Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Tribute to Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham is a Republican, and I am a Democrat. Lindsey Graham is a conservative, and I am a liberal. Lindsey Graham and I are at opposite sides of the political divide virtually always. But on the most important issue of the day, both Lindsey Graham and I are on the same side, the side of justice for all, including those we label as terrorists.

As you all know, President Bush has established a special Guantanamo Justice System for all those he labels "enemy combatants." Military commissions run this system with secrecy, non-existent legal rights, torture and rendition. If you are unfortunate to be incarcerated at Guantanamo you could rot before you face a fair legal system.

Ever since its inception, the Guantanamo Justice System has been criticized by human rights and other national and international organizations. Stubborn Bush stuck to his system, in the name of security (it's always security). The reputation of America as the home of the free and the just took a licking. This made no impression on Bush.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Justice System did not provide justice. It was wrong. It also ruled that the Geneva Conventions must be adhered to and the executive should follow what the legislature decides should be done to conform to the ruling.

In his first reaction, Bush complained about these "activist judges." Whenever he does not like a decision he calls the judges "activists." Does he not know that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans?

After awhile, Bush changed his tune, but not his approach. The White House said that it would work with Congress. Good. Then it said it would like to keep the Guantanamo Justice System in place, and tweak it somewhat. Bad. The Pentagon said that it agrees to conform to the Geneva Conventions. Good. Then it said that it is already in conformance with Geneva. Bad.

Bush had already corrupted the executive branch with his Guantanamo Justice System. Now he was planning to corrupt the Congress as well. Lindsey Graham, who in addition to being a senator, is one of 13 judges on the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. He says that the military justice system should be used as the basis for any change. I love the way he put it to the administration:

"I would suggest to the administration that the best way to work with Congress to solve this problem is to take the [military justice code] as your basic guide. If you fight that approach, it's going to be a long, hot summer."

Lindsey Graham also said:

"We need to not only adhere to treaties that we've been a part of for 60 years for the protection of our own troops, we need to let people know that we can win this war without becoming our enemy."

When we do not deal justly with each prisoner we do become our enemy. Justice is a firm pillar of our society. When we break this pillar we weaken America.

I'm glad that though Lindsey Graham and I do not agree on much, we agree that we must keep America strong by keeping our justice system strong. Let's allow Congress to replace the Guantanamo Justice System with the long-surviving military justice system - with a few tweaks, of course.

Hooray for Lindsey Graham. He is in a tough fight. I hope he sticks to his guns.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 13, 2006 5:43 PM
Comments
Comment #167242

I lived in SC when Graham was elected, and he definitely has moments of uber-conservative crap, but he is always logical in his arguments and rarely toes the party line. I agree with your assessment ath he is one of the most respectable members of the Republican party.

Posted by: david S at July 13, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #167252

I would argue the same things in favor of Lieberman. He is logical in his arguments and doesn’t always toe the party line. He is also very well respected, or at least was until he dcided not to join the left side of his party concerning the war and hatred of Bush.

What did it get him?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 13, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #167259

Rhiney,

you are well aware of the problem - Lieberman supports Guantanamo and Bush’s unconstitutional tribunals. This kind of flies in the face of Graham’s stand for justice and the majority of the Senate.

As for not towing the party line, I think Joementum does a great job of towing the GOP line.

Posted by: CPAdams at July 13, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #167260

This across-the-aisle patty-cake is heart-warming. So Sen. Graham got one right; a blindfolded monkey with an unlimited supply of darts will eventually get a bulls eye. This ‘correct’ decision has been negated 20-fold by his other right-wing, pro-corporate crap.

And Lieberman is a DLC stooge who thinks his backing of Bush’s moronic Iraqi democracy venture qualifies him for Profiles in Courage.

American leadership has sunk to new lows.

God Bless Albania!

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #167266

Dealing with Republicans is like training a dog. You don’t beat them for being wrong, you give them cookies for being right.

Posted by: David S at July 13, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #167271

DavidS:

Why not vote them out of office for having fleas?

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #167275

Isn’t it amazing how some posters only post negatives? No wonder we have the political situation we have. Some on both sides cannot see any good in anything the other side does. And,, they are quite vocal about their opinions, shortsighted and meanspirited as they may be. Don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in free speech. It’s one of the things that makes this the greatest country on earth. But, free speech should be tempered by an open mind.

Posted by: John Back at July 13, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #167290

John Back:

“But, free speech should be tempered by an open mind.”

Lousy, stinking policy created by closed minds can’t be deoderized by non-negative minds, even if they are wide open.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #167292

Tim-

Thank you for proving my belief.

Posted by: John Back at July 13, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #167296

John:

You’re welcome, any time.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #167298

“He is also very well respected, or at least was until he dcided not to join the left side of his party concerning the war and hatred of Bush.
What did it get him?”

It got him a challenge from another democrat for a fair fight in the primary. What’s wrong with that?
Now democrats in that state get to decide if he represents their views on important issues, Iraq being obviously the most important.
BTW, there are several other issues where Lieberman sided with the right, not just Iraq.
Let US worry about our own house. Thanks.

Posted by: Observer at July 13, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #167302
here are several other issues where Lieberman sided with the right

And those are…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 13, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #167312

Rhinehold,

If Leiberman supported Guantanamo and rendering prisoners to fascist states to be tortured than that’s a good enough reason for me not to support him. I think that’s one of the dumbest moves that was made during this war. Thank god for the Supreme Court!

Posted by: Max at July 13, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #167313

Rhinehold:

There are several other issues where Lieberman sided with the Right…

“And those are…?”


One situation that comes to mind: Senator Lieberman voted for cloture on the Alito nomination, which was the only real way the Alito nomination could have been stopped. He then voted against Alito in the floor vote, where there was no chance of stopping the nomination.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #167329

One of the major law university professors stated that the U.S.Supreme Court was in error in their decision. One reason is that prisoners of war do not fall under article 3 of the Constitution. Instead the fall under the uniform code of military justice. Watching C-Span tonight the Senate armed service was fielding questions to the various JAG’S of each branch of the service and two retired JAG’S. They even concured that prisoners of war do not fall under article 3 of the constitution but do fall under the UCMJ. Therefore they are under military jurisdiction, and can be tried in a military court.

Posted by: KAP at July 13, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #167337

WOW! Lindsay Graham votes against the people time and again on bills in Congress, and when his party is in election jeopardy, he takes a principled stand with the people on one issue, and suddenly he is a people’s hero being lauded by even his political opponents. You realize you are feeding his reelection spinmeister’s all they need to guarantee his return for another two terms in Congress at least.

This is how the Republocrats maintain a 94% average reelection rate while the country spirals downward into the abyss of fiscal mismanagement, bankrupting the Soc. Sec. system, inflating the health care system beyond reach of 42 million Americans, and getting the voters to support their reelection all the way down to our nation’s demise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #167342

The UCMJ article 36 States that the president may prescribe the rules in pretrial, trial and posttrial procedures. Therefore the president was acting within his rights as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Posted by: KAP at July 13, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #167349

“Rhiney”

CPAdams,

I have no idea if Rhinehold uses some part of his actual name to express his views, but somehow I suspect he does. Whether or not that’s true abbreviating him to “Rhiney” seems somewhat rude. While I’ve never found myself in agreement with Rhinehold he always presents an argument without offensive personal comment.

I think we owe him the same courtesy.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 13, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #167356

Paul,

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but have you lost your mind? Did you also listen to Arlen Specter today? We have a bunch of Republicans acting like they give a crap so they can get more Republicans re-elected.

Uh, kind of late don’t ya think! Lindsey Graham has a psych degree. Paul, you’ve been had and I’m amazed. I know you’ll take a breath and take another serious look and say, “oh sh** what was I thinking”? Do you remember Dr. Lindsey Graham milking the tears out of Justice Alito’s wife?

Step back, think, and look again!

Then remember I still have that beachfront property near Wichita.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 13, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #167358

KAP, why not quote the whole article of the UCMJ, instead of just taking part of it. It also say “All rules and regulations made under this article shall be uniform insofar as practicable and shall be reported to Congress”.
Did he report to Congress or did he do is usually, because I say so, I am above the law bs

Posted by: KT at July 13, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #167360
Military commissions run this system with secrecy, non-existent legal rights, torture and rendition.

Paul:

This is unsubstantiated libel. There have been no confirmed reports of torture at Gitmo, and the FBI agents who allegedly testified in secrecy won’t even go on the record about it. Also, and maybe you didn’t know this, but the Red Cross, a typically left-leaning non-profit, has unfettered access to Gitmo and they say that there is no foul play. And don’t even get me started on the credibility of the former Gitmo detainee claiming he was tortured.

Additionally, the only media to get inside Gitmo, Bill O’Reilly, found no evidence of torture or maltreatment.

So, please, stop making uncorroborated assumptions aimed at defaming the President…it’s tired, and it doesn’t work.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 13, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #167364

Kt
Did he possibly so. I’m not defending the president. I’m just stating fact. The fact that Guantanimo is holding prisoners captured on the battlefield. And that they are under military jurisdiction. Not civil jurisdiction. And as such can be tried in military courts.

Posted by: KAP at July 13, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #167370

“The fact that Guantanimo is holding prisoners captured on the battlefield. And that they are under military jurisdiction. Not civil jurisdiction. And as such can be tried in military courts.”

They’re also holding a lot of people just swept up, or turned in by others with no evidence or accusations even. Look at how many were released after years in jail without any charges or hearings. Just released with our “ooops, never mind”. How pissed would you be?

Posted by: Observer at July 13, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #167374

“Additionally, the only media to get inside Gitmo, Bill O’Reilly, found no evidence of torture or maltreatment.”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

*chortle?^gasp#sniffle*&

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #167379

Observer
In war innocent people sometimes are victims, some killed, some captured. Unfortunate as it seems at least they were exonerated. Even our judicial system is not ifaliable. Innocent people spend years in prison charged with crimes they didn’t commit.

Posted by: KAP at July 13, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #167380

Tim:

Did you have anything intelligent to say, or were you just going through one of your incoherent episodes again?

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 13, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #167381

I agree with your and aparently Grahams position. I would not give him any kudos. Just more political theatre. The Reps have locked up the religios bigot faction with the anti gay garbageand they did not even have to really outlaw abortion(who wants that?).They are locking up the fearful rascist /xenophob causus with the immigrant bashing crap . Of course they already have the rich.So who is left to woo?The small but important real conservatives that believe in the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and the rule of law. They can be difficult. They are smarter than the others. Remember his impeachment performance?Grahms a hack,and a good one at that.

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #167384

Oh, Alex,

“Did you have anything intelligent to say, or were you just going through one of your incoherent episodes again?”

You know me, I don’t ever have anything of intelligence to say, so why start now? So, yes, that was incoherence.

Bill O’Reilly?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 13, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #167423

Alex,

I almost puked I laughed so hard. Comparing O’Reilly to the media was quaint, or maybe just downright funny.

Nope, it was funny. You were joking, right?

That was good. You got a thing goin’ on there. People could almost take you serious you’re so good. Keep ‘em coming, we need more humor here.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #167426
Thank god for the Supreme Court!

You realize that the Supreme Court never said that there was anything wrong with the base at Guantanamo don’t you? What are you thanking them for exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 14, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #167430

Rhinehold,

If you’re not a lawyer you really should think about becoming one. I mean that.

You know as well as I do that the wording left out of a law holds nearly as much sway as the words included in that same law. It’s all a matter of interpretation.

You’d be pure hell to argue with in court. If I’m ever called as your witness I’m either taking the 5th or just planning on some jail time for contempt.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #167446

Kansas Dem, BillS and others who are deriding Lindsay Graham on this issue - DON’T ! Sen. Graham along with Sen. Warner and Dem. Sen. Levin were all in agreement with our 2 and 3 star JAG generals on this issue, that our nation is harmed by failing to live up to our own laws and treaty agreements.

The hearing sought to take the first step to bring our detainee treatment procedures and laws into accordance with the UCMJ, and the Geneva Conventions. This means Rep. Sen.’s Graham and Warner are rebuking the President for his complicity in causing confusion and lack of understanding by our military in the treatment of prisoners when the Pres. refused to comply with the Geneva Convention in the handling of terrorist suspects captured overseas.

This is not showboating, this is not political grandstanding. I listened carefully to this hearing and part of what is motivating their position, including Graham’s is the concensus of the military that our President, our Congress, and our Courts should not advocate for treatment of prisoners and detainees which we would NOT want perpetrated on our own people if captured by the enemy. They too have the job of crafting compliance with the Supreme Courts Hamden decision. But, they are going further and stressing that who we are is a nation of laws, and to subvert those laws for expedience is to degrade who we are as Americans and as a nation.

They are also trying to find political cover from their hate filled constituents who are barraging them with mail indicating we have no obligation toward humanitarian treatment of suspected terrorists and we should do whatever is necessary up to and including what they do to our military, in order to get what we want from them.

They are taking a huge amount of heat on this issue from their ignorant and amoral constituents who would let the terrorists standards dictate ours, debasing the moral and ethical cornerstones of our nation of laws. So, give Graham some credit for he is due it on this issue. As are all the Republicans and Democrats on that panel who are seeking to retain our moral character while at the same time providing the widest possible lattitude in the prosecution of this war on terrorism which is going to be with us for generations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #167452

I agree with this assessment completely. I think that Sen. Graham takes many principled stances. He has asked the tough questions in hearings regarding Abu Ghraib and other matters.

In reference to the comment about the Physchology degree; it is only a B.A., so he couldn’t even get a counseling position with that. His masters is in Public Policy and of course the law degree; these last two are more important.

He doesn’t always toe the party line anfd that makes me respect him. I am a Republican and I always write encouraging him to keep buscking the party when it is necessary. I admire him for his positions on military issues.

Posted by: Judy at July 14, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #167475

Kansas and Tim:

It’s interesting, I refute a statement your Democratic crony falsely asserted about Gitmo, and all you can do is mock the credibility of O’Reilly, instead of responding intelligently to the statement.

Is it b/c you know that there have been no confirmed reports of maltreatment at Gitmo, and you merely want to use the issue to demean Republicans and the President?

You see, it’s easy to tell when a Dem has no hand. Instead of responding intelligently, people like KansasDem and Tim naively mock the credibility of the speaker while offering no fresh information to bolster their argument, if they even had an argument to begin with, other than a droning sequence of incoherent banter…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 14, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #167481

I have a lot of respect for Graham, a lot, he is not a typical politician and he cares for the nation. I would liken him as the Republican Lieberman. However, on this one is just wrong. When our enemy begins to dress in military attire, follow the conventional rules of warfare and fight for a nation and not ideaology, then we can cover their basic human rights under the Geneva convention. Until then, they were being treated as they should be treated, POWs.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 14, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #167482

Alex,

“Additionally, the only media to get inside Gitmo, Bill O’Reilly, found no evidence of torture or maltreatment.”

Next, you’re gonna say that since Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh say that Bush is always right, it must be true!

I agree with Tim:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 14, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #167488
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

*chortle?^gasp#sniffle*&


Maybe this is why you guys can’t win an election…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 14, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #167490

Let me see.8 years ago I was secure in my job, I was putting a little money in the bank,most of the world really liked americans and I thought my children and grandchildrens future look good.
Today My income tax went down and saved me about 200 bucks a year, my real estate taxes went up along with the gas tax and some sales taxes, I’m worried about losing my job, I’m taking money out of the bank, my son lost his job at united airlines and we our at war that was sold to us with the same values as a used car salesman. I have to say I don’t feel we are moving in the right direction.

Posted by: Manny at July 14, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #167501

Paul,

This statement was an error:

“Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Justice System did not provide justice. It was wrong. It also ruled that the Geneva Conventions must be adhered to … “

The GC quote was only a reference, not a mandate the country must adhere to no matter what. The only significant part of the ruling was that the Executive must get approval from the Legislature to continue what it’s doing … that’s a far cry from saying “It was wrong.”

On the other hand, thank you for you notice of one of our excellent republicans. Any kudos thrown to the other side are a sign of moderation, and moderation is usually best. I say “usually” since the acts of ridding the world of serious terrorists are probably anything but “moderate”.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #167508

Lindsey Graham did not suddenly step out of the woodwork on this issue. He has been a moderating voice since he took office. Trust me, he isn’t posturing for an election year. If that were the case, he’d certainly not be adopting a moderate streak, he’d be charging right. This is South Carolina. If you’d like to see how it could be worse, have a look at Jim DeMint. Just because someone doesn’t believe the same things you do doesn’t mean he or she lacks integrity. Is Senator Graham an “activist” legislator then?

Besides, it’s ever so fun to have the only allegedly gay man in the Senate from SC. I wonder if he and Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) throw closet parties together.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at July 14, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #167578

“I refute a statement your Democratic crony falsely asserted about Gitmo, and all you can do is mock the credibility of O’Reilly, instead of responding intelligently to the statement.”

Alex,

Siting O’Reilly as a source was laughable to me. I’d apologize but it’s still laughable to me.

Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo
Published: November 30, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=825f0a984565241f&ex=1259470800&partner=rssuserland

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #167587

I dont know how the supreme court can decide we are not adhereing to the Geneva Conventions. Hell according to the conventions we can Shoot on the spot anyone attacking our soldiers who is a non uniformed combatant. This is what we did in WWII this is what we should do today. People dont seem to remember the werewolves. They terrorized the country side after the end of WWII. And whenever we found one we shot them. Firing squad.

Posted by: Anthony at July 14, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #167599

Just to be clear we’re talking about the same Lindsey Graham that voiced “disappointment” in the SCOTUS decision:
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=258047

And the same Graham that tells us, “The Death Tax destroys family farms and small businesses,”
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=256707

He also tells us, “A constitutional amendment is the only effective way to cut off the growing trend among judges to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=256459


And he believes, “The President made the case that a vibrant democracy in Iraq is the antidote to terrorism”
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=presspage&id=249805

I just want to be sure we’re talking about the same Lindsey Graham.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #167601

“You see, it’s easy to tell when a Dem has no hand. Instead of responding intelligently, people like KansasDem and Tim naively mock the credibility of the speaker while offering no fresh information to bolster their argument, if they even had an argument to begin with, other than a droning sequence of incoherent banter…”

Alex:
Watch out when we Dems learn to master Rovian politics.

Posted by: Stan at July 14, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #167603

Stan - I truely think that perhaps nuance and subtlety is lost on you. You don’t have to come right out and call a person a “dork” if you have personal quotes to back up the fact. Intrigueing that you didn’t pick up on that, and that you clearly demonstratec exactly what you wrongly accuse KansasDem of, in the accusation itself

Now that’s funny.

Posted by: DOC at July 14, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #167604

There are certain issues that should not be political. For example, child abuse. Republican, Democrat, Communist, Fascist—it should not be tolerated. The same is true of torture. It should not be tolerated in a civilized culture. Period. Rather than applaud someone like Lindsay Graham for breaking ranks with the White House on this issue, we should be looking at all those who haven’t. The practice is so abhorrent that even a staunch Bush supporter like Graham can’t support it. And yet they are still many in the Republican Party that do.

Democrats have been painted by the NeoCons as spineless and vascillating. To me, the spineless ones are the Bush apologists who support their leader even as he stomps on the principles that they have sworn to protect—principles that I suspect most of them, at some point in their lives, held very dear.

Posted by: Stan at July 14, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #167609

DOC,
You misunderstood me. I am in support of what Tim and KansasDem have said.

Posted by: Stan at July 14, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #167670

I can never forgive or trust anyone who was involved in the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, in any way shape or form.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 14, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #167697

In my remarks, I wasn’t endorsing Graham’s policy decisions, merely saying that he is consistent and somewhat fair minded. As far as the gang of thirteen goes, of course we like Olympia Snowe more, but Graham has frequently been the most vocal GOP opposition (though that isn’t saying much) to questionable administration activities.

What is really depressing is that Lindsey Graham’s democratic opposition in the election, Alex Sanders, would have been one of the most intelligent, capable members of Congress. The thing about SC politics, though: I thought that Inez Tennebaum, the Democrat who lost to Jim DeMint, was in many ways MORE conservative than Lindsey Graham. Graham might be about as good as you can hope for from us. Unfortunately, Fritz Hollings is just a fond memory, and an occasional brilliant editorial written in The State.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at July 14, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #167748

—A Tribute To Lindsey Gram by Paul Siegel was a very courageous step to take an should be commended,
in stead the second post bringing up Joe Lieberman,
was in my opinion was a Delbert hostile act to sidetrack an begin the spin machine. then comes just behind by a few posts comes, the other scam “throwing stones not understanding the other side, on an on with these spinmeisters. Every one is
entitled to their opinion, an no one owns the facts! I would to suggest if we have a good post to
debates we see a rat, just ignore them until they want to join the conversation an not derail it. I get tired of so many good posts getting sidetracked so badly, that the subject totally
disappears.

Posted by: DAVID at July 15, 2006 2:54 AM
Comment #167751

—KansasDem— I think the first few years several
Deaths not explained, an hardly any info. ever got
of that hell hole, I can’t believe you have so much
patients, with all these spinmiesters buzzing over
your posts. (:

Posted by: DAVID at July 15, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #167783

curmudgeon, if Graham is wrong on this one, then, so are the generals leading our military who agree with him, and so is Sen. Warner and a number of other Republicans and a whole host of Democrats in the Congress who are siding with Graham on this one.

For me, if the moral and ethical and legal arguments weren’t enough, the Generals of our military who welcome a standard that lends predictability and sureness of action for our soldiers in war and detention centers, and protects them from the kind of prosecutions which have taken place against them, would be, on this issue.

If we hold ourselves to international law and our own laws for humane treatment, we may not be able to prevent our enemies from treating our soldiers captured heinously, but, we sure can hold them accountable afterward. If we allow the terrorists to set our standards for prisoner treatment for us, then, where is our legal, ethical, and moral ground for going after them, after the fact?

We will not remain a superpower if we turn world opinion against us for preaching one standard to others while exempting ourselves from it.

Hitler, Tojo, and Moussolini talked a great line about a glorious, free, and prosperous future for mankind under their leadership, but, their actions never even attempted to aspire to such goals or standards in reality, and the entire rest of the world turned against them, and utterly, and totally defeated them sparing no personal sacrifice to get that job done.

We must not allow ourselves to emulate their double standard which villifies us in the eyes of populations, the world round. To lead is to set the standard for others to emulate and follow. To defeat oneself is to allow one’s actions and standards to be dictated by one’s enemies. In the end this makes discerning oneself from the enemy just a blur.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #167965

I live in SC, and simply could not bring myself to vote for Lindsey Graham.

Simply put:I detest the man. I can’t honestly give a good reason, but if you guys had to live with his constant campaigning, his never ending broken promises, and especially the new Plan he and several other “came up with”.

I do hope you read it, and then remember this:

I wrote Sen. Graham back In the Fall, when the issue of changing the filibustering policies was coming to a head.

Graham “supposedly” or one of his staff responded, by letter to me around Jan-Feb. I wrote him back shortly thereafter, requesting a tad less time between my letters and his responses.
I managed to tell him how much I appreciate his work for SC. I also asked him about the “investigation the wiretapping” that the Republicans were saying they wanted looking into doing to decide whether about what to do about . HE told me that he believed that an investigation the best way to make sure to make the American People happy AND was seriously considering asking for a bipartisan committee to determine whether of not the President should be censored

In return for the last letter I received a letter from him with directions to his Washington Office for the signing of his NEW Act.
After reading the way the Act was written, I realized there are several loops holes in it.

This is the link to the to actually Act. Please read carefully.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/dewine031606.html

Posted by: Linda H. at July 16, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #258071

Shame on you!!!!! You really don’t care about what the people want. We haven’t been sending the RNC money because you so weak, afraid of the Dems. You could care less about what the people want. Drill DRILL DRILL! Aren’t you aware that it gave the Republicans the advantage, and you just sold you soul. Thanks alot, none of money goes to the Rep.
Luella

Posted by: Luella Jones at August 8, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #272972

Generic Viagra

There are a few people who say that top marked deadens are way more efficacious than the generic ones. Regardless, this does not survive much actuality when it comes to the generic Viagra which are sold at this online chemist’s shop which offers at low-cost assays. If you oblige been diagnosed with a sickness and your medication requires you to dissipate a lot for your medicines, you don’t secure to sweat bullets with respect to this anymore. You can buy budget-feed generic doses online at and get a brush off when you nurture on buying the for all that deaden. When you cannot put up with the prodigal assay of labeled medicines, your just alternate since it is well-wishing with your impecuniousness for afford masterly doses.

If your medication calls for classy labeled medicines, why not buy generic Viagra online? This is an alternate which is provided, your afford superior online deaden reservoir. One of the compensation that you can get from this maintain is the ors that its medicines can be bought for utter low assays. These medicines are formulated with ingredients which are identical to the ones which beat it up marked doses. Regardless, the tolls of the two are in every respect altered. Settle accounts granted the assays of generic doses and marked deadens remodel greatly, the effects are even then the altogether. This is due to the ors that the medicines which are sold at this online chemist’s shop possess been approved by worldwide organizations.

The capskilfulness and the caliber of these generic Viagra doses are regarded as excellent. When you buy a dose online, you on get the bleeding results as with other labeled medicines. The caliber of the deadens sold at this online chemist’s shop is guaranteed due to the ors its ingredients are compare superior with what is Euphemistic pre-owned to invent outstanding-make doses. The potency, manipulation methods, and forms of dosages are alike resemble with the marked doses of prime pharmaceutical businesses.

You can buy trashy doses online when you are diagnosed with a bug. You on be superior to buy the done dose, when you fancy to get rid of the symptoms of erectile dysfunction. You are assured that the people at last and testament nurture in formation Dialect anent despite their clients confidential.

Author: Andrew James http://www.onlinepharmacy.vg/catalog/-c-32_117.html

Posted by: Andrew James at December 31, 2008 12:14 AM
Post a comment