Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Oh, please. You’ve taken a single sentence from Kerry regarding Mr. Berg and criticized it. You build an entire argument around a single lousy quote. Such argument tactics have been discredited for millennia.

Kerry has strongly denounced the heinous murder of the late Mr. Berg, but you are right that this murder and the torture at Abu Ghraib are different. First, murder is worse than torture. Also important, however, is the status America has in the world. We are supposed to be a shining city on a hill - a moral paragon! That is why we think the abuses at the prison are so terrible, not because we think America is bad, or evil… but rather because we know that America can be such a powerful force for good in the world! We are held to a higher standard, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

As for Al Qaeda, there was never any doubt that they blithely commit atrocious acts of inhumanity. So I just don’t see the real comparison.

It’s like there’s a huge sale on StrawMen somewhere that I’m not privy to.

Dustin,

Neither your use of the Kerry quote, or the Bloomberg link, date when or where he made these comments. At the very least, that could have given your reader some context of what he was directly referring to.

Thus, streaching Kerry’s ‘arrogance’ comment on Bush’s foreign policy to recklessly inferring that it resulted in condoning torture, is shameful and desperate in its manipulation. CNN’s Tucker Carlson would be proud!

As I have said many times in my posted comments, Conservatives and Republicans on the Right can longer defend the actions of this President, and are now venting their anger (and blame) on John Kerry and the Left, in the most despicable manner.

You are wrong Bert. It’s not that we can’t defend our President, we feel no need to. His actions and decsions are perfectly justified. We are however tired of the partisan media and liberal congress members grasping at any and everything they think may hurt him politicly. And in doing so play right in to terrorists hands. They want to cause as much strife for us as they can. Physically or politicly they don’t care. They hate us!! Our President is defending our people and our interests from these enemies. And he’s doing a better job of it than anyone since Ronald Reagan.

Dustin, it was the President who said, “we will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes” to win the war on terrorism. It has been the President who has referred to insurgents in Iraq at times as terrorists. It was the President who stated the rules of war would not apply to the U.S. in its dealings with al_Queda which is easliy interpreted as “terrorists”. Combine this with Rumsfeld’s comments about no matter how we treat the terrorists in Guantanamo, it will be better than the way the terrorists treated us on 9/11.

It doesn’t take much to connect these dots and see a climate, an attitude, and perhaps, even a policy, of having no mercy when dealing with our enemies. Let us not forget, that it is being reported that our abuse of prisoners includes some of those rounded up who were not comabatants and are reported to be as many as 70% of the detainees in Iraq. That results in abuse and torture of innocents if investigations bear up these allegations.

I for one, think it is too soon to know the extent of this scandal, and while as I posed above, I have sufficient information to convince me that the abuses would likely not have occured if Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s public comments had not set the parameters of no mercy. But, whether or not there was a spoken policy sanctioning the murder, rape, and torture of prisoners in Iraq, has yet to be established.

The hearings today did reveal however, that we moved prisoners around to avoid IRC scrutiny, so a cover up was in place. It also was testified today that contrary to Gen. Meyers and Rumsfeld’s testimony, we were practicing non-compliance with the Geneva Conventions in Iraq when we deemed a detainee a terrorist.

Looks like the tip of the iceburg to me, and from today’s polls showing Bush’s approval ratings dropped below 50%, it would appear more than half the country is of the same or similar opinion.

Since the beginning, I’ve been saying that the media’s read on America’s reaction to the prison abuse scandal is totally off. Amazingly so, perhaps even the opposite of the truth. The slip in the polls David mentions, which began far before those photos, has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib—I’m sure of it.

This misread is not just on the left but the right—the administration included. (I’m not making the usual complaint about the media being liberal here, and I’ve seen several conservative pundits go into full panic mode).

I say this because I have quite a lot of contact at my workplace with people who represent a pretty wide range of polical viewpoints, and what I hear is amazingly out of touch with the tone of the media. To be succinct about it: nobody who wasn’t already deeply partisan blames George Bush. Those in the middle who are troubled by it are angry at those soldiers only, and there are a GREAT many who think those prisoners went through something relatively mild and perhaps deserved worse. Whether consciously are not, they are quite able to contextualize those images against images like an American having his head literally sawed from his body while his executioners celebrate. And they know no Islamicist is going to come on television and apologize for that act—accept blame and promise to punish those responsible.

I’m sure that plenty would like to see those five black-clad murderers stripped naked, humiliated, harrassed by dogs—at the very least least. I don’t approve of this attitude, but I think we’re crazy to deny how widespread it is. Senator Inhofe’s comments—which seemed to strike the pundits as a shock—no doubt reflect what a substantial percentage of Americans are thinking.

I’ve seen no evidence—not a scrap—that Americans are questioning the war based on those images alone.

The slip in the polls, I suspect, has more to do with the stalemate at Najaf and Fallujah—a desire to see those places brought to heel whatever the cost and demonstrate that we’re serious about winning the war and don’t get stuck in a “quagmire.”

David: “It has been the President who has referred to insurgents in Iraq at times as terrorists.” What more evidence do you need that the insurgents sometimes ARE terrotists?

Jeremy wrote:

You are wrong Bert. It’s not that we can’t defend our President, we feel no need to.

I could list a number of reasons how the Bush administration has brought all of this upon themselves, but it would wasted on you, Jeremy. Conservatives live in a world of hypocrisy, denial, paranoia and deceit. But…

And in doing so play right in to terrorists hands.

The indifference of a chain of command allowing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners acheives this.

An insulting design in the simple matter of creating an new Iraqi flag, achieves this.

Standing for freedom of speech, then closing down an Iraqi newspaper achieves this.

Not executing complete control and order of the country by choosing to not send the required number of troops, acheives this.

These are the things you choose not to defend, yet, I challenge you Jeremy to humor me and explain how they are ‘perfectly justified’.

Or, is truth and credibility just another evil weapon in the ‘partisan media and liberal congressmen members’ arsenal?

“Conservatives live in a world of hypocrisy, denial, paranoia and deceit.” Or do they perhaps have different opinions than you do? Love your neighbor—unless he’s conservative, in which case any kind of villification goes?

If you want to claim to be the champion of truth, then why not—in such a little matter as the Iraqi flag—tell the truth, that Iraqis designed it, proposed it, but have held off a final decision until they can get more input from a wider range of Iraqis? The “indifference in the chain of command” is your own partisan opinion—which you haven’t even bothered to wait to be proven by investigations now under way, and Al Sadr’s “newspaper” was not Mother Jones Magazine but a jihadist rag filled with terrorist comminques and incitemnts to violence.

Conservatives are constanly told to face the “truth,” which is defined as the left’s current talking points. When they fail to admit that 2 plus 2 equals 5, they’re subjected to oh-so rational comments like “Conservatives live in a world of hypocrisy, denial, paranoia and deceit.”

Why doesn’t Mr. Kerry understand that not everything has to be a series of friggin’ brownie points and cap-feathers. I hate this opportunistic horseplay in my own party.

George W. Bush cannot be held responsible for the abuses specifically, perhaps influentially such as with the administration’s ‘Gitmo’ proposals. But to say that he should be held in direct resposibility is a fraudulent and brownie-point scavenging (scavenging not gathering) chunk o’ campaign time BS.

Okay I get it we hate Bush, but this crosses the sensibility line to say that within a margin of specificity that Bush jr. had any real working knowledge of anything going on streetlevel.

This is a military issue. The goodie-goodie democtatic horse-**** needs to go and we need to see the reallity from the blinding hate we have of insolent cowboy, sheriff Bush.

Not in support of going into Iraq, but while we are there we need to have the accountable understanding that it’s democracy in this unstable region that we need to achieve not brownie-point gathering at the expense of our mission. And within specificity George Junior cannot be held in direct responsibility for the actions of the military.

I don’t like the moral superiority stance that the Republicans have charted a course of, but same token, Bush-bashing has hit the outermost extreme in this latest asertion that Bush had anything to do with it, that’s giving this man waaaaay too much credit.

My thoughts are this man is not terribly enlightened, but now according to my fellow dems he is a mastermind and had a full working knowledge of the incidences with street-cred, no. These are not bright people and to know of such abuses you need to be responsible, a suit in which they lack coherent face cards.

Bush is not responsible for this’un nor could he have been. No cap feather for Kerry.

Martin, said: “David: “It has been the President who has referred to insurgents in Iraq at times as terrorists.” What more evidence do you need that the insurgents sometimes ARE terrotists?”

You are joking, right. Do you seriously believe that I should take a politician’s word for anything? I don’t take any politician’s word for anything without some degree of corroboration. I mean sometimes, often times, politicians speak the truth or what they believe to be the truth. But, without exception as our founding fathers were acutely aware and warned of, politicians are always juggling priorities and they aren’t all based on what is good for their constituents, too often they speak to defend, enhance, or insure their hold on power.

In an invasion of another nation, there is little difference to survivors of lost loved ones whether you call it terrorism or collateral damage and the terms are interchangeable depending on which side of the conflict one is on. Thus, the terms are rendered meaningless in this context except for political reasons having to do with influencing support for ones actions by the body politic.

Skunkbud said: “Okay I get it we hate Bush, but this crosses the sensibility line to say that within a margin of specificity that Bush jr. had any real working knowledge of anything going on streetlevel.”

It is premature to make that statement with any accuracy. There are State Dept. personnel who are indicating they were advising the Administration of what was going on in the streets. The IRC is just indicating the same thing. It is premature in light of this evidence to conclude that President Bush was not advised of the practices taking place. He may not have been informed.

It is not unheard of for persons in power to shape relationships with their direct subordinates which creates and environment of plausible deniability as a defense against criticism. If Bush has cultivated such relationships with his cabinet, then it may well be that he never was informed of the abuses in 2003, early or late, or in 2004 until the release of the photos.

I had to chuckle in disgust along with the rest of the world when Bush quipped that the perpetrators who beheaded Scott McClellan would be brought to justice! Whose justice would that be, and would it be justice as applied by a court of law, or justice at the end of an M16, or that which comes from being chained naked to a set of prison bars while dogs chew on your legs…
Kerry is right, the President as Commander-n-Chief of the United States Armed Forces is responsible. This debacle started at the top when Bush treated the Geneva Conventions as so much toilet paper, and was further heightened by Rumsfeld’s announcing, in a public forum, that the prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan would not enjoy prisoner of war status and thus would not be protected by International Laws governing the humane treatment of such. So I do not buy that Bush was “disgusted” by what he saw, only perturbed that out unlawful treatment of these men and women was brought to light.

“Martin, said: “David: “It has been the President who has referred to insurgents in Iraq at times as terrorists.” What more evidence do you need that the insurgents sometimes ARE terrotists?”

You are joking, right. Do you seriously believe that I should take a politician’s word for anything? I don’t take any politician’s word for anything without some degree of corroboration.”

David, I’m talking about five so-called insurgents beheading an American and video-taping it for the viewing pleasure of the Arab world. There’s your degree of corroboration.

You are wrong Bert. It’s not that we can’t defend our President, we feel no need to. His actions and decsions are perfectly justified.

Jeremy, your attitude is just the kind of problem we feel marks your administration. You guys may feel that all your decisions and actions are justifiable, but independent and adversarial observers see much to contradict that, and we aren’t simply going to roll over and play loyalist because you or he deems that necessary to the war effort.

Besides, one can be justified in a course of action, and still screw it up. Even if Bush was right to invade, it still is arguable that he has made huge mistakes doing so, mistakes that may very well have been preventable.

In terms of the prison abuse, what Bush can be held accountable for is the way he structures his government, and the way he allows the institutions under his authority to function, and in the way that he has set political expedience and situational ethics as the norm, instead of demanding more pragmatic and less morally relativist ways of thinking.

And yes, it is that. when everything about what’s considered decent and justifiable depends on who you’re doing it to, during what period of time, and with what motives, then you can’t call it anything else.

He has also made silence about problems and issues a mark of loyalty. He strongly encourages people not to trouble him, or those outside of the chain of command with such problems. So in the end problems don’t get taken care until much harm has been done.

And much harm has been done. Our lack of troops alone has embolden them. Our inability to hold cities, to keep law and order, to quell uprisings without resorting to humiliating compromises on our own part have certainly made these people feel as if they can literally get away with murder.

Allowing misconduct like this to happen, allowing a huge portion of the American operation there to becomes so seriously compromised has made things worse.

You know, the terrorist actually support Bush as our president. They support a candidate who fulfills so handily, so conveniently all the ugly stereotypes that they have about westerners and western leaders. They support right-wingers so lacking in diplomatic skills that they manage to offend just about everybody of any consequence in that part of the world. They want an easy target, a president willing to play their game with their rules, perfectly playing their bad guy. Their fear is that Kerry would be so much more conciliatory, so much harder to nail down in an offensive position. With Bush, the spin is almost always resolved in their favor, with Kerry they can never be so certain.

No war on terror can be won alone or won at all if we fail to get the important countries on our sides. Most importantly, we must get the Arab nations on our side, or else this is going to remain and entrenched cultural conflict. Kerry will take care of that end, and not simply send our soldiers needlessly into the meat grinder having not employed other means first.

For years Republican shills have been blaming Clinton for everything gone wrong. But, it was really Clinton’s Army that marched into Bagdad which Bush (Rove) sought to exploit politically. Bush told Woodward he consulted his “higher Father” before invading Iraq. Maybe Bush can blame God now. If Bush cared about terrorists he would have keep our forces in Afghanistan and considered dismantling Saudi Arabia, instead of Iraq. Cheney’s Energy task Force made a map which divied up Iraq’s oil resources. The intelligence breakdown is that oil pigs in the White House have a hidden agenda. The tragedy is that half the electorate believe anything these pigs say.

> Why in one instance does Kerry classify an act
> as senseless and in another place the blame on
> Bush? Surely he does not seriously buy into the
> idea that Bush should be held accountable for
> every military aberration while he happens to
> be president, nor desired those acts.

Oh come on, what a ridiculous question. Of course Kerry holds the President of the United States accountable for the actions of our soldiers - we all should, right? And of course he does NOT hold the President accountable for the actions of our enemies - that would be pretty stupid, right? Bush is not accountable for every military aberration in the world, but he is surely accountable, however distantly, for those committed by those under his command.

There, that was simple wasn’t it? Bush commands American troops, but he doesn’t command our enemy’s troops. It’s not just common sense, it’s basic logic. What the heck were you talking about?

Is that the best you can come up with in trying to discredit John Kerry? Pretty sad.

-Cf

Stephen wrote:

> In terms of the prison abuse, what Bush can be
> held accountable for is the way he structures
> his government, and the way he allows the
> institutions under his authority to function,
…
> He has also made silence about problems and
> issues a mark of loyalty. He strongly encourages
> people not to trouble him, or those outside of
> the chain of command with such problems.

Exactly right. He also sets the tone for what our country ought to be doing via unspecific yet unambiguous orders such as “we must do whatever it takes”.

Ever notice how much the Bush Administration and organized crime have in common? Both put a premium on obsessive secrecy, and both consistently rely on a lack of direct responsibility/accountability for the misdeeds of their underlings, however much those misdeeds might be in keeping with the leadership’s unspoken wishes.

-Cf

Martin:
“The slip in the polls David mentions, which began far before those photos, has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib—I’m sure of it.”

“I say this because I have quite a lot of contact at my workplace with people who represent a pretty wide range of polical viewpoints, and what I hear is amazingly out of touch with the tone of the media.”

So, because where you work the wide range of people’s political views makes you SURE that Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with the presidents slipping in the polls?

That, Martin, is ridiculas! If thats all it takes to be sure of something, well I am sure that all of america watches the wb’s angel! ‘cause at my workplace people of all different intrests watch that show, not just high school girls.

Well, I never said it was a scientific poll—just a very strong feeling of disconnect between what the talking heads think Americans SHOULD be thinking and what I believe they ARE thinking, based on the dozens of people I’ve spoken to about it. There’s a great deal of loathing on the American street for the Arab street right now. The main difference is that when the anger of the American street “erupts,” we don’t see a lot of empty slogans chanted on Al Jazeera. The aircraft carriers just slip quitely from their locks. And that’s something to be afraid of.

Martin, people not much different than those you’re disparaging are managing to hold their own and force concessions out of our military. We should respect our enemy’s capabilities even if we don’t like them very much.

We cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the colonial powers did, and underestimate the people in those cultures. They just as smart, clever, inventive, and cunning as we are. If we approach them like the can’t figure us out or exploit our weaknesses, we will suffer the consequences.

What would you say if I told you that Bush had several opportunities to nail the group that beheaded Berg… and he decided to pass them up?

Strong on terror, my {choose body part here}

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

*snip*

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

*snip*

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Please explain to me why Bush should get off scot-free for this. And we’re talking about a comment by his political opponent? Honestly.

Webmacher, there’s a thread on that topic called “But he Got his War” over on the Democratic side if you’d like to see what some others are saying about it.

Martin,

I will refer you to the posted comments of Stephen D., on 5/12 9:14am, as a perfect example of the substanitive, pointed, detailed and respectful discourse, we’ve offered on a consistent basis.

Misha and yourself, may be the exception, however, Jeremy is norm of Bush supporters I’ve engaged, as I stand by my remarks.

I should add, although there was no response from Jeremy to my post in this thread, there was an equally hateful, vitrol comment posted on my personal weblog.

Well, Bert, you incited me to look at your weblog—pretty cool. I didn’t find the vitriolic comment, but I will say that vitriol and going personal is hardly confined to one side of this debate of the other. I guess it’s to be expected, and not even our national figures are immune.

Personally, I think the nastiness really got started when Howard Dean led everybody to think that unleashing the id was not only okay but smart politics. An older Democratic friend of mine says no, it all started years ago with Lee Atwater, but I dunno. My own impression is that things in this election cycle were pretty civil until Dean started to succeed in the polls and his Dem opponents started trying to out-Dean Dean with ad-hominem nastiness. Just my opinion.

Boy, this thread was a ride on the wild side.

Dustin, you had a line in your text that Kerry showed a change of heart by being saddened by sensless murder. How is that a chage in heart?

Do you believe that Kerry does not hold Al Aaeda and Osama or Zarqawi responsible?

I frankly don’t get that holding Bush responsible for a loosening of Geneva Conventions to being saddened by murder as dissonant ideas.

To extend this, are you arguing that beating a prisoner to death is less sensless?

While I in no way believe that Bush authorized specific torture or is any more responsible for the use of torture than have been any of the past presidents, I find this wringing of hands by any politician or American so hypocritical that it is sickening.

What do people think happens in war? This always happens. I think the U.S. military has developed a reputation for “humane” actions that is deserved.
At least, as much as you can call humane an Army that uses nuclear weapons, agent orange, napalm, and cluster bombs.

Thanks for the praise, Martin…

However, here again is where we disagree! I’ve seen a number of message boards with threads having to do with politics, current events, etc. (Yahoo’s Message Board is a great example.)

And, for the large part, those of Liberal views almost always debate in thoughtful and respectful means - even when set upon by anonymous, hateful posters. (I have no doubt you can find examples anytime you happen to visit Yahoo.)

Your wise Dem friend may be on to something, however, I believe it started with the age of Rush Limbaugh. If those of us on the Left were to savage Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush the way he treated Hillary, we’d be strung up or run out of town!

If we had openly broadcast rumors, unsupported claims and wild conspiracy scenarios as Rush did in the case of Vince Foster’s death, there would be dismissals and Editor’s resignations.

By isolating and innoculating himself from challenges to his ‘views’, he helped create an equally closed community of like-minded ‘dittoheads’, from radio, to print, and to television. And, here is the key. No matter how outrageous, mean-spirited, personal and absolutely false their opinions are, there is no accountability, or need to answer to anyone for their deception.

Thus, Ann Coulter can falsely slam Max Cleland, Matt Drudge pushes lies of adultery, and Limbaugh is given a pass on allegedly committing a felony.

But, thats just my opinion.

Kerry touted the “arrogance” of Bush policy as reason for the actions of American troops.

Haha! Dustin, that didn’t sound right to me so I checked around. Kerry apparently did use the word “arrogance”, but not in direct reference to Abu Ghraib:

In an interview with Phoenix television station KNXV, Kerry said it will take more than an apology to correct the damage in Iraq, which he said includes a failure of diplomacy and arrogance in U.S. policy.

Good job riling up a lot of conservatives over nothing.