Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

It always amuses me that every Republican assumes that everybody in Guantanamo is guilty. I suppose that fact that 40-50% are innocent is just to painful to contemplate. Those 3 British Prisoners were innocent. Who knows who else? I suppose Organizations like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International and John McCain all hate America.

You also forgot to mention the deaths in Afghanistan. I am sure you have a joke for that guy left hanging until he died of internal bleeding. Very funny.

Posted by: Aldous at June 18, 2005 04:05 AM

Eric -

Well said.

I share your bewilderment at supposed Americans who (at least since 2001) have never given America the benefit of the doubt, though they will go to no ends to demand policies based on the mere suggestion of a possibility that an enemy, beit a Gitmo prisoner, Saddam Hussein, Al Sadr or even bin Laden may be innocent, misunderstood or a victim.

And these very people who spend their time and their passion pointing out America’s flaws while remaining untouched and unnaffected by our enemies true and intended atrocities, will get quite angry at the suggestion that they are anti- or even just un-American.

Aldous -

I don’t think that most Republicans assume that everyone in Gitmo is innocent. After all, hundreds have been released or returned to where they belong. I do feel comfortable in assuming that our boys have made a sound judgment in keeping a select few hundred securely behind bars. Or are you assuming that they are ALL innocent. Ooh-wait! I know! They haven’t been read their Miranda Rights and provided with a tax-funded legal defense! Oh, the inhumanity of it all!!

Posted by: OttO at June 18, 2005 04:21 AM

OttO:

Hundreds HAVE been released and they ALL now say they have been tortured. Am I the only one who thinks more terrorists have been created by Guantanamo than removed? Am I the only one who thinks being an American means being more than Saddam Hussien? The most embarassing day of my life was when Rush Limbagh said that the Torture at Abu Graib was not as “bad” as Saddam’s. Are we to keep a metric measure now? Anything below Saddam Level is ok? BushCo disgusts me. The Founding Fathers would turn over their graves if this had happened in their time. If being equated to torturers and murderers is what it means to be an American for you, I suggest you leave this country and go to Syria where you belong. They share you’re values after all.

Posted by: Aldous at June 18, 2005 04:42 AM

BTW. I am aware that the guilty would say they were tortured. Unfortunately, not all of them are guilty. ALL of them say they were tortured, however. And they were nice enough to all go on their nation’s TV to be interviewed. Oh yes, Guantanamo is VERY popular overseas. I imagine some of them will get movie rights. I particularly liked that Canadian Arab Story.

So. How many civilians do you think joined Al Queda cause of Guantanamo?

Posted by: Aldous at June 18, 2005 04:50 AM

What the left wing liberals don’t want to remember is the 9/11 attack. Their party leader, George Soros, considers that attack as a wake up call. America should have apologized for it and become more sympathetic to the rest of the world. That from a guy who gave 25 million dollars to defeat George Bush. Obviously, it didn’t work. I guess that would certify him and his ilk as losers.

All their whining about treatment of terrorist detainees is a canard. They suffered two defeats by George Bush and can’t figure out why. DUH! Democrat liberals have dug themselves a pretty deep hole. The baffling part is they keep digging.

Posted by: George Moon at June 18, 2005 08:47 AM

It never ceases to amaze me that people who live in this great country hate it so much. Really hard to understand.

Posted by: tomd at June 18, 2005 09:02 AM

Ok, regardless of how you feel about prisoners at GITMO, you have to admit that no one there has died as opposed to the millions of people that died in the gulags. Granted, GITMO is still a pretty bad place but to compare it to a gulag is like comparing Bush to Hitler.

BTW, tomd, they don’t hate this country, they hate the Bush administration. I know to many people they are one and the same but to people like me they are not.

Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 09:51 AM

Oh, those poor terrorits are being treated SOOOO badly. Culture sensitive meals, prayer rugs, Koran’s (which weren’t flushed), and a call to prayer everyday. Those rotten, evil, heartless soldiers of ours. They should be sooo ashamed of themselves.

Gulag? More like a minimum security prison. Give it a rest Marxists.

Posted by: Mark L at June 18, 2005 09:56 AM

It’s easy to point to anyone who has a different idea from you and say that, since I love America and you disagree with me, you must hate America. To say that liberals hate America is the most outrageously stupid thing I’ve ever heard, and I hear it a lot. Pretty much all Americans love, appreciate, and believe in their country. Real love and care is when you see that your country is going down the wrong path, and turning into its own worst enemy, and you try to change that. Instead of heeding this call to action, Republicans are closing their eyes and blindly crying treason. Yes, it’s hard to believe that our beloved country has sunk to these levels. But we need to accept it, and change it. Not falsely accuse those who are trying to help of hating America.

Posted by: ankur at June 18, 2005 09:57 AM

Aldous
Where and who are these hundreds that say they were tortured at GITMO?
Where did this “fact that 40-50% are innocent?
What you are saying is that 200 to 250 are innocent. Is your intel AI, Arab TV, French Fried, The Guardian, or any of those other less responsible or reliable and organizations without integrity? Even Dean, Durbin and DNC members don’t use your references.

Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 09:59 AM

If the liberals really love this country and want to change it because they believe differently then why do they resort to distortions of truth, over the top rhetoric, sometimes outright lies, false accusations, and misreprestations of facts?
If we are the mean bastards some say we are and like the individual cited in the Khaleej Times by Eric, where are the thousands more like him. Wouldn’t we have had tens of thousands like him also in places like GITMO? It doesn’t fly.

Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 10:08 AM

Mark,

Give it a rest Marxists.

Mark, I’m assuming you don’t want to be called a Nazi so I’m not sure why your calling other people Marxists.

tom,

If the liberals really love this country and want to change it because they believe differently then why do they resort to distortions of truth, over the top rhetoric, sometimes outright lies, false accusations, and misreprestations of facts?

One could exchange the word “liberals” for “conservatives” and what you said would still be a fair question. My question is, if everyone really loves this country why the hell do they resort to petty partisan bickering while the problems go unsolved?

Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 10:16 AM

Our society has laws. We try to obey and enforce the laws. One of the laws is that when on trial evidence is required to convict. A jury weighs the evidence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. We are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

One of the jurors on the Jackson trial did indeed state:”Michael Jackson may have molested boys but not necessarily the 13-year old accuser.” Your point isn’t necessarily made by using this example. I did not follow the Jackson trial at all. I have no idea of his guilt or innocence. However, he was on trial for one act. Evidence was given for one act against one individual. Just because we think someone may have committed another crime they are not on trial for we cannot convict them of the crime they ARE on trial for if the evidence doesn’t suggest they commited the crime. The other crime would require a seperate trial and additional evidence. Our Founding Fathers knew a lot about being wrongly accused and wanted to guard us from this by presuming innocence until proven guilty and putting the burden of proof on the prosecution. I know that’s hard for some to understand but that is how our criminal judicial system works.

As far as the GITMO detainees go, I don’t have a problem with their treatment. I think our military is being extra careful in the wake of the Iraq prison scandle. However, I do have a problem with detaining someone for three years without proving they aren’t wrongfully detained. I feel that most of the prisoners at GITMO are rightfully detained, but probably not all. If we are detaining even one individual wrongly we have taken three years of their life in an unjust manner. My problem is not with the treatment. Rather its with the length of the detainment without evidence.

We have classified them as enemy combatants. Not criminals or POW’s. What does that mean? Well, it obviously means we can detain ANYONE in the name of terrorism without proof, evidence, or a trial.

If they have evidence try them and if guilty do whatever we need to. However, if innocent then we have done an injustice to our fellow man.

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 10:25 AM

Tom,

We have classified them as enemy combatants.

Actually, I believe you are indeed supposed to hold a trial before you can legally determine them as “enemy combatants.” But hey, who’s gonna stop us? Right?

Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 10:41 AM

Regardless of how anyone feels about GWB, we were attacked on 9/11 — not by Americans (liberals or conservatives), not by the French, the Germans, the Russians or the Chinese. We were attacked by Arabs of different nationalities whose only common factor was their belief that America somehow hurt them/Islam/an idiology (and no one has really explained WHY 9/11 happened by the way) and that they are now out to destroy America and all her allies. Should we be in Iraq? Yes - for the same reason we were in Germany in WWII - to stop a murdering tyrant. Is this war harder? Yes - because of 9/11 we aren’t just fighting injustice but religious zealotry. We should have finished the job in 1991 but liberals screamed that Saddam should be left to rule his own country. So we listened - to our regret.

Last year the liberals were all forcasting gloom and doom about invading Iran. It hasn’t happened.

We keep hearing about “all the casualties” - just over 1700 now - less than a few days worth in WWII. Not insignificant! Just comparing apples and oranges by the liberals and the MSM.

GITMO is bad. Most prisons are. Ask any inmate in Joliet or Jackson Prisons. They hate the food, the lights go out and on on schedules that not everone likes. Oohhhhh. Maybe we should free them all. But these are CONVICTED felons. Okay, what about people held before trials? They are questioned for hours, they don’t like the food, they don’t like the scheduals, they don’t always have full access to family and friends. Some claim they are tortured. Should we just let them out? No. That would be counter productive to justice. So would closing GITMO. It serves a purpose.

Liberals like to expose every wart or blemish. Why don’t they use their energy to help find the terrorists, the criminals, the enemy and help to end the war and terrorism? Because they would have to admit that more than 50%of the voting population of this country were right - a liberal would have sold us out and we would be in a worse mess than now. Yes, we are in a mess, but at least the conservatives are trying to fight evil instead of inviting it into our homes.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 18, 2005 10:43 AM

“BTW, tomd, they don’t hate this country, they hate the Bush administration. I know to many people they are one and the same but to people like me they are not.”

This administration, the Reagan administration, Bush 41’s administration… they seem to hate the US any time their man isn’t in power.

Posted by: tomd at June 18, 2005 10:55 AM

This administration, the Reagan administration, Bush 41’s administration… they seem to hate the US any time their man isn’t in power.

Again, just turn that around for Clinton, Carter…

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 18, 2005 11:34 AM

A person is innocent until proven guilty only in the courtroom. On the street one can say and believe otherwise.

Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 11:37 AM

“When you look at the beliefs of the left on war and on law enforcement you’ve got to wonder whom they think the real enemy is.”

So far, the real enemy has been the terrorists, not us. Those who are concerned about events at Gitmo are simply trying to make sure that doesn’t change.

“It never ceases to amaze me that people who live in this great country hate it so much. Really hard to understand.”

It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to love liberty hate to see it used. How can you assume that someone standing up for American ideals (such as due process) hates America simply because they’re applying those ideals to non-Americans?

But, as I said before, this isn’t about the Gitmo prisoners. This is about us. How far are we willing to sink to win this “war”? How many of our ideals are we willing to risk to defeat the terrorists?

America is the greatest country on this planet. If we want to stay that way, we have to be vigilant. We’re the strongest nation on the planet. Nobody else has the power to come fix our problems — we have to police ourselves.

Remember, before Hitler, there was a democracy in Germany. That democracy fell, and Hitler came to power, because the people weren’t vigilant. I’m not suggesting that Bush is Hitler — he’s far from it. But we will not remain the greatest nation on earth simply by assuming that we always will be. We have to constantly examine our own actions.

Only Americans can destroy America.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 18, 2005 11:59 AM

I’ve heard some of the “tortures” that the people at GITMO have been subjected to.

One person was made to stay in a room that was so cold that he started shivering.

Is that against the Geneva Convention?

If so…we sure don’t want to put him in a jail in North Dakota or Minnesota!!! If that’s criteria for torture, the both North Dakota and Minnesota have on hell of a lawsuit against SOMEBODY!!!

One detainee was made to lay on the floor and listen to loud rap music.

Is that against the Geneva Convention?

If so, then we sure don’t want him to be jailed in a housing project in East L.A.!!!

“You want to hear me scream? Play some rap music.”
—-Bruce Willis (The Last Boy Scout)

Posted by: Jim T at June 18, 2005 12:06 PM

I love how liberals speak of how our Founding Fathers would be so upset with the Bush administration for Gitmo. Well yes I am sure they would be. George Washington would have shot these murderous renegades before sunset on the day of their capture and not spent all this money protecting them. Liberals don?t mention that in order for us to treat them the way they have treated us we should find a big knife and cut off their heads. Think of all the tax payers money we would save.
These same un-Americans are the same people that defend without excuse the slaughter of millions of unborn Americans every year and downplay the psychological damage they do to the would be mothers that their hard sell ?family planning? inflicts on America?s female youth every day. Want to see something our founding fathers would have gotten up set about? Just look in the mirror Hillary. Just look in mirror John K. Our founding fathers would have hung you in the town square and left your bodies to rot as an example of what Americans do to people that support killing our most defenseless
Citizens. My only consulation is the biblical assurance that you will all burn in hell and if you don?t think so just READ THE BOOK.

Posted by: STEVE MCGILL at June 18, 2005 12:11 PM

Durbin was talking about specific incidents, not US or the military in general. If this seems like a trivial distinction, consider that Rudy Giuliani referred to the US marshalls who seized Elian Gonzalez as “stormtroopers”. He was clearly referring to Nazi Germany. If Dick Durbin hates America, then so does Giuliani.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 18, 2005 12:18 PM

Amazing! Listen to the hate spewing from conservatives toward liberals and how they refuse to be held back by laws, conventions, or international accords we initiated and signed. The real danger for America is these who would summarily get rid of other Americans for not holding the same opinions or who would question or criticize their exhalted leaders.

Liberals have just cause to be anxious and even afraid of such conservatives, just as blacks were anxious and even afraid of the KKK just a few decades ago. It is a much shorter step from hate to vigilantism against one’s fellow citizens than it is for Islamic fundamentalists to plant a bomb or take down a plane in the US. The numbers of dead at the hands of other Americans without trial or legal authority are greater than those dead from 9/11.

See the US Senate’s apology for not passing the anti-lynching legislation for decades. Yet here we are still, Americans hating Americans instead of apologizing for not understanding one another. Yes, a very short step indeed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2005 12:41 PM

We still on this blog won’t can’t agree on what constitutes torture.

We all agree that conditions at Guantanamo are unpleasant. That doesn’t bother me. Torture does, but it depends on what you mean by torture. I was not joking when I wrote that the techniques of torture described (being sleep deprived, harassed, humiliated, given bad food and being kept in cramped quarters) sound a lot like some international flights I have made. So let’s not bait and switch. If we mean torture such as severe beatings, bamboo under the finger nails etc, we can all agree that is bad. But don’t throw in the others.

Aldous makes up some numbers and says that all these innocent guys claim to have been tortured. I have met people who have been tortured. They don’t have to claim it; they can show it on their bodies. You know John McCain can’t even raise his arms high enough to comb his own hair. I am sure if there were cases like this, we would have seen the pictures and heard the stories.

The torture allegations of these guys remind me of the old Monty Python routine where John Cleese accuses a “witch” of turning him into a newt. When the others turn to him and see he isn’t a newt, he just says, sheepishly, “Well, I got better.”

The few times there were credible accusations of torture, they were investigated and those responsible were punished.

As for the Nazi talk, everyone goes over the top sometimes. John Steward did a good piece on the Daily Show saying that we should stop calling each other Hitler because it is just stupid. He is right.

Durbin was clearly wrong when he compared the Bush policy to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. He tried to obfuscate and say he meant only that one incident, but he knew better.

There are valid comparisons to Nazis, but usually they are more like comparisons for fascist organizations. There is no valid comparison between Guantanamo and a death camp. I had the misfortune as part of one of my jobs to visit Auschwitz many times. Each time, I spend many hours there looking at the evidence of the banality of evil. Each time I went, it bothered me more. Anyone who compares this to Guantanamo is severely misinformed to the point of willful stupidly.

Posted by: jack at June 18, 2005 12:43 PM

Woody,

Not many Republicans would vote for Rudy either, except for mayor of NYC, or to take Hillarys senate seat.
The limits for Rudy and John McCain are putting another “R” in congress, thats it.
They could switch partys, but they couldn’t get elected to anything in the Dem. party.

Fence sitters can win local elections at times, on a national scale the wind up with splinters in their butt, thats reality.

Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2005 12:47 PM

Jennifer

“we were attacked on 9/11 — not by Americans (liberals or conservatives), not by the French, the Germans, the Russians or the Chinese. We were attacked by Arabs of different nationalities whose only common factor was their belief that America somehow hurt them/Islam/an idiology.”

Yes, were were attacked by Arab Islamist extremist. Not by Iraq. Why did these folks attack us? You have part of the reason, but only part. They despise us for our blind support of Isreal.

You also said: “We keep hearing about “all the casualties” - just over 1700 now - less than a few days worth in WWII. Not insignificant! Just comparing apples and oranges by the liberals and the MSM”.

This upsets me as someone that’s lost a family member in this conflict. When it hits close to home the casualties record could state 2 fatalities, it doesn’t help my loss or my families loss for someone to say that is only 2 lives. I don’t intend to upset you, but please don’t trivialize our losses.

Steve McGill,

Our Founding Fathers weren’t exactly saints either. They struck a deal to ignore the “slave issue” for at least the first twenty years of the country. Sure, they had their reasons, but does that make it right? BTW, I lean left and oppose abortion. I think it is murder. I am also a christian. If I were you I would leave judgement to the ultimate Judge. Telling someone they will burn in hell is passing judgement, that’s not ours to do. We are to spread the good news through the love of Christ…not making allegations. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus didn’t.

I would also like to state I am an American first. I have voted for dems, repubs, independs, and even one Libertarian. The far left and the far right are at each other’s throats with allegations and counter allegations so much that all America sees is non-cooperation and discontent. Whatever our party affiliation, we should want justice. The guilty should be punished and the innocent set free. I think that’s all most of us want. Just becuase some of us question how we are handling a situation doesn’t mean we are anti-American. I would question ANY president’s administation for not putting justice first. Are most of those folks guilty? Probably, but we should know that before we detain anyone for three years.

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 12:53 PM

“Fence sitters can win local elections at times, on a national scale the wind up with splinters in their butt, thats reality.”

Very true, and very unfortunate. It means we’re stuck in each election choosing between two extremists.

Giuliani and McCain are moderates. They don’t belong to the mainstream of the Republican Party, but they would definitely NOT belong in the Democratic Party, either.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 18, 2005 12:54 PM

Jack, to use your phrase, willfully misinformed, is failing to recognize that the US helped craft the Geneva Conventions and defined what constitutes torture.

Willfully misinformed is burying one’s head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that Pres. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld stated to the world that the US would not be bound to the Geneva Conventions in its handling of terrorists.

Willfully misinformed is supporting a policy of punishing and depriving liberty of human beings without first determining through court martial or tribunal if the detainees are in fact, terrorists in the first place. The US claimed one of the detainees was the worst of the worst, yet, when his JAG officer defender brought forth the documented evidence against the detainee and it hit the media, the US freed the detainee. That’s right let him go home. Since when does Bush and Rumsfeld let the worst of the worst go free after apprehending them? Since the light of day reveals the evidence against them wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, that’s when.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2005 12:55 PM

I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here, so I’ll repeat it:

Durdin never compared our troops to Nazis, nor Bush to Hitler. He compared the CONDITIONS IN THE PRISON to the CONDITIONS IN NAZI PRISONS. Even if the facts behind the comparison are flawed, that doesn’t make it an insult to our troops or our country.

After all, would comparing our Interstate Highway System to the German Autobahn be the equivalent of calling Bush a Nazi? I don’t think so.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 18, 2005 12:57 PM

Aldous,
Maybe all those released prosiners, guilty or not, say they were tourtured because they are ALL enimies of the US.
Zeek,
If they are trying to kill American soldiers, THEY ARE ENIMIE COMBATANTS! No court needed.
Steve,
Your right, our founding fathers would be upset by the way the left justifies these atrocities.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 18, 2005 01:07 PM

Adous:

>>Hundreds HAVE been released and they ALL now say they have been tortured.

Of course they do.

>>Am I the only one who thinks more terrorists have been created by Guantanamo than removed?

I don’t know about ‘the only one’, but in the spirit of this board, I think only people who think this way see America as the main problem of terrorism in the first place and don’t understand the importance and dire need to see democracy and free markets sprout up in the middle east. So if terrorism is a big concern for you, then you must support the notion that it is people like Saddam Hussein who foster, encourage and reward terrorism and not what a few combatants say about their prison stay (who by the way are simply feeding the liberal media propoganda, i.e. using our own press against us).

BTW, what were the conditions of the alleged ‘torture’?

>>Am I the only one who thinks being an American means being more than Saddam Hussien?

No, but you’re one of a few who can equate the two.

>>The most embarassing day of my life was when Rush Limbagh said that the Torture at Abu Graib was not as “bad” as Saddam’s.

That’s the most embarrassing day of your life? You need to turn off the radio. And I’m sorry, but some of the so-called torture accusations I have heard are not even on the same page as quartering people, disembowelings, raping spouses and children in front of the torturee, cutting off tongues, stonings etc.

I’m sorry, but you should be more embarrassed by your own lack of ability to differentiate unpleasantness with brutality amidst your effort to equate American policies with that of Saddam Husseins. Amnesty International called Gitmo an American ‘gulag’. Do you think that is accurate? And do you realize yet that you are a perfect example of what the original poster on this board is refering to?

>>The Founding Fathers would turn over their graves if this had happened in their time.

Right. Because everyone back in the 18th century were civilized and respectful of human rights.

The Revolutionary War was brutal and bloody, on both sides. And we can contribute the lack of slavery in American history to the founding fathers, right? But slaves weren’t necessarily sworn enemies of the US, so I can understand why you would miss an opportunity to defend them.

>>If being equated to torturers and murderers is what it means to be an American for you, I suggest you leave this country and go to Syria where you belong. They share you’re values after all.

Yeah, I’m the one who equates them. People like you are an offense to true victims of brutality and torture. Anyone who equates Bush to Hitler is offensive to the millions who were tortured and died under Hitler. Anyone who compares Gitmo to a gulag is offensive to the millions who have died under Stalin’s gulags. Anyone who considers even for an inkling that there are similarities between the treatment of our prisoners and those of Saddams really should see a shrink. I wonder how many mass graves there are behind the Guantanmo prison?

Maybe you should go to Syria since you already buy into their anti-American propoganda and it seems to me that would feel right at home, sitting in a restaurant with your Syrian buddies talking about how evil the Americans are.

>>BTW. I am aware that the guilty would say they were tortured. Unfortunately, not all of them are guilty. ALL of them say they were tortured, however.

You need to understand that just because they were released doesn’t make them innocent. The hard-liners were kept. Many of those released were picked up in the battlefield but then were determined not to be passionate jihadists, a potential future threat or were coerced, bribed or forced by the Taliban into fighting.

So if ALL of them were tortured, then why were they released? If we are so brutal, then why release any of them? At least complete with all their limbs and digits? And why do you believe their stories more than the US? Put a lot of faith in al-Jazeera, do we?

>>And they were nice enough to all go on their nation’s TV to be interviewed.

Which nation would that be?

>>I particularly liked that Canadian Arab Story.

I’m sure you do. You know, Saddam Hussein’s lawyer said in a recent interview with ABC News that Saddam was not caught hiding in a spider hole, but was in fact captured while praying at a friends. And his face was severly beaten and his leg was broken. I suppose you buy this too, despite the real-time accounts and photographs that don’t support it?

>>So. How many civilians do you think joined Al Queda cause of Guantanamo?

Frankly, I don’t care. I’m not going to support abandoning prisons to appease would-be terrorists. The real question that you aren’t asking is how many civillians will join Al Quieda because of the media propoganda and people like you who immediately without question distort, promote and spread these hysterical accusations by people who were picked up fighting for groups that are sworn to kill Americans? The slight possibility that much of this is embellished or simply not true doesn’t occur to you, does it?

Like I said earlier, you’re the perfect example of the mentality that this story on this board represents. Blame America without doubt or question, and always take the words of the murderous thugs that we are fighting at heart.

Posted by: OttO at June 18, 2005 01:08 PM

Talk about your moral relativism. Otto above defends torture as long as it is milder than that which our enemies participate in.

And I’m sorry, but some of the so-called torture accusations I have heard are not even on the same page as quartering people, disembowelings, raping spouses and children in front of the torturee, cutting off tongues, stonings etc.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2005 01:23 PM

Otto, update, our own Naval Jag officer is testifying before Congress that we have violated our own laws and rules at Gitmo. We don’t need to take the word of terrorists, and most of us wouldn’t take their word without evidence anymore than we take Bush’s word without evidence.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2005 01:26 PM

Rob,

The difference between a moderate of any party, and a fence setter is a lil more clear for me personally.
A moderate understands where he/she fits in any party based on most of the issues/platform, but can vote bipartisan on some issues. I respect the hell out of true moderates from both sides.

A fence setter trys to play both sides of everything for their own personal political gain.

It may sound the same, but on a national scale everyone figures it out.

Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2005 01:30 PM

Beagle,

Good distinction. Personally, I’d consider McCain to be a moderate, not a fence sitter, but I think we can agree to disagree there.

Either way, I’d rather have a fence sitter than an extremist.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 18, 2005 01:50 PM

If they are trying to kill American soldiers, THEY ARE ENIMIE COMBATANTS! No court needed.

Actually, you summed it up there well. There’s an “if”. We don’t know.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 18, 2005 01:52 PM

Ron,

If they are trying to kill American soldiers, THEY ARE ENIMIE COMBATANTS! No court needed.

If they were trying to kill American soldiers they would be dead. The people that are sent to GITMO are merely suspected of being enemy combatants. But again, since no trials are happening we don’t really know.

Otto,

I suppose you buy this too, despite the real-time accounts and photographs that don’t support it?

Honestly, I don’t care. It’s Saddam. Even if they caught him handing out candy and flowers to children and beat him with hickory sticks I wouldn’t gaive a damn. But I thought it would be good to point out that the U.S. has staged a war before and fooled the American people (see Operation PBSUCCESS). The “real-time accounts” could have been fake (I’m not saying they necessarily were) and the pictures could have been take after he was captured. Again, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it is possible.

Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 02:01 PM

I for one, am happy that the Right has finally shed all pretense, having embraced loudly and emphatically their disrespect and indictment of the Islamic world as a whole, and the Left as treasonous co-conspirators. Clearly, this is the defense of last resort, born out frustration at having to defend the latest failure of the Bush administration.

But, just as their self-delusional approach to Social Security and Terri Schiavo eventually proved disastrous, the Right’s hysterical stance on this issue will prove untenable.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 18, 2005 02:05 PM

Rob,

No problem, we can disagree, I personally would take a moderate or an extreemist over a fence setter, atleast you know what you voted for or against.

Posted by: Beagle at June 18, 2005 02:05 PM

Beagle,

Whether Giuliani is a moderate or not is irrelevant. He is one of the most admired politicians in America, and had a prominent role at the last Republican convention. Yet he compared government officers to Nazis. So it is absurd for Republicans to turn around and say that that kind of comparison is beyond the pale. Just because the president is Bush instead of Clinton doesn’t mean that you can completely change the rules for being a loyal American.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 18, 2005 02:35 PM

The moonbats are out of ideas. They have but one left, attack, attack, attack. They don’t care
about this country, and it shows. Funny, seems most voters have noticed this, much to their surprise.

Posted by: Ted at June 18, 2005 02:45 PM

Speaking of running out of ideas and having to attack… why are you wasting your bits on Kerry, Eric? You guys did a great job of smearing him, and he’s not coming back. It’s time to demonize Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 18, 2005 02:56 PM

Woody,
Noone has to demonize Hillary, every time she opens her mouth she does that for us.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 18, 2005 03:02 PM

I for one, am happy that the Right has finally shed all pretense, having embraced loudly and emphatically their disrespect and indictment of the Islamic world as a whole, and the Left as treasonous co-conspirators. Clearly, this is the defense of last resort, born out frustration at having to defend the latest failure of the Bush administration.

Bert, you summarized it perfectly.

A long time ago, a civics teacher explained politics to me this way: He said that if you have a good candidate, speak about the candidate; if you have a good issue, speak about the issue; if you have neither a good candidate nor a good issue, wrap yourself up in the American flag and speak about the Constitution.

This is exactly what Republicans are doing. Their leaders are being criticized. Their issues are being criticized. So now they are proclaiming that they are the true patriots and those who disagree hate America. At the same time they are placing the blame for everything on the corrupt UN, on our fickle allies and on traitorous Democrats.

I hope Republicans get out of this state of dinial soon.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 18, 2005 03:09 PM

Observation:
Is a picture of Saddam in his underwear torture?
Yes, it is a torture to look at.

Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 03:28 PM

PAUL,
REPUBLICANS ARE IN DENIAL? AT LEAST WE TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMERICAS PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF JUST TEAR DOWN EVER GOOD, WELL THOUGHT OUT, FAIR IDEA THE REPUBLICANS COME UP WITH.

Posted by: STEVE MCGILL at June 18, 2005 03:57 PM

JUST CLOSE GITMO AND PUT THEM ALL IN L.A. COUNTY JAIL FOR A NIGHT. BY MORNING THE PROBLEM WILL BE OVER.

Posted by: STEVE MCGILL at June 18, 2005 03:59 PM

Steve,

Computers are really advanced these days. They allow you use both upper case letters AND lower case letters. When you use only upper case letters for a single word (like I did in the previous sentence), it indicates emphasis.

When you use only upper case letters for your entire message, then that message is seen as yelling. Yelling is rude. Yelling senseless rants is even worse.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 18, 2005 04:12 PM

Anybody else notice how these kinds of discussions start on a certain topic (e.g., whether it’s fair to compare GITMO to the Gulags), and then pretty soon the conversation shifts to whether “liberals hate America” — or whether conservatives are idiots?

If I may, I would suggest that this type of rhetoric is:

1. Counterproductive. It merely infuriates those who disagree with you and prompts equally heated rhetoric in return. (Do any conservatives REALLY expect to convince liberals that they “hate America”?)

2. Beneath us. Look, if we’re really this great country that values freedom of speech and the open discussion of ideas, then let’s act like it. Let’s have a vigorous debate on the important issues of our day, but let’s be statesmanlike.

3. Distracts us from any real opportunity to discuss the issue. Instead of discussing whatever topic is at hand, we end up talking about some crazy idea like whether “liberals hate America.”

And finally…

4. Basically a form of cowardice. Look, if your ideas can stand on their own, then put them out there. Argue for them. Be passionate. But name-calling is basically a retreat, an unwillingness to accept feedback or criticism…or to consider alternative perspectives.

If we want a change in how “Washington” does business, then let’s start by changing how we do business. Right here, right now. I challenge those on all sides of the issue. Let’s stick to the issue at hand, avoid making silly characterizations of those who disagree with us, and demonstrate some civility and respect.

Posted by: Steve Westby at June 18, 2005 04:14 PM

Thank you, Steve (Westby)

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 18, 2005 04:18 PM

Jennifer,

Should we be in Iraq? Yes - for the same reason we were in Germany in WWII - to stop a murdering tyrant.

We were in Germany not because Hitler was there, but because Germany declared war on us after we declared war on the Japanese when the bombed Pearl Harbor.

Is this war harder? Yes - because of 9/11 we aren’t just fighting injustice but religious zealotry.

The Iraq war is harder because a portion of the Iraqi people wish their country to remain sovereign from any other country; not because of the terrible attacks of Setpember 11, 2001.

Liberals like to expose every wart or blemish. Why don’t they use their energy to help find the terrorists, the criminals, the enemy and help to end the war and terrorism? Because they would have to admit that more than 50%of the voting population of this country were right - a liberal would have sold us out and we would be in a worse mess than now. Yes, we are in a mess, but at least the conservatives are trying to fight evil instead of inviting it into our homes.

To the best of my knowledge, almost every liberal supports the war in Afghanistan where the terrorists, our true enemies, are located. We are doing everything we can to find the real enemies of America like bin Laden. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of George Bush and of other conservatives, whom have underfunded and understaffed the war in Afghanistan in lieu of their frivolous Iraqi War.
Why would a liberal who loves his country as much as I do sell out our wonderful country? A liberal, or anoyone other than the current Bush administration would have actually pursued Osama bin Laden seriously. If the conservatives are fighting evil why aren’t there more troops in Afghanistan than what htere is now? And why would any American, liberal or conservative, in a right state of mind, invite evil into our own country. I believe it was the liberals that were talking about increased port security here a short while ago, not the conservatives.

Posted by: Warren at June 18, 2005 04:37 PM

Aldous,

Those 3 British Prisoners were innocent. Who knows who else?

Am I the only one who thinks more terrorists have been created by Guantanamo than removed?

…BushCo disgusts me.

If you are correct, we must never punish terrorism. It would only create more terrorists. We can only try to arrest them before they kill us, but make sure we get a valid warrant and read them their miranda rights before we do. We must understand their pain, empathize with them, and find out what we’ve done wrong that’s forced them to hate us.

Have I got it right so far, Aldous?

Tom L,

“Michael Jackson may have molested boys but not necessarily the 13-year old accuser.” Your point isn’t necessarily made by using this example.

I did not follow the Jackson trial either. What I am pointing out is that there is a difference between domestic law enforcement and capturing enemy soldiers on the field of battle. Soldiers without a country, combatants dedicated to killing civilians in terrorist acts, have already made themselves enemies of the United States. Is not every member of Al Qaeda in fact AT WAR with the United States? What more would you need? Life in prison is not an unreasonable punishment for making war on the United States.

Apply the quote’s standard to Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 highjackers. What if we knew enough to know that they meant to carry out these acts, that they were dedicated to carrying out such acts, and intended to carry out such attacks whenever they could do so, but we didn’t have any specific info about a specific act? You want the regular domestic criminal justice system rules to apply?

Posted by: ericsimonson at June 18, 2005 05:00 PM

REPUBLICANS ARE IN DENIAL? AT LEAST WE TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMERICAS PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF JUST TEAR DOWN EVER GOOD, WELL THOUGHT OUT, FAIR IDEA THE REPUBLICANS COME UP WITH.

Posted by: STEVE MCGILL at June 18, 2005 03:57 PM

Republicans are very mucn in denial that the President either lied or was grossly uninformed and incompetent. Democrats have not torn down any good, well thought out, fair ideas proposed by the Republicans because the Republicans have not proposed any such plans; the only Republican ideas that democrats have protested are either very unfair, not well thought out or are plainly just not good for America.

Posted by: Warren P at June 18, 2005 05:06 PM

Ericsimon,

If we only perpetually deetained people convicted of terrorist acts, instead of every random person who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, less terrorists would be created by Guantanamo than removed. Proven membership in an organization like Al Qaeda would be enough to convict someone for conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism in the case with Atta you mention.

Posted by: Warren P at June 18, 2005 05:17 PM

Ron Brown,

LOL about the Hillary comment.

Tom,

same for the underwear comment….classic.

Steve,

Thanks for a little civility. A good argument should be able to stand on its own without personal attacks (I wish the politicians could also learn that).

ericmonson,

“Is not every member of Al Qaeda in fact AT WAR with the United States?”

The answer to that question is YES, of course. Now, if I may ask one myself:

Is every detainee at GITMO a member of Al Qaeda? If so, how do you know? I’m not taking up for ANY Al Qaeda folks. They should all be imprisoned. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; if we have even one innocent person detained for now over three years we have done an injustice that is un-American. We are a just society. I suspect most of the prisoners are guilty and should be punished (and I don’t think there is any serious torture going on…not after the Iraq prison scandal). We should ensure everyone detained is detained because they truly are the enemy.

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 05:29 PM

With all due respect to those who say the president must have been lying or grossly misinformed, you don’t know much about the nature of intelligence information.

It is always flawed. Not sometimes – always. Think about it this way. We have held a whole trial with Michael Jackson. Investigators have worked for months or years working on this one man. We have the power to cross-examine witnesses. We can search homes, cars and places of business. We have tapes and videos. With all this evidence at our disposal, the jury found him innocent. Would you let your son or grandson spend a night along with the King of Pop? If not, why not? He is an innocent man. What about OJ Simpson? For those of you who oppose the death penalty, is it possible that we have executed innocent men? With all the evidence at our disposal and all the free ability to gather more, we still are not sure.

In the case of Iraq we had none of the advantages we have in the case of Michael Jackson. We had a group of people trying hard to deceive us and these guys were good at their work. We relied on second hand data, because that was all that was available. Yet you all assume that we had perfect knowledge. To this day we don’t know what happened to the WMD. Yet you all are sure that we knew that before (and have now forgotten).

Remember when Pakistan tested its nuke. The whole world was surprised. The intelligence services worldwide were embarrassed. This is the nature of this game, boys and girls. In this climate of uncertainty, you have to minimize that maximum danger. We were wrong about Pakistan. Fortunately, they were not so aggressive.

We could not afford to be wrong about Iraq, so we set the proof standard lower. We gave Saddam no benefit of the doubt. This was perfectly justified. If you don’t know why, I suppose it will take about ten years of study and experience for you to learn. I cant explain it here. Maybe a simple analogy.

You live next door to a violent child molester. He currently is doing no harm, because the authorities are watching him. But he keeps on yelling out the window that he can do what he wants and he will have his revenge. How much benefit of the doubt do you give this guy?

Posted by: jack at June 18, 2005 06:42 PM

The only difference between a Democrat and a Communist is the spelling

Posted by: Norman L Evams at June 18, 2005 06:52 PM

You live next door to a violent child molester. He currently is doing no harm, because the authorities are watching him. But he keeps on yelling out the window that he can do what he wants and he will have his revenge. How much benefit of the doubt do you give this guy?

Excellent analogy.
You’re absolutely correct.
It’s always an educated guess.
Also, Saddam did not want the Iranians to think he was totally disarmed either.

Now, having said that…
We have seen the enemy, and it is us.
We can’t ever hope for anything but chaos until we get off our lazy butts and send a loud and clear message to those few (relatively speaking) with money and power to stop mismanaging everything, and start addressing these very important pressing problems NOW !

Posted by: d.a.n at June 18, 2005 07:04 PM

Norman L. Evans wrote: The only difference between a Democrat and a Communist is the spelling

There’s really no big difference between Democrats and Republicans (based on their track records…not what they spout).
For example:
(1) They both take turns using and abusing the people.
(2) They both never take on tough issues that may risk their re-election.
(3) They both can do one thing very quickly; quicker than anything else, when the time comes: vote themselves a raise … and that’s while everyone else is suffering (like they voted themselves raises while massive layoffs and a recession were in full swing).
(4) They both talk out of both sides of their mouth (just like Pat Paulson).
(5) They both pander and lie and make promises they have no intentions of keeping, just to get re-elected.
(6) They can both look as though they’re doing very hard and complex work (like rocket science), while really providing no net benefit to society.
(7) They both can grow and grow and grow government to nightmare proportions.
(8) They both can skillfully ignore the many pressing problems facing the nation, while appearing to be doing something about it.
(9) They both can vote for more pork-barrel faster than you can say “pork-barrel”.
(10) They both can seduce people by the millions to participate in the petty partisan politicans, labels, name calling, and other divisive tactics to distract the people from the important issues, and the fact that government is rotten, elections are rotten, and government is failing us, the people.
(11) They both can distract the people from the real problem: irresponsible government … while still convincing the people to vote for them again.
(12) They both are experts at deception, lies, obscuring the facts, non-sequiturs, clouding the issues, skirting the issues, being on all sides of the issues, avoiding questions, and talk-talk-talk, while accomplishing nothing.
(13) They both provide no net benefit to society. But they make a handsome living by mastering their professiona as master-cheater-parasites.
(14) They both like to tax and spend as much as possible.
(15) They both like to grow the national debt ever larger, every year, for the last 63 years.
(16) They both like to create perks for themselves, paid by tax payers, that are superior to those received by the tax payers (such as their cu$hy multi-million dollar pensions).
(17) They both don’t know how to create, design, or build things. They like to contract those things out to their buddies (with a kick-back of course).
(18) They both never took or paid any attention to economics in college. That’s obvious.
(19) They both wake up each morning and lie to themselves, and tell themselves how important they are, because they’d probably commit suicide if they really ever faced the truth, and admitted to themselves that they are really low-life-cheater-master-parasites.
(20) They both are skillful at pretending that homeland security is important, while both do nothing to secure the wide-open borders that are trespassed by thousands daily.
(21) They both refuse to punish those that illegally employ illegal trespassers.
(22) They both spend most of their time raising money for their next election. That doesn’t leave any time for doing the work of the people or addressing any of these pressing problems.
(23) They both voted for some questionable items in the Patriot Act that violate the rights of the people. Why not…it won’t affect them…they’re superior and not subject to those scrutinies.
(24) They both are guilty of trying to block access to voting ballots and election debates by independent and third party candidates (e.g. Nader). That’s unconstitutional, but they’re getting away with it, as they limit the choices to just the Republicans and Democrats, as they take turns screwing up the nation.
(25) They both perpetuate the myth that we have a democracy, when we really only have a very extremely limited set of choices (by design).
(26) They both are quite skilled at negative campaigning.
(27) They both reject Election/Campaign Reform and campaign finance reform.
(28) They both fall victim to the “jelly-brain” disease shortly after being elected to office, and forget all of their campaign promises (“read my lips”).
(29) They both reject term limits.
(30) They both look the other way when they see corruption, for fear that their skeletons will be drug out of the closet too.
(31) They both reject transparency, that are needed to lead to accountability and responsibility.
(32) They both really don’t want to get rid of the filibuster; it’s a great time-waster.
(33) They both really don’t want to cut spending; that goes against the plan of growing government ever bigger and bigger.
(34) They both don’t really want to uphold the Constitution. They both violate it when they get a chance.
(35) They both never really plan to pay down the National Debt; it’s already far beyond being helped; it would take centuries to pay off NationalDebt.xls (2.6B).
(36) They both perpetuate the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.
(37) They both (mostly) voted for the war in Iraq and Vietnam.
(38) They both ignore the needs of the truly needy, while simultaneously voting for more pork-barrel, and more raises and perks for themselves, and writing hot checks at the tax payers expense.
(39) They both are arrogant, greedy, corrupt parasites that couldn’t function in society if they ever really had to produce, or do any real work. Their only skills are those typical of any parasite or cancer: living off the life force and hard work of others.
(40) They both revel in the fact that the people are too stupid to do this One-Simple-Thing to restore a balance of power between the people and the government.
________________________________________________
NOTE: I do not mean to denigrate a certain profession, race, class, or level of wealth. I only mean to point out that parasites are attracted to some professions more so than others.
________________________________________________

Posted by: d.a.n at June 18, 2005 08:13 PM

Norman — I’m certainly gratified that you seem to feel we dems are better at spelling than the communists (the benefits of a good public school education, I suppose). =)

Jack — your point about the uncertainty of intelligence is well taken. I can also appreciate your point about how you have to set a lower standard for intervention when you’re dealing with someone like Saddam Hussein. I think the concern that many Dems have (myself included) would go something like this — you only go to war when you absolutely have to. When there is a clear and imminent threat to our safety, war is our only option. That’s why Bush & his advisors pushed the WMD angle as much as they did. Evidence since the 2003 (including the original DSM and subsequent memos) seem to suggest that the Bush administration knew the evidence for WMDs was weak — and was stretching intelligence to make a case for war. In other words, it seems as though they knew there wasn’t this huge, imminent threat from WMDs — and pulled our country into war based on a grudge.

Frankly, it was disturbing to hear Bush say (during the presidential elections) that he would have made the same decision today if he had all of the information he knows today. That suggests that he is willing to go to war absent an imminent threat to the US. It suggests he will go to war based on a grudge rather than on an actual imminent threat to our country. Which makes for a dangerous foriegn policy, IMO.

Posted by: Steve Westby at June 18, 2005 08:22 PM

Steve,

Of course Bush would do it all over again the same way. His kids don’t have to go over there and be in the line of fire.

d.a.n,

WOW! although it was a long post it was accurate. You are truly correct that the difference between the two parties is very little.

Norman,

Although I have had a lot of trouble seeing eye-to-eye with so many issues from this administration, I know that they are doing what they think is best for our country. Trust me when I say this; I think they are wrong. However, I would never say George W. Bush is anti-American simply because we disagree. If you think the dems want to ruin America….grow up! Read d.a.n’s post….there’s not a lot of difference between the two parties at all. The only real difference between the two major parties in America is style and approach. Let’s have adult, rational conversations here where we debate topics. Name calling only inflames the far left or far right. Someone stated earlier: A good argument stands on its own.

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 09:35 PM

Its interesting listening to a bunch of uninformed individuals trying to act informed. If you have never been in the military, don’t pretend you understand squat about detainee’s etc.. If you’ve never been to Gitmo, and until you have, put a lid on it. While most of you were crapping your pants, some of us were defending your right to act stupid. Stop running your mouths until you know the facts.

Posted by: Robert Taylor at June 18, 2005 09:48 PM

I am constantly amazed and bewildered at the references to how the people overseas hates Gitmo. So what? It isn’t something to be revered. It is something to be feared.

Are these same people just as hateful towards the coward terrorists that murder thousands of innocent non-combatants? I wonder if the terrorists care about public opinion.

Liberals wear me out with this malarkey. Gitmo is there because we were attacked by terrorists. It is designed to ferret out terrorists. I suppose we could just ask them if they are terrorists. They seem nice enough. Why would they lie?

As for Gitmo creating terrorists… I can only defer to Ann Coulter’s most recent article on that. Here’s a perfect response from that article:

“Let’s also pause to ponder the image of the middle-of-the-road, “centrist” Jihadist who could be “recruited” to Jihad by reports about abuse at Guantanamo. You know — the kind of guy who just watches al-Jazeera for the sports and hits the “mute” button whenever they start in about the Jews again, already.”

‘nuff said

Posted by: bAp at June 18, 2005 09:52 PM

bAp,

Gitmo has not created terrorist. That’s a ridiculous notion. The invasion of Iraq may have united several terrorist oraganizations, but GITMO has done nothing to increase terrorism. That we agree on.

Robert,

You obviously know the facts. If they aren’t classified please share them with the rest of us. You aren’t the only one defending this country. I’ve lost a loved one in this conflict. The loved one I lost loved his job and thought highly of most of the civilians in Iraq. He also knew some of these civilians were picked up by our own people by mistake. He never told me what happened to them (he may not have known the end result) prior to his death. However, he did tell me some were released after about a year…others he heard nothing about.

He was adamant about detaining or killing those responsible for terrorist acts (as I am). Just because you are in the military please don’t presume the rest of us are ignorant of what goes on. Don’t presume the rest of us haven’t lost someone we loved dearly as a result of this conflict. This is America where we should always ask questions in regards to our own government. If left unchecked our government can be very corrupt.

I, personally, believe that most of the detainees are guilty as hell and deserve to be detained. However, I also know that we have detained folks in the past on false pretenses or by mistake. These folks have families too and, if wrongly detained, have been unjustly treated by our government.

I understand your disgust with some of the rhetoric. Please try to discuss this in a rational manner (I know its hard with some of the comments) and don’t lump all who voice concern into one group.

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 10:12 PM

d.a.n

What? Only 40 similarities? You can do better than that ;P

Posted by: Zeek at June 18, 2005 10:58 PM

Still trying to rehash the 2004 election by dragging out John Kerry quotes? Perhaps you should focus on what Mr. Bush is doing now - in 2005: spinning the wheels of the Federal Government into action to invade Florida and the life of Terry Schiavo, a clinically brain dead woman (autopsy results released last week).

Say what you will about Kerry - he supports personal privacy as real conservatives do, and wouldn’t have supported this type of nonsense.

Your 2004 quote from Kerry is utterly unconvincing in making him soft on terrorism, unless you really believe terrorism can be eliminated. Might as well try to completely eliminate rudeness.

Posted by: Michael at June 18, 2005 11:09 PM

Pray tell me. If Bush lied about WMD’s then Clinton did also. As well as other world leaders who were all talking about Saddam and WMD’s. Saddam had them. Where are they now? Future history will reveal a more telling story. And how do know Saddam had them? News stories abounded about how the Kurds were killed—they were gassed. They were killed en mass. So maybe it is time to put to rest the rhetoric about Bush, Saddam and WMD’s. When the evidence comes forth, maybe in the Saddam trial, who knows, then we can all do a closer inspection of the information.

Posted by: tom at June 18, 2005 11:22 PM

Is it me, or all Lib’s a bunch of crybabies? Seems when confronted
With “truth” they start folding up. Then instead of holding their
Ground, they start name calling. How so? Why? I don’t understand

Posted by: Ted at June 18, 2005 11:25 PM

Bush did not lie about WMD’s. He simply stretched the truth to fit his agenda. A lie, not necessarily. But does it really matter how we got into this mess? What is the path forward?

How about some goals for getting our guys back home. I’m not talking about a date, just some goals. Kind of like every corporate entity makes, like every sports team makes, like most individuals make. I think it’s called plannig.

Let’s plan. Let’s set some target milestones that when achieved we would be able to reduce our forces. Is that asking too much?

Posted by: Tom L at June 18, 2005 11:34 PM

Ted,

Is it me, or all Lib?s a bunch of crybabies?

It’s just you.

Seems when confronted With ?truth? they start folding up

Reality is defined by your perception of it.

Then instead of holding their Ground, they start name calling. How so? Why? I don?t understand

I’m getting tired of generalizations such as this. If you believe there is something that inherently makes a liberal a “name-caller,” please share with the rest of us.

Posted by: Zeek at June 19, 2005 12:21 AM

Eric-
I’m sorry that you are reduced to depending on repackaged Cold War McCarthyism in your discourse. Fellow Travellers. Just like the Republicans in office seem to be unable to grasp a conflict not presented to them in terms of one force against another. Why else do you and they rely so heavily on the idea of Islamofascism? It’s the new communism, the new political bludgeon you can bash political opponents for being “fellow travellers” of.

Truth is, on Gitmo, we just don’t want another Abu Ghraib We don’t want another sickening incident we have to explain to ourselves and others as American.

You trust implicitly that ever captive we have is a terrorist. Oh, good for you. But how do we know any better, though? How can we gauge the effectiveness of this venture. From six hundred captives, only four have been given a day in court.

Is every one of those captives such a font of information? We have to take our governments word on that, and the fact is that the longer these folks remain in Gitmo, the more distant they become from the current organizations.

I’d sure like to keep every real terrorist locked up, or worse, but I can’t be confident that we have only real terrorists there. I can’t be confident that we are only using extreme interrogation methods as needed. I cannot even be certain that my president isn’t hiding another screw-up, in the vain hope that people won’t find this one out, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2005 01:08 AM

Such a line of bullshit. Best you can do?

Posted by: Ted at June 19, 2005 05:14 AM

Ted,

To whom are you referring?

Are you going to provide any useful content? Or are you just going to insult without explanation?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 19, 2005 05:43 AM

Eric,
In your original post you say the gist of why Kerry blew it is the following quote -

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,”

Is this such a terrible thing? The only alternative is permanent war costing endless treasure and lives. What’s so great about that? That quote could have been perceived as an admirable goal - and from the party that is accused of having no goals or optimism. But the conservative pundits wanted no part of that kind of optimism.

We hear the charges alot that liberals hate America and are even glad when the war goes poorly so they can criticize Bush - a pretty harsh charge that puts folks on the defensive.

The charge that we should be hearing more of is that conservative leaders (and therefore by association the conservative followers) are glad 9/11 happenned. They are glad over 3000 died and glad it was innocent civilians. It has ultimately been the tool for consolidating power and the justification for any agenda. Glad - Glad - Glad. How do you like them apples.

By the way, reading through these posts I see the Ann Coulter fan club is alive and well.

Posted by: Tom G at June 19, 2005 08:27 AM

I was informed Bush won reelection by threatening that the Homosexuals are coming. Heh. How the Right Spins its Top. The good news is that with the US locked into an eternal war, Bush can keep his Military Industrial Complex friends happy.

So. When will Operation Iranian Freedom begin?

Posted by: Aldous at June 19, 2005 08:44 AM

The perception is that if terrorists are a “nuisance”, we can pretty much ignore them. We had that preception until 9/11. I don’t think we ever want that again. If the terrorists are there we need to eliminate them.

Posted by: tomd at June 19, 2005 10:42 AM

“We hear the charges alot that liberals hate America and are even glad when the war goes poorly so they can criticize Bush - a pretty harsh charge that puts folks on the defensive.”

That is the preception we get when we NEVER hear anything positive about the US and our troops. All we see is a rant about how the war is going bad, the leaders are doing it wrong, and other stories of doom and gloom. I know most of you don’t approve of the President’s plans, but surely we are doing some things right.

Posted by: tomd at June 19, 2005 10:57 AM

tom d,

“If the terrorists are there we need to eliminate them”

You better be ready for an eternal elimination process. Modern terrorism has been around for decades and decades. I don’t see its elimination, only it reduction. I do agree with you that we should hunt known terrorist and take them out. It would be stupid not to.

“All we see is a rant about how the war is going bad, the leaders are doing it wrong, and other stories of doom and gloom.”

Well, there is an awful lot to be doom and gloom about. Firstly, our budget deficit is rising faster than google stock while we are at war and enjoying one of the largest tax cuts in our short history. I know the trickle down theory and it may be legitimate….to an extent. During war time we need to sacrifice and if that means slightly higher taxes then I’ll do my part (I mean besides riding around with my “support our troops” magnet). We want our cake and to eat it too. Tax cuts at war time….hmmm. The prescription drug plan this administration passed, in my opinion for votes, cost nearly 50% more than the data originally given to congress. We have passed the largest farm subsidy in history, government is growing leaps and bounds, We’re too busy worrying about homosexual marriage to worry about PORC spending or education. Speaking of education the administration passed a plan which I somewhat agreed with and then underfunded it by an enormous amount. Typical government though, mandating what our states should do without providing adequate funding. While we are on the states topic: they have been mandated to incorporate NCLB, election reform, homeland security acts, and pick up more and more of healthcare cost….ALL (withe exception of NCLB…which was funded a little) without funding. The states have in turn been forced to raise taxes and cut services. We have entered Iraq and quite obviously do not have an exit plan…still. A few goals for troop reduction would be nice. Not dates, mind you, simply goals. It has been a while since one party is in power in the executive and all legislative branches. When things go wrong they should be ready for a little criticism. I expected a lot of reduced government and a reduction in spending from the GOP. I actually hoped for it (as a fiscal conservative)….they have not and probably will not deliver. There’s really not a lot of difference in the two parties except on a social agenda….then only the extremes have huge differences.

Now that I have ranted I will also give cudos where cudos are due. His original tax cuts did help us recover from a recession. The administration is responsible for the Patriot Act which helps keep us safe, He has been forced to deal with our intelligence situation and has begun progress and plans to improve it, he has been at the forefront at getting Europe to help us with terrorism (although I think 9/11 helped persuade them too). Although I may not agree with his approach he has decided to tackle the tough issue of social security BEFORE it becomes a crisis (I think he should have started with Medicaide/Medicare which will bankrupt sooner, but one problem at a time…right?). The environmental data shows the environment to be cleaner (although I think the data is skewed somewhat due to some pollutants being removed from the list, I would still think its not any worse off….an accomplishment in my opinion).

So, there. Criticism and congrats. Sure there is more criticism than congrats but, like I said, there’s plenty to criticise. I’m not blind to GWB accomplishments. However, I’ll also not stick my head in the sand when we could do much better. I never thought I would see the day when the budgets were positive and the federal debt wasn’t ballooning under a democratic watch while doing the exact 100% opposite under a Republican watch. I really expected GWB to be strong domestically and weak in his foreign agenda. He has been forced into a foreign agenda by terrorist. I don’t agree with the war on Iraq but I whole-heartedly agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan. Now that we are in Iraq I agree with GWB that we must stay until there is a stable government.

Sorry to talk so long.

Posted by: Tom L at June 19, 2005 11:59 AM

tomd writes:
‘That is the preception we get when we NEVER hear anything positive about the US and our troops.’
Are you serious - there has been nothing but praise for the military from all media and all politicians of both parties since this began. Yes, high level decision makers have been hammered but they should be able to stand up for themselves. We should expect better leadership if we want to get it. The only ones to be forced to be charged with any wrongdoing is a few low rank soldiers with regard to prison scandals. I guess they are the only ones to make mistakes

Posted by: Tom G at June 19, 2005 12:16 PM

Aldous wrote,

“I was informed Bush won reelection by threatening that the Homosexuals are coming. Heh. How the Right Spins its Top. The good news is that with the US locked into an eternal war, Bush can keep his Military Industrial Complex friends happy.”

Aldous, I realize that you have incredible sources of information. Maybe you could reveal the name of your informant who passed the information that Bush was threatening that the homosexuals were coming. I understand that you have rights not to do so under the Constitution so I understand if you wish the source to remain anonymous.

Is the implication then that 53% of the population is anti-homosexual?

Posted by: steve smith at June 19, 2005 01:07 PM

David R.:

>>Talk about your moral relativism. Otto above defends torture as long as it is milder than that which our enemies participate in.

Okay, so in a scenario, the two of us are prisoners. I’m being sleep deprived and having my religion ridiculed. You’re being disemboweled after watching your father shot and your wife gang raped. So let’s have a discussion about how my ‘torture’ and ‘suffering’ is the same as yours. I’ll live comfortably with my moral relativism long before I ever admit that there’s a similarity between unpleasantness and brutality.

Come on David, what do you think happens to these people? Do they get picked up on the battlefield and then given manicures and facials and cable tv (close, but not quite). They should be in a dank and dark cell without access to religious materials or specially prepared ethnic foods, they should be interrogated to the full extent that international law will allow, they should be tried before a military tribunal and if required, they should be shot. Anyone crying for the closing of Guantanmo has to understand that execution will be the faith for many of these people. Should we speed things up?

I just can’t believe that people (and assumed Americans) would go so far out of their way to the point where it’s ridiculous to criticize American policies and procedures in a war where the enemy has NO RULES. I hate to break it to you but these prisoners down in the Cuban Camp Cupcake are more or less in a resort compared even to our own domestic prisoners, most of who have not killed or attempted to kill as many Americans as they can before being captured. Why not spend your passion on them instead?

Just because you, in your mind, can equate them, doesn’t make them equal. Which kind of goes back to the intent of the original poster on this board.

Zeek:

>>Honestly, I don’t care. It’s Saddam. Even if they caught him handing out candy and flowers to children and beat him with hickory sticks I wouldn’t gaive a damn.

But the point I was making was that some of us here apparently are willing to believe everything we hear from the mouths of prisoners and enemy combatants and foreign media sources with counter-American agendas and not even consider the possibility that it could be BS. Why is that?

>>But I thought it would be good to point out that the U.S. has staged a war before and fooled the American people (see Operation PBSUCCESS).

Here you are talking about covert operations (guess what - they are still going on today). I understand that not everything we see in the media is true or accurate or timely, but why am I having arguments with people who won’t apply the same scrutiny and distrust to the anti-American propoganda, media and accusations by prisoners and enemy combatants?

>>The “real-time accounts” could have been fake (I’m not saying they necessarily were) and the pictures could have been take after he was captured. Again, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it is possible.

Multiple choice: A) Saddam is telling the truth, or B) Saddam is lying! Take your time.

Go watch ‘Wag the Dog’ again. Seriously, you are questioning the US military and the US media at the words of one of the most horrible living human beings in the world (or at least the words of his lawyer). This is the same Saddam Hussein who denied that the Americans were closing in on Baghdad and was publicly predicting victory (though he barely had a military left at that point) merely hours before we entered the city. I suppose you question whether we’re actually even in Baghdad, because it could all be staged and Saddam could be telling the truth…

Posted by: OttO at June 19, 2005 01:20 PM

Tom L,

Is every detainee at GITMO a member of Al Qaeda? If so, how do you know?

Well, I got my Time Magazine yesterday and was reading about the 20th highjacker. From the article it sounds like this is one of the guys Durbin was referring to when he talked about chaining to the floor and urinate or deficate on themselves. This guy was at the airport like Mohammed Atta, but one alert agent wouldn’t let him on the plane. He subsequently left the US (after 9/11) and was caught in Afghanistan fighting US soldiers.

THey held him or weeks before they found out who he was. He wouldn’t talk. Now, if the left had it’s way we would have had to charge him or let him go.

Posted by: ericsimonson at June 19, 2005 01:33 PM

Stephen,

Funny thing is, McCarthy was right, wasn’t he? Take a look at the organizations on the left. They are communist. Who organized ALL of the domestic protests of the war in the US? International ANSWER. A known marxist group. They admit it freely! Wake up dude.

I give you the benefit of the doubton some of these issues, Stephen. You have been consistent in saying you want to be tough on terrorism, and go all the way when we do use military force. But the truth is that if the left had it’s way we would not be fighting any kind of war. We would be apologizing for our imperialism and our afluence. The example Durbin used was no doubt this guy, the 20th hijacker. You tell me how long we should hold him?

Posted by: ericsimonson at June 19, 2005 01:52 PM

Eric, the answer is simple. We bring charges against him, and the hold him as long as necesarry. I think we have plenty of evidence to incarcaret Qhatami. Let’s provide it. No one here has said that you don’t jail criminals. No one here objects to life in prison. What we object to is incarcaretion without charges, and using inappropriate methods to interrogate prisoners (like forcing them to urinate on themselves). Qhatami is scum, certainly, but our nation is a nation of justice, not vengeance.

As Teddy Roosevelt said: No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.

And from an article I just read:

Let’s remember that in 1943, at a time of very clear and present danger to the UK, far in excess of the current threat we face now from al-Qaida, Winston Churchill decided to release Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who had been interned in conditions that the Guantanamo detainees would find luxurious, since the start of the war. Churchill, hardly a woolly liberal, had become increasingly uneasy about the principle of detaining people, even Nazi sympathisers like Mosley, without trial. He wrote to the then Home Secretary “ the power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian government.”

Posted by: Julia at June 19, 2005 02:50 PM

Julia, thank you. I did not know that about that piece of history, and what a prominently wise piece of history it is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2005 03:58 PM

ericmonson,

“THey held him or weeks before they found out who he was. He wouldn’t talk. Now, if the left had it’s way we would have had to charge him or let him go.”

Three weeks may be a bit short to hold someone while searching for evidence. However, if you don’t have any after three years? I’m not saying shut down GITMO or free them all. I’m saying after three years we sure as hell ought to be able to try them and, if guilty shoot them or continue to detain them. BUT we may find we knabbed some dude for, well, nothing….and held him for three years. Accidents happen. Maybe there isn’t anyone at GITMO that is innocent…but maybe there is.

and you still didn’t answer the question I had asked and you re-quoted:

Is every detainee at GITMO a member of Al Qaeda? If so, how do you know?

Posted by: Tom L at June 19, 2005 04:10 PM

Otto, sorry, I just can’t buy the argument that you and many conservatives make that the only way to defeat evil is to become evil oneself. It is the most illogical, irrational, and self-defeating (as the world’s reaction to American abuse is proving) line of thinking possible.

Why conservatives can’t see reality and learn from it is beyond me. Our abuse of prisoners has done more harm to us and our foreign policy than anything terrorists have done to their own image. The reason is simple. The world doesn’t expect civilized behavior from terrorists - BUT it does expect it from us. So when terrorists commit torture, the world simply reacts by saying well, they must be stopped. But, when the US commits torture, the world reacts with shock and concern and fear that the hope for mankind is taking us all down the road to lawlessness.

It is reality. Just read the news. It is self-defeating for us to relinquish civilized behavior in dealing with uncivilized terrorist actors. The US cannot maintain a war on terrorism when US opinion of our activities turns against the leaders of that war. And that is what is happening.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2005 04:11 PM

Stephen Daugherty
Before I proceed any further with other comments, I would like a definition of McCarthyism. People use that phrase loosely and many times don’t know anything about the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI)

Posted by: tom at June 19, 2005 04:35 PM

OttO,

Why is that?

Why the hell are you asking me? Do I sound like one of those people to you?

but why am I having arguments with people who won’t apply the same scrutiny and distrust to the anti-American propoganda, media and accusations by prisoners and enemy combatants?

If you look really close you can actually see I didn’t credit any anti-American propoganda as the truth. I am merely saying some of them are valid accusations that should be investigated.

I suppose you question whether we’re actually even in Baghdad, because it could all be staged and Saddam could be telling the truth…

You suppose wrong then.

Seriously, you are questioning the US military and the US media at the words of one of the most horrible living human beings in the world (or at least the words of his lawyer).

Yes, and the military and media are known for being such angels. Give me a break. By the way, I never said I believed Saddam’s account of what happened. I just said it wasn’t impossible.

Posted by: Zeek at June 19, 2005 04:55 PM

David,
“It is reality. Just read the news.”
If we could believe the news, we wouldn’t need blogs.

I’ve been reading all the posts and the part that realy surprises me is the constant rehash of years old information - stuff that has been picked apart, discussed, argued and disected.

How about a good discussion of how to stop the terrorists, how to help the Iranian people, how to finish up in Afganistan, how to improve intellegence gathering, etc….? And the biggest question of all—— how to stop the bickering and backstabbing of Americans by Americans?

We have basically a two party system. We elect every 4 years. The office of the President is held by the person who gets the most votes. If your guy didn’t win, you still should respect the office and the position. Slamming a guy for trying to do one of the hardest jobs in the world is counter-productive and only creates dissent. Maybe it is naive, but I really believe that simple civility would go a long way towards having opposing opinions heard and discussed. Name calling and insults only make people look stupid and not worthy of consideration.

Think about it.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 19, 2005 07:25 PM

Eric, your posts never fail to satisfy my expectations. The right has its own “dark hypocracy” here - if you’re so certain that accusations of torture are hurting America, how come you repeat them over and over again at the top of your voices? since when is being better than Hitler and Stalin in terms of numbers of prisoner deaths a cause for American pride? Rob, how can you support locking people up without and sort of trial or tribunal for years, how can you support the same sort of naked-guys-on-a-leash psychological abuse that disgusted us all in the Abu Ghraib photos, and then say “only Americans can destroy America” without even a hint of irony?

Just one word of caution for all of you: you may trust that Dubya wouldn’t have prisoners “swept up in a ‘Nazi style’ round up”, but at this point, that’s all it comes down to - trust. There’s no due process, there’s no appeals. Would you trust Hillary Clinton the same way, if she were president? would you want Dean to have the same powers?

The US should be a government of laws, not men, of checks and balances, not absolute power - it should never come down to “trust” in the government to not abuse its powers.

Posted by: William Cohen at June 19, 2005 07:53 PM

BTW, Eric, a discussion of the number of deaths of US prisoners appeared in The Nation. Nobody knows, but the number suspected to be homicide or abuse-related is reported variously from 6 to 28 - none, as you say, from Gitmo.

Posted by: William Cohen at June 19, 2005 08:00 PM

Jennifer,

Then start practicing simple civility and stop saying things like this: “Liberals like to expose every wart or blemish. Why don’t they use their energy to help find the terrorists, the criminals, the enemy and help to end the war and terrorism? Because they would have to admit that more than 50%of the voting population of this country were right - a liberal would have sold us out and we would be in a worse mess than now. Yes, we are in a mess, but at least the conservatives are trying to fight evil instead of inviting it into our homes. “

Is this raising the level of discourse?

Also, your claims that the liberals were the reason Saddam remained in power in 1991 is specious. George Bush Sr, Colin Powell, and the kings of Saudi Arabia were the decision makers then. And, I believe their main concerns were that the region might implode, not the human rights of Saddam Hussein.

You are right, civil discourse is important. On this thread, liberals have been called Marxists, Communists, and crybabies. The liberal side has said that conservative verbage is McCarthysitic in tone, and mocked the use of all capitals. That’s the score right now.

Since this thread is on the subject of Gitmo,the comments should stick to Gitmo, and not stray to other issues. Although, I would also like to discuss other issues.

As for what is at hand:

I personally think the language that democratic senators and liberal organizations have used, as referenced by Eric above, is wrong. Dick Cheney shouldn’t curse on the Senate floor and call people nazis (as he has), and neither should Dick Durbin. Amnesty shouldn’t say that Gitmo is a gulag.

Now, as for the actual content of the discussion from watchblog readers here, the “liberal” side has continued to re-state the same thing:

Rumsfeld himself has corroborated the treatment of Qhatami, which involved forcing Qhatami to urinate on himself and sexually humiliating him. 520 individuals remain incarcarated, and three years later, we are waiting for evidence to be released providing a reason for their incarcaration.

Again, as Churchill said: “the power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian government.”

And if Churchill didn’t force Oswald Mosley to urinate on himself, then we shouldn’t force Qhatami to urinate on himself.

I would love to debate you on the issues, and raise the dialogue on this forum. Let’s start now.

Posted by: Julia at June 19, 2005 09:19 PM

Nicely stated Julia. Kudos!

Kudos to Jennifer too. I’ve posted things in the past that are a bit harsh. She was trying to get the discussion going in the same direction as you, I think.

Due process…after three years it should be allowed. If guilty then detain them longer or shoot them. DUE PROCESS

Posted by: Tom L at June 19, 2005 09:54 PM

{[ But, as I said before, this isn’t about the Gitmo prisoners. This is about us. How far are we willing to sink to win this “war”? How many of our ideals are we willing to risk to defeat the terrorists?
America is the greatest country on this planet. If we want to stay that way, we have to be vigilant. We’re the strongest nation on the planet. Nobody else has the power to come fix our problems — we have to police ourselves.
Remember, before Hitler, there was a democracy in Germany. That democracy fell, and Hitler came to power, because the people weren’t vigilant. I’m not suggesting that Bush is Hitler — he’s far from it. But we will not remain the greatest nation on earth simply by assuming that we always will be. We have to constantly examine our own actions.
Only Americans can destroy America.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 18, 2005 11:59 AM }}

Well said, Rob

Because the News media finds it necessary to sensationalize all of our country’s faults and even our elect