidnapping or assaulting doctors that perfrom abortions or bombing their clinics.

They give practical advice on how to go about do this…

Can we use your argument that if the republican party is “Pro-life” then you will ascribe to their actions? That all Christians must? Right? No, ifs, ands or buts?

I know you might. From others posts you have shown that you do not put a very high value on life… espeically other people’s lives. I find that fascinating for a Pro-Life republican Christian who believes that EVERY life is sacred. However, it only appears to be sacred to Christians between the time of conception and birth. After that no one cares… unless they happen to be gay.

Your comments on civil war and how there will be a few necessary deaths as a result chilled me to the bone. I find it interesting that one life is of overwhelming concern while mulitple deaths are seen as a necessary price for others to pay. No big deal.

Wasn’t it Stalin that said something about one death being a tragedy, a million a statistic?

The Republican party has been in uncontested power for a while now… they could ram through Congress any program they wished to minimize abortions… use a bit of imagination of what could be done to save even one child by giving a mother a wealth of options…

Yet… nothing has been done!

Words have meaning… but action makes things happen. I look at the party of “Pro-life” for action on something that they believe so strongly in and what do I see? Nothing.

When the party in power has done nothing then I see where they have little moral authority to point the finger.

Sometimes inaction can be just as culpable as action.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 27, 2006 6:31 AM
Comment #117467

Daren

You are not dealing with a bully,Daren…merely one who bites back after first blood is drawn.

I finish fights,never start them.

Alone…Never needing any help.

I have traveled to every shit hole in Amsterdam,Paris,Rome and many other places “engaging” people who want to harm our way of life.

Successfully.

I was in the shwarma shacks of Amsterdam 7 days after 9/11 looking the enemy in the eye..deep into his soul…and I saw fear.

I have battled Communists intellects in Rome,Palermo,Catania,Paris.Even Toyko.

I applaud you for our nation’s service…and thank you.I am deeply saddened that you are a disabled veteran.You are a patriot.

However,we can disagree.

Patriots can disagree.

Ab initio,our founding fathers disagreed.

Also,I grieve every loss of life in Iraq.I grieve every loss of mother,daughter,son and innocent there.

I do not dismiss life.

However,civil war there is a great possibility…no probability…and the view I expressed no matter how matter of factly stated as you say I have written about many many times here and other places.

Shia,Sunni,Kurd living in a country created only a few decades ago will not stand.

I have studied Islam extensively.

What we are seeing is not Islam…the president was right four and a half years ago when he said the religion had been high-jacked.

We are seeing what we saw with the Protestant Reformation in Europe centuries ago…a Reformation in the Islamic world..pitting the forces of moderation against the forces of extremeism…amd the moderates are losing.

As happened in Europe as Christianity struggled to identified itself,blood flowed in rivers there and unfortunately will flow in the Arabian penninsula as well.

For 20 years I have been a student of Sun Tzu”s The Art of War and have adopted(and taught) its principles far and wide.

“To defeat the enemy,you must become him”

He (the extremist)has become us,but we have not yet become him.

We will though.

Colleges and universities only recently have begun offering Arabic studies courses.

Western men with Western values lack the understanding to defeat this enemy.

The enemy,however,encouraged to come here and learn our ways,and protected by us is far more familiar with us that we with them.

Another thing.I am a lapsed Catholic..thrice divorced..attending Mass only for weddings and funerals.For 16 years I immersed myself in theology,reading St. Augustine in Latin,and other great theologians.My religion,I decided long ago is between myself and my creator.

I think Pat Roberson,Jerry Falwell and all those peddlars of televised religion will burn someday in hell.They are pharaseses.Frauds,fakes.They are 501-C3 tax exempts who know the system far better than I.

“Donate to my cause”,they say..as they adjust their silk ties and Armani suits.

I am a conservative,a moderate conservative.I also know every trick in the book.In many instances,I wrote the book.

I have no ax to grind with you.

Really.

Pick a topic of your choice and I will engage you man to man,intellect to intellect,with no barbs or inflammitory barbs,provided you do the same.

Some on this site,such as AP,Steven Daughtery,David Reemer engage me like gentleman.

Read our threads.

Your call.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 27, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #117494

Sicilianeagle,

You still did not address the fact that you excuse torture and kidnapping because we are at war. You did not address your cavalier attitude towards the circumventing of the law by our President in the name of the “War on Terror.”
Explain how a person who beleives in god and the medical rights of women is “Liberal democrats who espouse abortion are unchristian hypocraties.”? Your words not mine.
Most of us do try to debate issues with you w/o attacking you. You chose to make a sweeping generalization about people you do not know. You constantly list all that you, according to you, know about a vast range of subjects and philosophies, yet it is you who make excuses for this corrupt administration and their wide range of hurtful and idiotic policies. You may want to cut back on your theological studies maybe fit a little current events reading into your schedule.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 27, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #117537

sicilianeagle,
Though not as extensive, I too have traveled the world.. I was stationed for a year in Turkey where I met many wonderful people. They are a secular nation by the way. The only one in the Islamic world.

If any nation should be encouraged to help Iraq create a secualar nation it should be Turkey. Though that was a very bloody and repressive process that was done internally by Kemal Attaturk.

I also had a great many friends in Greece who had escapted Iraq back in the ealry 1980s because they did not want to be a part of the Saddam war with Iran.

Many Americans have little or no idea of Iraq, the politics of the region or the teachings of Islam. I did not see any indication of this leading up to the war either. This is not a partisan attack… this is how I saw it.

When it comes to terrorists I always was amazed at how the peace process would be derailed each time there was a terrorist attack because the terrorists didn’t want a peace. I say it as allowing the terrorists to use the violence and get what they wanted. Instead, the negotiators should have stood together and said that specifically because of the violence they would not stop!

Someone, anyone with any idea of the Arab world would suggest that the word “Crusade” not ever be mentioned!!! The weight of that word is beyond our comprehension… thoughg we cannot imagine it, that does not make it real to them.

Someone (okay, me) could argue that the Crusade word used by the President was worth 20 Congressman Murtha’s comments… though I do not believe that limiting a politican’s debate in our Congress for fear we might “upset” or “encourage” the people trying to hold a gun to our head is a good thing.

Our only experience in “democracy” building was Germany and Japan really. Those were both a seriously defeated country without a religion that matched Isalm.

I agree that the arbitrary and polictically expedient way in which the middle-east was divided up by the Eurpoeans took little into consideration when they created a nation of 3 distinctly separate peoples. Our nation was created by people that chose to come here, and for those that didn’t? There is still resentment.

Through study they are finding that even after all these years, yes all these years, the manner in which a people comes to a country still determines their preceptions of themselves as citizens. It doesn’t matter if they “should just get over it” or not. The facts is that there is a difference.

These people would never have voluntarily created a country together. Turkey could be done because it was a homogenous country.

I am very aware of the hijacking of the Islamic faith. Osama is issuing Fatwahs and Jihads in which he has no legal (within the Islamic political strutcture) right to make.

That is why we need to exemplify the rule of law, the ability to disagree (even on the most serious topics) openly and without fear. We need to make sure that what we do is exactly what we say.

As with debates here… where even the smallest thing can be used as an opening to attack, accuse of hypocracy or to limit the discussion… everything should be focused on the political process developing in Iraq today.

Using terms such as unpatriotic, unChristain, unAmerican, immoral lends creedance to those that wish to use the same arguments in Iraq to suppress the others or to create that civil war which may come.

Like I have said in other posts here, when it comes to respect of the minorities in our country we need to show that the majority does not have complete power over the law… in this instance, we might have a majority of Christians in this country, but our laws demand a complete separation of Church and State. Therefore, no nativity scences in the public square. Celebrate all you want in any private way you wish… but do not expect the government to endorse, sanction or participate. This message would help all those Christians in a Mulsim country.

Which, by the way, are “People of the Book” which affords them consideration in a true Islamic society.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #117824

Andre
For the record,I abhor both torture and kidnapping,and if any in this administration are guilty,they should be prosecuted.

I said that before,I say it again.

The only I would consider torture would be in the so called “dooms-day scenario” hypotheticial discussed here weeks ago.

I totally endorse McCain’s position on that issue.

Regarding circumventing the law in the name of the war on terror,I assume you refer to the communication intercepts.

Yes,we disagree because I haven’t heard one shred of evidence that a law was broken.I have heard allegations,but no evidence.No calls from a person in the states to another person in the states was intercepted to the best of my knowledge,and that’s the rub.

Regarding abortion.I will be short on this.I oppose(but not violently) abortion as a birth control mechanism.It’s harmful to the mother and,of course,fatal to the fetus.I also oppose capital punishment,as I think criminals should be made to pay for their crimes in jail doing hard labor.I think there is a consistency there,don’t you?

About my knowledge(or lack there of):we can disagree,no?Does that make me stupid?

When I antagonize(and we both know it is not always),it usually is in response to an attack on me personally,not on my beliefs.

I can come across as the nicest guy or the biggest jerk pretty much depending on the circumstances.This I do know:I listen very very carefully to what you say.We may not agree,and my logic may be twisted,but I listen.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 28, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #117825

Andre
For the record,I abhor both torture and kidnapping,and if any in this administration are guilty,they should be prosecuted.

I said that before,I say it again.

The only I would consider torture would be in the so called “dooms-day scenario” hypotheticial discussed here weeks ago.

I totally endorse McCain’s position on that issue.

Regarding circumventing the law in the name of the war on terror,I assume you refer to the communication intercepts.

Yes,we disagree because I haven’t heard one shred of evidence that a law was broken.I have heard allegations,but no evidence.No calls from a person in the states to another person in the states was intercepted to the best of my knowledge,and that’s the rub.

Regarding abortion.I will be short on this.I oppose(but not violently) abortion as a birth control mechanism.It’s harmful to the mother and,of course,fatal to the fetus.I also oppose capital punishment,as I think criminals should be made to pay for their crimes in jail doing hard labor.I think there is a consistency there,don’t you?

About my knowledge(or lack there of):we can disagree,no?Does that make me stupid?

When I antagonize(and we both know it is not always),it usually is in response to an attack on me personally,not on my beliefs.

I can come across as the nicest guy or the biggest jerk pretty much depending on the circumstances.This I do know:I listen very very carefully to what you say.We may not agree,and my logic may be twisted,but I listen.


Daren

Good post.I agree with most all.Bravo

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 28, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #117845

sicilianeagle,
There isn’t much that moderates of the parties can not agree on. However, the labeling of the extremes by the people that play politics for the reason of power (both parties) benefit from marginalizing the other party.

As I posted to Misha Tseytlin concerning Immature Dissent On Display, her article on the behavior of the students at Georgetown U… she misappropriately labedled them as liberal… and not what they are… RADICALS.

Demonizing the parties according to the most extreme works when you are trying to win elections no matter the cost of integrety.

This causes liberals to be painted by the brush of the eco-terrorists and people dissenting in a manner that is not conducive to debate or discussion. Even the protestors at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) town meeting who opposed her obviously did not agree with her. Why? Because, she represents the Democrats and would not cater to the Radicals.

This same broad bush brings visions of neo-Nazis, private militas ready to blow up buildings or “Pro-Lifers” bombing clinics, and killing guards.

Many are republican or democrat because it used to signify our economic place and goals in life.

Democrats were particulary interested in workers safety, the 40 hour work week, overtime, medical benefits, etc. The more liberal democrats also were concerned that the poor and minorities were not given a fair shake and thus a need to help them register to vote and to get a better education through desegragation.

Republicans were more fiscaly conservative… socially, I believe that they meant well, but did not really understand the barriers to minorities and the poor at that time. There were the options available for upward mobility that we have now…. where just about anyone can go to college if they are willing to sacrafice.

These can be agreed or disagreed… the point though is that the issues were similarly based, with best intentions of what was best for America with different priorities and paths to get there.

Labeling all protestors as Democrat may be true in a sense that they are at the very furthest extreme left of the party… but by no means representative of the majority of the party.

The 1960s and 1970s student violence was not democrats… it was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) or the “Weathermen.”

My belief is that the major lumping of everything into the Liberals was done during the run up to Reagan’s election… when everyone thought it was cute to disparage us by saying the “L” word… as though it were a name not proper to use in mixed company. This effectively grouped the most extreme into mainstream liberal democrats.

It is being done now with “neocons”… people are throwing it around without the slighest understanding of who is one and who isn’t. Even the ones that most cosely match the definition object to it. I believe because of the fear it is gaining the same type of garbage that Liberal now has.

What I really find intersting is the temporary truce between the different protestants and the Catholics. I know for a fact that many people I have talked to do not believe that the Catholics are Christian! Why? Because they venerate the Pope and worship Mary in their opinion.

This truce will last as long as it takes for the Fundamentalists to attain power… then there WILL be a time when dogma and creeds and beliefs will become important… and it won’t be the Catholics or the moderates that are calling the shots.

Not all democrats want abortions. I personally once offered to take a raise a woman’s child. She was a friend of ours and I wish that I could have had that baby. Even after my wife and I divorced I would still have raised it as my own.

I will not, though, force this decision on an other human being. As a single parent I do understand that issues and hardships very well.

I also know that society still sees fathers as nothing more than a child support payment. Legally he has absolutely no say on whether the child is born or not. Even if he does not want the baby or to be a father and she has the baby he is obligate to pay for it for the next 18 years.

If he wants the baby and she doesn’t there is nothing that he can do!

These are father’s issues, democrat and republican… but we are shut out because of the unwillingness to work together.

Sorry, wrote way too much.


Posted by: Darren7160 at January 28, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #122210

Why do people on the left insist on the government establishing the religion of atheism over all others? A religion is a belief in something that cannot be proven by natural means. Since the nonexistence of God or any other “higher power” cannot be fully authenticated, one has to take a “leap of faith” to believe there is no God. You are more than welcome to practice this religion in the U.S.,
but the “Wall of Seperation Between Church and State” applies to the Church of Atheism as much as it does to any other religion.

Posted by: Duano at February 8, 2006 5:53 AM
Post a comment