Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Fight Republicans on Security

At the start of this Congressional session, Republicans asserted that this month was “Security September.” Republicans were going to show the American public that they were strong on security and that Democrats were not.

Bush showed this with his plan to use secret evidence against detainees and to gut the Geneva Conventions' restrictions against torture - exactly what the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal. Naturally, Democrats are against this. But there are several powerful Republicans against it as well.

The House Armed Services Committee approved H.R. 6054, which includes everything Bush wants: allowing torture and not allowing the detainee to see the evidence against him. Monstrous. And yet, our "compassionate" and "good" president said:

I will resist any bill that does not enable this plan to go forward.

In other words, either Bush gets his torture and secret evidence admission or he vetoes the bill. According to him, we can't keep our country safe unless we disregard rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and rewrite the Constitution. I say, that defying the Supreme Court and tampering with the Constitution will reduce our security. The sacredness of the Constitution, more than anything else, is what keeps Americans secure. Smirch the Constitution and we embark on a downhill journey toward tyranny.

In the Senate, 3 Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee - Chairman John Warner, and fellow panel members John McCain and Lyndsey Graham - are defying the president by writing a bill that conforms to the ruling of the Supreme Court. They hope to bring their measure to the Senate floor next week.

Senator Lyndsey Graham straightforwardly said:

This whole thing has been just one mess after another. It started with Abu Ghraib. How many more times do we need to create legislation that's defective, that's going to confuse people, that's got not a snowball's chance in hell of passing Supreme Court muster? ..... Every senator and congressman should understand, this is not about November 2006, this is not about your reelection. It's about those who take risks to defend America.

Security is very important. However, the rule of law is also important. Without the rule of law, our people will have no security nor freedom, nor anything else worthwhile.

Adding his voice to the 3 Republican senators and to the Democratic senators, is Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell:

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

Congressional Republicans planned a political campaign to demonstrate how much they worry about security: they worry so much that they are eager to scrap the Constitution to achieve it. Democrats and a few Republicans of integrity are fighting for both security and for cherishing our Constitution.

There is no conflict between Republicans and Democrats on security. Everybody is in favor of security. Who wants to be killed by terrorists? The conflict is between those, such as the president and a few Republicans, who want to wound the Constitution in the name of security and Democrats and a few Republicans who want to keep the Constitution whole.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 14, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #181333

“I will resist any bill that does not enable this plan to go forward.”


I think that’s Bush double-talk for “ha-ha, time for another signing statement”.

By now we all know that Bush is exempt from the law.


Posted by: KansasDem at September 14, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #181339

As usual, Bush is being the bully in the China shop. The China shop in this case is not only the world but also our Constitutional way of life. He would destroy it and we must fight the idiot with all we’ve got.

He has demonstated his lack of foresight on many occasions, especially charging into Iraq with no awareness of the natural course of a guerilla war backed by the local populace.

Just as if we were dealing with a naive child on the verge of a temper tantrum, we must all, as a nation, usher Bush et al out of the China shop and sit them in a corner for a period to think over their rash actions. To expect them to contemplate would be too much to expect, but a timeout is certainly appropriate.

Posted by: Stephen at September 14, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #181343

“The first thing to be said about torture, as a means of discovering facts, was said by Aristotle in Book 1, Chapter 15 of Rhetorica: torture doesn’t work very well. Under physical torture, some people will lie; some will say anything to make the pain stop, even just for a while; and a surprising number will refuse to yield.”

More on the above here:

Posted by: Dr. Wu at September 14, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #181348

It will be interesting some day if we find ouselves in a situation where we receive solid evidence of a suitcase nuke planted somewhere in NY City and we catch the guy who planted it leaving the country. We face a choice, use torture to try to get the location of the bomb before it goes off or we can read him his rights and call his lawyer. My guess is most liberals will claim this jerks rights are more important than the lives of thousands of Americans who would die from this bomb. Based on these recent rulings we just might some day get to put this scenario to the test.

Posted by: Carnak at September 14, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #181349

… and some people will choose to live in reality. I imagine that fantasy makes supporting the Bush Administration more tolerable, but it’s a pretty sad way to legislate.

“Based on these recent rulings we just might some day get to put this scenario to the test.”

You sound pretty hopeful.

By the way - how do you think we would know that someone leaving the country just dropped off a bomb in NY? Why do you think someone would tell anything close to the truth, as oppose to simply saying anything to stop the torture?

Who would Jesus torture?

Posted by: tony at September 14, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #181352

To all of those hard core Republicans how do you feel about Hillary haveing all these powers that you now ceed to Jr.
Just remember that everything you give to Jr. his sucessor/sucessors will have think of the worst liberal you can and assume they will abuse those powers, how do you feel about these bills now?

Posted by: timesend at September 14, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #181367

I’m from SC and happily voted against Lindsey Graham and will happily do so again. I cut my teeth on trying to oust Jesse Helms from NC.I was unsuccessful, and Graham is next on my list, quickly followed by Jim DeMint… I’ve been learning from my mistakes in the Helms latter.

I sent him a couple of e-mails, and written letters, regarding the Wire-tapping issue.

I do give him a little credit, he responded back to me, however when I pressed him on the below issues, I was ignored…

First he responded telling me he thought the wiretaps were “..atrocious” and that he believed Bush should be censured.

Secondly, he wrote and told me all about his new Bill, which I have posted on several occasions on this site, actually increasing the length of time it would take to issue a warrant - 45 days instead of 3, and mostly putting the decision into the Attorney General’s hands about whether to tell Congress anything, or to seek a warrant at all, etc…

Thirdly NOW he says:

This whole thing has been just one mess after another. It started with Abu Ghraib. How many more times do we need to create legislation that’s defective, that’s going to confuse people, that’s got not a snowball’s chance in hell of passing Supreme Court muster? …..

Please understand that IMHO no one can trust Linsey Graham. Lindsey Graham talks between, above and below about where he actually stands, never planning to actually land on anything.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 14, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #181371

These several Republican leaders are proof positive that integrity and humanity still have a pulse in the Republican Party, however faint.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #181375

Carnak, there is only one safe place on this earth. The Grave. Nothing can harm you there. If you are unwilling to take some risk to save our humanity, liberties, and Constitution, there is 3 x 6 box that will end your insecurities permanently.

Was it Patrick Henry who said “Give me liberty, or give me death ?” Our forefathers still speak to us, if we have the courage to listen and stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Our forebears risked their lives, and many died, rather than submit to the security of a King, for the exchange of a few freedoms and liberties.

Yet here you are, shouting what’s a little liberty or freedom when security can be obtained? How unAmerican some Americans have become in their largesse and self-absorption.

What parent would not give up their life to save their child? What brother would not risk his life to save his sister. What citizen would think themselves patriotic while surrending freedom and liberty as a way of living for the impossible goal of security against all harm?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #181377

Re: Carnak

In that highly unlikely case all the bomber would have to do is tough it out til the bomb went off. Maybe getting tough on port security (to prevent suitcase nukes from entering) is a better choice than using torture to get information. When you use torture, there’s no guarantee that what the suspect might say to be the truth. In a nutshell, if a suitcase nuke gets planted in NY, well, we’re screwed because we unknowingly let the bomb into the country in the first place. I’m sure Bill Clinton will be blamed for it.

Posted by: MyPetGoat at September 14, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #181416

If torture has proved to be key to gathering evidence, why then has nobody closely connected to the 9/11 plot been convicted five years later?

Just wondering…

Powell hits the nail right on the head, except that it not only puts soldier lives in jeopardy but the whole of Western civilization supposedly based on higher moral ground.

Posted by: Josh at September 15, 2006 4:03 AM
Comment #181427

Yes David, it was Patrick Henry who said, “Give me liberty or give me death,” one of my favorite quotes of our founding fathers. I believe it shows how strongly he and others at the time felt about liberty. Rather than give up their rights they were willing to put their lives at great peril, to take chances so their freedom would remain intact. I don’t imagine they are too happy with the neocons and fanatics in power today. Today, neocons shout “give me security or give me death”, religious zealots shout “live by MY religion or burn in hell”. Where have the true conservative republicans disappeared too? It is time for them to rise up and defend the contstitution of Patrick Henry. Maybe they shoud start their own third party.

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #181430
Maybe getting tough on port security (to prevent suitcase nukes from entering) is a better choice than using torture to get information.

Speaking of which, how lame is it that it took the Republicans FIVE YEARS to address port security?! It’s like:

Ok, what do we need to do to protect the US… Lock some people up? Check. Invade Afghanistan? Check. Invade Iraq? Check. Intercept billions of phone calls? Check. Create a climate of fear and demonize Democrats? Check. What else can we do… Hmm… Must be something… Gee, maybe those Democrats were right about port security… Let’s look into that…

Maybe around 2008 they’ll realize that should do something about the chemical plants.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 15, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #181444


Posted by: art at September 15, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #181452

It takes a sick and twisted person to think that that anybody dem or rep would want to save a terrist and do any harm to our country

Posted by: Jeff at September 15, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #181455

I truly believe there are Democrats who would love to see this nation attacked again so they can blame it on Bush. Though forcing someone to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers may be bordering on torture, I think we can get away with that one.

David Remer,

You really need to finally admit you’re a Democrat through and through who uses this “independent” status as a way to gain credibility. Anyone who reads your posts should be able to see through your little ruse. You want all incumbents voted out. Why? Because that would put Democrats in power, of course.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 15, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #181457

Do you mean in the same way some rep. are trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton?

Posted by: Jeff at September 15, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #181459


I blame Bush 41, Clinton, and Dubya for 9-11. I can’t speak for all Reps, but I will say that at least Dubya is the only President trying to do something about the terrorist threat.(Besides bombing an aspirin factory and killing a camel)

Posted by: Duane-o at September 15, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #181463

I agree with some of what you are saying but as the some like to say it was the best intel. we had but he was trying to get obl not invading the wrong country.

Posted by: Jeff at September 15, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #181464

During recent travels, I had the opportunity to talk with numerous colleagues I’ve known for many years in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. All have lived in the United States for at least several years pursuing graduate education here and several are Americans working abroad. Most have lived a substantial part of their lives under dictatorships where torture, wiretapping, muzzling of scientists and scholars, government interference with the press, and absence of due process of law were standard operating procedures. All have known war and/or terrorism firsthand.

What I heard from these colleagues during my summer’s travels is very troubling. They are very worried about the United States — a nation they have revered all of their lives — and, most telling, they are worried for my safety.

A Hungarian colleague asked: Aren’t you afraid? I replied in the negative, in an effort to assuage his concerns. However, I am afraid as I watch the decline and the seemingly unstoppable, demise of a great nation and its ideals that once stood as a beacon on the hill for the whole world. Yet, I dare to hope that Senators Graham, McCain, & Warner will be the beginning of a renewal our Founders’ ideals and reverence for Liberty.

Life without Liberty is not worth living. There is something worse than death: it is life without Liberty. Patrick Henry understood that… do we? Are we willing to ask our soldiers to give their lives and limbs in the name of “security” without Liberty?

Security without Liberty is not security: it is fear. FDR understood this when he said, “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” Do we understand that?

Do we have the courage to fight for Liberty, knowing that the fruit of Liberty is security? Or, are we gutless wimps intoxicated by money and the latest electronic gadgets undeserving of Liberty? Do we have the testicular fortitude to pay any price —life and fortune — in the name of Liberty? I am uncertain of the answers: for that reason, I am afraid.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 15, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #181488

“They that would give up essential liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security”

Benjamin Franklin

Can anyone on the right trully take those words to heart? They are very quick to champion the cause of our soldiers who will die for our freedoms, but will just as quickly abolish those freedoms when it may be their own life on the line.

Posted by: David S at September 15, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #181494

The line between Chicken Hawks and Chicken sh#t is very thin.

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #181525

Carnak, ok so you capture this guy and torture him and he tells you where the bomb is, you go there and check it out and nothing. You torture him again and he tells you another place, and same thing nada..You do this over and over and over again, until BOOOOOOOOM it goes off where he didn’t tell you it was at.
Any good intel officer will tell you, information given under duress is not necessarily good information.
As another said, some will tell you the truth, some will tell you anything you want to hear, some will tell you nothing.

Now that you have Sen McCain(who was tortured) and the former SectofState saying it’s the wrong way to go, who do you think is right? Do it my way Bush(or hit the highway), or do it the right way McCain and Powell?

Posted by: KT at September 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #181550

I would like to says thank you to Senators Warner, McCain and Graham for taking this stand. It takes courage in this day and age to confront the Executive branch, and they will probably get the whole sliming from Rove and his ilk for doing the right thing, so thanks guys for doing your job and for standing up for what you know is right.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #181559

David R. Remer,

These several Republican leaders are proof positive that integrity and humanity still have a pulse in the Republican Party, however faint.

Maybe the other two Reps “are proof positive that integrity and humanity still have a pulse in the Republican Party”, but Lindsey Graham should NOT be included in that list. He is wishy-washy, indecisive, and untrustworthy.

Posted by: Linda H. at September 15, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #181560

Bush and Rove did it (switfboated) to McCain once before - it’s probably second nature by now.

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #181561

An enemy not in uniform and targeting civilians does not rise to the level of protection from the Geneva Conventions.

The mish mash talk about all good intelligence officers will tell you that information obtained via torture is suspect. Likewise the same intelligence office will tell you that all information obtained by an enemy combatant from interrogation is suspect until verified.

I’m not a proponent of torture but before we promote these terrorist to the level to recieve the humane protections for prisoners of war found in the Geneva conventions perhaps they should have the balls to put on a uniform and take a stand rather than murder innocent people for their political purpose. And just what is that purpose? To maim and kill until they’ve created anarchy, then take control.

This is a war against an immoral enemey. We cannot shy away from the fact that we need to use all tools at our disposal to defeat this enemy. We cannot expose our information to this enemy just to perserve their alleged rights to examine the evidence against them.

However allowing a juridictional process that can weigh that evidence in a manner that will protect the evidence is not a bad idea. Don’t you think you could review evidence on behalf of a terrorist suspect and come to the conclusion of whether the evidence was sufficient to convict without giving that evidence to the terrorist? So what if the terrorist doesn’t get to see the evidence, if he’s guilty he’s a monster and you don’t want him to know and share what he learns.

Posted by: Tom U. at September 15, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #181563

Tom -

“before we promote these terrorist to the level to recieve the humane protections for prisoners of war found in the Geneva conventions perhaps they should have the balls to put on a uniform and take a stand rather than murder innocent people for their political purpose.”

Read the Declaration of Independance: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is the basis of Democracy. Are you in favor of reducing Democracy simply out of fear?

“This is a war against an immoral enemey.”

I’ve never known a single war where either side thought differently.

“However allowing a juridictional process that can weigh that evidence in a manner that will protect the evidence is not a bad idea.”

This is already the case in the legal systems already in existance. Why do away with freedoms (and occupancy of a moral high ground) without need?

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #181565

This issue is interesting because it is a two-edge sword. If you oppose it, the simple argument is that you sympathize with terrorists. I’m not saying it’s the correct argument, but it’s the simple argument. Ask the people of New York on september 12 if they care if we torture known terrorists for information.

I’m not sure I understand how this puts our soldiers at greater risk. These people are already filled with hate toward us and would kill any American, soldier or not, without mercy, without hesitation.

Posted by: jacktruth at September 15, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #181572

jacktruth -

So, you’re OK with having American soldiers and civilians tortured as long as we can do it too?

Do you understand why the Geneva Convention came to be?

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #181574

I can not give the false pretense that I have an abundance of knowledge on these matters and I acknowledge that my incompetence is a factor when considering my opinion - Nonetheless, as a self-considered rational person, I feel that the pontification and administration of extreme measures will only promote further duress (for our country and those opponents of her).
A great mass of the world is already looking down upon our nation and the actions we have allowed to take place; to keep the situation from escalating we have to take steps that will hinder the proliferation of these views - and this alternative proposal by John Warner, John McCain and Lyndsey Graham hopefully will be a step in that direction.
In our infinite universe there are uncountable ways to reach a single solution, but the variables for each equation do differ - Do we wish to promote our safety through fear and tyranny? Or through morality and caution? Which one will promote the longevity of our nation and it’s society?

Posted by: Peter at September 15, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #181575

Tony -
::jacktruth -

So, you’re OK with having American soldiers and civilians tortured as long as we can do it too?

Do you understand why the Geneva Convention came to be?::

This is completely true - But it is more so how other countries in times of war will be able to treat our soldiers as well. Re-interpreting the Geneva convention Article 3 would open the doors for other countries to re-write their own interpretation; by so allowing them to enact cruel and demeaning interrogation policies that would be used on people of our own nation in times of war.

Posted by: Peter at September 15, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #181582

Tony -

You stopped too soon. We (America) declare to the world that we believe that all men are created equal with certain inherent rights… But when those rights are violated it is appropriate and proper to resist, to fight for the right.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

The judgment of the rights that enemy combatants have has been laid out in the Geneva Conventions for wise purposes, because war is so emasculating as to strip all human decency from the participants. Those conventions are in place to provide a measure of care for soldiers from opposing armies whom are called upon by their countries to fight each other. But what happens when an opponent crosses the line? When they fight without meeting those conventions? When they do not wear uniforms? When they target civilians?

There is no clear definition to how to treat a terrorist in either US criminal or military law. No national or international body has defined rights for the enemies of the struggle we are engaged in. Therefore the President in an effort to fulfill his duty to protect America has established a set of for lack of a better word guidelines.

The whole purpose of the debate on interrogations is to decide if what the President has done is what we should continue to do? There has been no clear legal line for the President to follow, no president. The President is saying that he feels that it is critical to aggressively interrogate (my words here) terrorists in order to protect America. He feels this way because of the methods and manner in which terrorist conduct themselves.

My question is where is the Democratic leadership in this critical debate? America will lead the world in establishing rights for enemy terrorist combatants who have been captured. New ground. It is a different war than the conventional.

This is a huge debate, a debate worthy of our best minds and efforts. And it appears once again that only the Republican Party is worthy of taking on that debate. The Democrats in their myopic politicized view of the world have decided to step back to gain political points. The chant of partisan politics dripping from their lips they hide in the shadows instead of engaging. Their purpose: to allow the Republicans to hurt themselves politically right before an election so they can gain control of Congress, pathetic leadership!

How shallow is that? How hypocritical? When we need statesmen and visionaries? When we are discussing fundamental human rights in the face of an enemy so insidious as to defy civil definition? Our brethren the Democrats smile, duck and wait in the wings to pounce, to pontificate, but ultimately not to produce.

For all the talk about our President being a cowboy I have two words for our Democratic brethren when it comes to solving this issue: Cowboy up!

Posted by: Tom U. at September 15, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #181584

I agree completely that we need real statesmen to run this country, rather than running their own personal on-going political campaigns. Right now, our leaders in Washington act far more like 6 yr old brats than any resemblence to adults. They want their way always, and anyone who dissagrees with them, they call names. It’s an embarrassment and it has to change.

I will vote to rid my district of anyone in office. I no longer care for either party, so I no longer care what party gets my votes. If asked whether I am voting for the lesser of 2 evils? I am voting for the unknown verses a known evil.

“I am on no one’s side because no one is on my side”
— treebeard

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #181593

“I can’t speak for all Reps, but I will say that at least Dubya is the only President trying to do something about the terrorist threat.”

Trying to claim Clinton did nothing about terrorism on this board only marks you as a lying fool.

Posted by: Observer at September 15, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #181595

Tom U. Just more B.S. talking points as far as cowboy up thats the problem its more like broke back mountain.

Posted by: Jeff at September 15, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #181606

Bravo to Warner, McCain and Graham.

This sudden big push for security legislation is obviously not because Republicans really care so much about our security, but because they’re trying to win the Nov. election. Why should anyone believe this topic is actually an important one to them, when they’ve ignored it for so very long, and now when it’s so clearly being used as a political ploy?

Btw, here is another GOP contradiction, trotted out just today:
Bush says hunt for bin Laden has not slackened

While just yesterday on Foxnews, and the day before in his newspaper column, Rightwing Pundit and reporter Fred Barnes told us that while he sat in the oval office listening to the president, Bush said that:
Capturing Osama bin Laden is not “a paramount goal of the war on terror.”

Looks to me like another “Dead or Alive”/”I am truly not that concerned about him” [bin Laden] flip-flop.

They’re doing nothing but a lot of empty posturing these days — I wonder if anyone is really buying it?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 15, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #181622


You make some excellent points. To answer your question, is anyone buying the September security push, I’m afraid there is that thirty to forty percent that will buy anything that comes out of GWB’s mouth. They don’t look past what he says to what he actually does. Fortunetly, as Paul points out in this and a previous post, true conservative Republicans are finally catching on. Let’s hope more follow their lead.

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #181627

Adrienne -

Hello. Just thought you find this interesting… the video I did a bit ago on canvassing is now on the main page of the North Carolina Dem Web site… ( - third from the top) and it looks like the DNC is going send it out nationally. I’m stoked.

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #181630


That’s great. Anyone who is even thinking about canvassing or who wants to do something that is grass roots driven in the political process should take a look at that video. It will inspire you to hit the streets and to be effective when you do it.

Posted by: mark at September 15, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #181647

Thanks… it means a lot to hear people’s impressions. (My company and some people with the NC Dems put it together for free…) Rule of thumb for this election: get active!

Posted by: tony at September 15, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #181661

tony, that’s terrific news, congratulations!

mark, I agree, everyone should watch tony’s video and get inspired to do something! Democrats in all our communities can always use a hand, even if it’s only for a few hours a week.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 15, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #181874

just imagine if king george was president during ww2!!! His war with a tiny country like Iraq has been in progress for longer than the second world war. When Japan attacked the U.S. Bush would still be reading the book My Pet Goat. what a horrible scenario!!!

Posted by: artjoe at September 16, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #181953


Of course, you conveniently make Bush look like a torturing Jihadist ripping off people heads and being just plain Evil. And from that platform you then launch your case. But it’s not so and we both know it. So lets not pretend that the US is behaving like the old Soviet Union or like Saddam in his torture chambers.

The Republican party for the most part is united behind Bush and it’s only a few, very view, that are holding this bill up. And I understand that the bulk of the senators in congress will go to the Bush side if those four republicans do…because they don’t want to lose their elections! So lets be real here.

You take the position of a debater rather than one with an open mind and open to discussion.

In my opinion there is room for compromise. If keeping some TERRORIST awake all night leads us to stop terrorists from using Nukes against New York City….I say keep the succor awake all night and play lousy rap music if that makes him talk. And if having a female question him OFFENDS him and causes him to break down and talk….then lets send in the females. Terrorists do not wear uniforms, do not adhere to unnatural, man made “laws” of war and terrorists do not sign treaties to do treat their victims nice. Terrorist want to kill you, Paul. And they wont warn you when they do.

At no point has anyone proven the president to be acting outside his authority. You know that, I know that. Which is why this legislation is so important. Congress will now restrain that authority. And we must restrain it without strangling it. If Hillary is to be president, and a nuclear attack is about to occur on US Soil, then Hillary needs the legal right to get tough with a terrorist and make him talk.

I think the left is so consumed with it’s Bush hate and Cultural war they cannot divorce themselves from their emotional, reflexive smears and attacks and do what’s right for the nation. At least not as long as they are out of power.

Posted by: Stephen at September 17, 2006 1:45 AM
Post a comment