Third Party & Independents: Archives

And yet conservatives on on TV and radio saying that Rumsfeld cannot be replaced because we NEED the continuity during the war on terror. That replacing him would cause too much of a disruption. Well, then what’s going to happen next January when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are voted out of office?

Is it only a matter of time before Bush demands he be made Emperor—oops I mean President—for life because to have a change in administration during the war on terrorism (which they’ve already stated will go on for decades) would be detrimental?

Amazing. How many massive innaccuracies and untruths can be combined in four brief paragraphs? Heck, how many can be combined in four brief words? Let’s start and end with those, or we’ll be here all day.

Exhibit A: “systematic torture and murder”

The only word there that isn’t false is “and.”

“systematic”: So you’re saying that humiliating prisoners is official policy, that all soldiers instead of just a few are guilty? That’s what “systematic” would have to mean. This is a claim not even Democrats are making—because it’s plainly false and grossly insulting to our servicemen and women.

“torture”: This comes the closest to intersecting with reality (if only briefly). Sexual embarrasment probably is closer to torture for radical women-and-gay-hating Islamicists than it would be for most people, but using the word “torture”—when real torture is going on in prisons throughout the world—cheapens the word.

“murder”: Leaving aside the fact that if “murder” took place, it was not systematic, there HAVE been a few killings alleged which are being duly investigated. “Murder” is a legal finding that has yet to be determined. If a prisoner dies in American custody, it is only leftist wishful thinking that jumps to the conclusion, without a trial, that the individuals in question were murdered. Many in American custody were wounded in battle. At least two of the killings being investigated occurred (according to the accused) during prison uprisings. Who knows the truth? If anybody’s guilty of murder, let’s punish them—but lets not start talking about “systematic murder” quite yet, even if doing so scores a few cheap political points against the hated enemy Bush.

V. Edward:

I have to take exception to some of what you say, since of course you said it in such an over the top manner.

Let me first say, though, that if the reports of abuse are corroborated and found to be true, then those involved should be punished to the full liimit of military law. In other words, innocent until proven guilty, but if proven guilty, throw the book—-no throw the whole library—at them.

But lets also put this whole sordid episode into context:

You make it sound as if the prisoners are meekly going about their confinement, offering little resistance or trouble to the soldiers guarding them. Yet, your own link shows the following statement: “These prisoners were throwing bricks and hitting soldiers and causing bodily harm, so the guys did have the right to take them down and they did,”. And you call any retaliation to be “murder” or “torture”.

Face it, there is a reasonable amount of force that must be expended to keep prisoners in line. These abuses certainly went over the top, but so did you in your calculated portrayal of this as systematic etc.

We cannot as Americans excuse bad behavior on the part of any of our citizens, especially those in military situations such as this. Yet we also should not blindly look to blame anything—everything—-on the administration in an attempt to topple it. We should hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and remember that in many countries, these actions would not be considered torture, but would fly beneath the radar as normal.

V. Edward, I think it’s a very sloppy broad brush to say that all Republicans agree with each other all the time, and demand a reader suspend the urge to smirk when you claim only Democrats are able to think for themselves. Both binary partisan fanatical factions of today’s ONE party system try to get their members to march in lock-step, and the measure to which they do so is a measure of the success of their internal propaganda measures. The universal outcry of Democrats against any and every action by Bush (as a thinly-veiled measure of payback for when Republicans were doing the same to Clinton), if it ISN’T lock-step, it’s not for lack of trying.

Blips:
“Is it only a matter of time before Bush demands he be made Emperor—oops I mean President—for life because to have a change in administration during the war on terrorism (which they’ve already stated will go on for decades) would be detrimental?”

Rhetoric like this is how the Democrats continually shoot themselves in the foot. The suspension of reason it takes to accept as fact that Bush wants to be “emporer for life” is not one typically carried out by average Americans, and it only makes the protagonist of such a theory look silly, hysterical, and not fit to formulate policy for the most militarily powerful nation in the world. It’s the “scream syndrome” that got Howard Dean knocked out—even though Dean would probably have been a much better candidate than Kerry.

When Democrats settle the hell down and talk like a normal human being, they tend to make a lot of sense and get listened to. When the print media, a lockstep march against the President if I’ve ever seen one, methodically disassembles the excuses and backpedaling and outright lies of the administration used to cover up its incompetence, that is where Democrat rubber meets the road. When radio personalities like Ed Schultz try to be the anti-Rush and squeal at the top of their lungs that George Bush is the Antichrist, they put themselves at the same exact level of the “vast right wing conspiracy” that did the same thing to Clinton, and by stooping to that level, lose all credibility. And no, that wasn’t what got Bush elected either. It was a combination of Al Gore’s lackluster personality and a bunch of hanging chads. On the right wing side, it would have helped the right wing cause if talk radio had been a little more normal and reasonable and cerebral in its approach. A lot more Bill Bennett, a lot less Michael Savage.

Martin—

I think you are being far too emotional about this…and it only goes to prove the central thesis…

Joebagodonuts—

Under International law we (the United States) have a duty of care to the prisoners in our care, regardless of whether or not they riot. I am not stating or course that U.S. soldiers do not have a right to defend themselves if threatened with bodily harm, but I would be willing to bet that most of the prisoners who dies in our care did so under suspect circumstances. That is a War crime!

Considering the number of prisoners taken, if there is a “systematic” approach to killing them and only 25 are dead, something is severely inefficient in that system. Again, the nuclear rhetoric of the leftward faction of the binary hysterical partisan party ruling America, just blows up in their own faces.

Taking a deep breath and clearing the mind’s internal dialogue before foaming at the mouth, is severely in order if the opposition has designs on being a true opposition.

I think, V. Edward, that I’m far from the only one, even on this thread, questioning your reasoning here. And anyhow, I am totally devoid of emotion—Karl Rove didn’t write emotion into my program.

Ciggy,

Only 25 killed…how many would the number have to climb to before the behavior rose to the level warranting a label of systematic? Or are we stating that all the deaths were justified in some form or fashion?

V. Edward:

Your statement (“I am not stating or course that U.S. soldiers do not have a right to defend themselves if threatened with bodily harm, but I would be willing to bet that most of the prisoners who dies in our care did so under suspect circumstances. That is a War crime!”)shows your partisanship. How interesting that you are already presuming our soldiers to be torturers AND murderers. You assume “suspect circumstances” in the event of “most” deaths, yet there is no evidence to support that.

Its clear that you have once again prejudged the situation and found the US lacking in its standards. I’m glad you are not part of the actual judicial system, though the trials would be much shorter since you apparently dont need any of the hullabaloo the rest of us call fact based trials.

V. Ed, as i said before, if they are found guilty under the US military scope of law, then they should be punished, and harshly. But lets not jump to those partisan conclusions simply because they might help your candidate. That would be venal.

V. Edward, “systematic” states there is a “system” in place with a purpose for killing them. If there is such a system, then any prisoners left alive would represent an inefficiency of said system. Perhaps there really is such a system and every time they hold a firing squad, they miss—all but 25 of the 3,500+ stationary targets? Are you really that critical of our soldiers’ marksmanship?

I would say that if you back away from the hysterical and present facts, people like me for whom partisan faction loyalty is meaningless (often called “swing voters” in political punditry) might just take notice. Otherwise it’s difficult to do anything other than dismiss it as partisan blather striking again.

Ciggy, Martin—

Perhaps “systematic” was the wrong word to use in the when speaking of the 25 deaths, but the torture of prisoners was wide spread and not confined to Abu Ghraib.

V. Edward, I feel a need to get more detailed and specific and say that while there is no “systematic” murder or extermination of prisoners, I do think that there is systemic torture being carried out, after watching the Committee hearing today and reading the contents of the Taguba report online, and the accidental result of some of those tortures is, in fact, death. One MP reported that the CIA was “stressing out” one of the prisoners all night long, to where the prisoner died of what appeared to be heart failure, stroke or some other traumatic reaction to the stress and abuse. “Fortunately” for everyone involved, according to the report, the prisoner had not yet been processed into the facility, so the CIA stuck an IV bag in his arm and wheeled him around as if they were trying to treat him for an illness, and faked up reports as to the cause of death.

As I’ve said on some of the other threads on this same topic, CIA is rotted to the core as far as I’m concerned, and the MI field of the Army has problems too. And certain individual MPs didn’t display the sort of courage that their fellow MPs did when their fellows refused to go along with this treatment of prisoners. Nobody was disciplined for NOT mistreating prisoners—the interrogators just shifted their requests to other MPs would WOULD do it, and gave them words of encouragement for it. That encouragement wasn’t exactly an insurmountable force against which those MPs couldn’t push back.

In a nutshell, I’d pretty much echo what John McCain’s been saying, and also echo the questions he’s been asking.

As this debacle continues to unfold, there is one thing that can aptly be described as ‘systematic’- the choruses of denials, finger pointing, scapegoating and lack of accountability. As long as there is non-culpability, everyone enjoys plausible denial.

This was at the root of Sen. McCain’s obvious impatience with Rumsfeld today. This is the soldier holding the leash on the cover of the Washington Post claiming just bad timing.

By this point, the breakdown within the chain of command should’ve been identified, assessed blame and hiring counsel - but, this is not Clinton’s military anymore.

If Edward’s take is over the top, then the Republican’s reaction has been caustic, flippant and disengenious. Go to Townhall.com and try to guage the level of outrage from Conservatives - it’s non-existent.

As I sit and watch our nation law makers speak about the broadening scandal, one word is on everyone’s lips: systemic, systemic, systemic…I will leave you to draw your own conclusion on what this means.

I believe that what makes my ire rise so high concerning this issue, is the fact that our honor as a nation, our moral standing, leadership, and creditability around the world is at stake, is in question, is under attack. Since the Bush Administration has taken office our cache of good will around the world has suffered almost incalculable harm from the unilateral stances—informed by arrogance—this President and his neo-conservative advisors have taken on almost every issue, from global warming, to the International Criminal Court, to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Children to the ill-advised War in Iraq.

And now this…this total disregard for the tenets of International Law, and basic human rights is unforgivable from a nation that holds high the principles of the Constitution, and claims the moral authority of Christianity, informed by the Holy Bible, as its own.

It is becoming increasingly hard to hold my head up as an American and state that I proud of what my country stands for and what its leaders are doing in my name. I admit that I am passionate about the principles that form the foundational integrity of our Republic, and for that I offer no apologies. Our American experiment, I feel is failing; not because it was ill-conceived and its principles lacking in veracity, but because the fair majority of the citizenry has ceased to take an active role in the process. That lack of attention saddens me and leads me to fear for the future of our nation if that fire is not rekindled…

Bert, conservatives are closing ranks out of reflex the way liberals often did around Clinton during his scandals. It’s nothing new. It’s all “my side versus your side” these days. The core values don’t really matter anymore, to either side. It’s all political points.

It’s true that there was a breakdown in the chain of command in the Intelligence field, and it’s a subtle one: MI would “suggest and request” and some MPs would comply, and some wouldn’t. The ones that would comply, they got rewarded by MI with good words to their commanders about how great they are, etc. If one were to play the “what did they know and when did they know it” game up the MI chain of command, the buck would probably stop probably at some level just outside the Pentagon itself. Probably some Intel commander out in the field thought it would be a good Rambo way of getting information. That one head rolling will probably do the trick, but it will take extensive Congressional and military review to get to that one head, I think.

The problem with making heads roll at too high a level is that their replacements leave people in place where they are in the chain of command, and the problem commanders at the lower operational levels stay and continue to have an adverse effect on national strategic objectives. The only way a Rumsfeld resignation could actually fix things would be if every commander down the MI chain also got fired. Not a bad idea, actually, for the career opportunities of those not currently in charge, but you’d have to go there to make it work.

CIA is another matter. It seems ever since Operation Paperclip, they’ve just been accumulating bad apples.