President Bush’s credibility is on the line Tuesday night when he addresses the American people about the war in Iraq.
Administration officials have recently offered conflicting reports about military progress against the Iraqi insurgents, with Vice President Dick Cheney saying the insurgency is in its “last throes,” an assessment flatly contradicted by top Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said Sunday that it could take up to 12 years to defeat the insurgency, and that Iraqi troops, not Americans, would have to finish the job.
In his speech, President Bush should avoid rosy rhetoric and give the American people an honest, blunt assessment about what U.S. troops are up against and what it will take to defeat the insurgency.
posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
70 Comments
Randy, President Bush doesn’t have any credibility, so therefore he has nothing to lose. Once again he may get some new tag-alongs from whatever his handlers have concocted for him to say this time, and it should be entertaining to watch him look us straight in the eye and lie again. He’s currently spending $50,000,000 on new prisons in Iraq, so he’ll be telling us to “stay the course” or some such soldier-killing-nonsense.
Let’s count the number of times he uses the misnomer “terrorism.” {the bait of the trap}
Bush is a little more than just a few cards short of a deck. If he wasn’t, the Israelis would be back on their side of the green-line, devoid of nuclear weapons, and a viable Palestinian State would be flourishing. The Middle East would be a peaceful place, and we could be busy solving our domestic problems with whatever is left in our treasury.
Since 1973 Israel has cost America 1.6 trillion dollars, not billion, but trillion. {reference Christian Science Monitor}..{ I don’t have the figures from 1945-1972}
And exactly how has that expense benefited the United States?
I think it’s time to face the fact that we have a moronic “Howdy Doody” running our country. He has no credibility on Iraq with me and in my opinion with anyone with half a brain. He has lied and he has betrayed this nation. He sent soldiers to die in a war that didn’t need to be fought. His administration blurred the line between Saddam and Osama intentionally to rally the average American to support the war. He lied about weapons of mass destruction, he lied about when the decision to go to war was made, and most of all he lied when he played flyboy on the aircraft carrier. “Major combat operations in Iraq are over”, my a**!
I just hope that the Democrats retake the House in 2006, so that this particular cabal of Republicans can be shown what the impeachment process is really supposed to be about.
I can’t believe anybody is still using the words Bush, honest, and credibility in the same paragraph.
I believe he is always giving to us straight!
To Ed and Nicki:
It is people like you two who are so consumned with hatred for President Bush, that you suck up the liberal propaganda (from Randy )like kool-aide.
Bush is dumb like a fox, and is happy to have you think that he is a dolt. Your boy Kerry was the one who is a few crayons short of a box.
Palestine has no hope for a flourishing state – ever – because they are neither a country and are from a stone aged culture that has no hope of success in the modern world. Their own Arab brothers will have nothing to do with them.
The Bush lied, people died line is so pathetic. How about Teddy lied, Mary Jo died.
Finally, the dims have no hope for taking control of the house and senate. While this blog spot may be populated with stars-in-their-eyes dims who hope upon hope for the old days, more Americans see the dims for who they are. Out of ideas, obstructionist, soft on defense, America haters, people who would rather save a tree and let a baby die.
Reply if you want, but I have nothing more to say to you two losers.
I agree with Nola, Nicki and Ed. Bush may be “giving it to us straight” as Joe says, but it’s because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Neither do his minions. We’ve been lied to, taken advantage of, and flat-out betrayed by the Bush administration and his far right buddies. It makes me sick.
Oh boy, another speech by GW. I can’t decide if he’s a liar, or just that dumb. I guess if tonight’s story doesn’t work, he can come up with another one next month. The repugs will believe anything he says anyway. As you say, “drink the koolaid”.
Bugger, I’m a Texas conservative who believes that free enterprise can generate enough wealth to solve problems, shrink government size and interference and take care of those less fortunate. I’m not a democrat. With a name like “Bugger” I’d either change it, or blow my nose.
Bottom line is America had a clear choice last November between W and Kerry (he served in Vietnam in case you didn’t know). With a clear majority both electorally and in the popular vote, Americans wisely chose George W Bush (surely only in part because he had better grades at Yale than Kerry). Deal with it.
I just thought it was kind of fishy that these two stories appeared today in the A.P.
“June Consumer Confidence Gains Momentum”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050628/ap_on_bi_ge/economy
and
“Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq ”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050628/pl_washpost/survey_finds_most_support_staying_in_iraq
I guess the conservative media has to help Bush out tonight.
Also
Bugger,
We who dont agree with Bush/GOP do NOT HATE AMERICA!!
We dont hate soldiers, we dont hate babies, we dont hate christians.
I think we are more concerned about where the U.S. is going and how we will be percieved in the 21st century. Right now the outlook is bleak. I feel very uneasy right now, and do not feel comfortable in the country I live in.
Please understand that we have legititmate reasons for questioning what is going on with this administration.
If you do not realize this then I say
GOD BLESS
If Americans knew the truth about what George W. Bush had intended to do once in the presidency, he would not have been elected. He barely rode into office on his father’s name. Example: Could he come close to being elected today? Of course not. He would face a resounding defeat. We should petition his resignation as soon as possible.
Randy, The time has come to at least pose the Question: Should George W. Bush tender his resignation? {Richard Nixon resigned for lessor reasons}
Good job Randy. You are great at attracting the Anti crowd.
On the issue of credibility, has anybody noticed that we haven’t had any “Orange” or higher security alerts since November? I don’t trust anything Bush says. Tonight, all the good little Republicans will tune in to hear their Great Leader, and the Dems will tune in for more reasons to blast him. Republicans: your man is a sham and a liar. Dems: If you can’t do better than Kerry or Hilary, get used to being loosers. As far as I’m concerned, both parties have hit the bottom. We need a third choice, and not that loonie Nader.
First let me say that I am not an “America Hater”..I do hate what this country is becoming however and President Bush and those like him are greatly to blame. Democrats are not soft on defense…lets remember who’s watch 9/11 was allowed to happen on and who’s party screamed “wag the dog” when Clinton tried to retaliate for the Cole bombing.
The truth is this war was nothing but a big money grab by friends of the President.
And yes the electorate did have a clear choice last November….but lets not forget that we had terror warnings everytime the poll numbers got to close to terrify people into voting for Bush (where are all those warnings now?). Also keep in mind that all of Ohio’s votes were counted on machines owned by a man who said that it would be his pleasure to deliver the electoral votes to the President. So don’t give me the “get over it” argument….Republicans sure didn’t get over it when Clinton was undeniably elected twice!
And I do not hate babies or wish for them to die…I just put a greater importance on caring for those that are already here than I do the ones that aren’t.
“Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism” Thomas Jefferson….to bad more don’t realize it.
Nicki, Not to fear. just remember that when Bush goes to the doctor and the doctor looks into one ear, you can walk around to the other-side, look into the other ear and see the doctor’s eye-ball. {That’s not possible, of course, unless the Zionist’s batteries have been removed}. Now cheer-up.
Well Bush did not give it to us straight. I suffered through yet another of his trite, infrequent, (thankfully I think) rah rah speeches. Same old blah blah 911 blah war on terror blah blah stay the course blah blah fight-em-there not here blah blah bringing freedom blah blah blah.
What I was waiting for was a progress report on getting those weapons of mass distraction, er I mean destruction. I mean that was the reason given to the American people and the world at large for our need to invade Iraq. I think the words “imminent threat” were bandied about quite a bit too. But tonight there was no qualification for these things. No there was no explanation as to how our pre-war intelligence could have been so wrong, or manipulated. And of course it could never be admitted that the reasons given for the Iraqi war might have been simply invented….for whatever purpose, noble or most likely not. The justification for war is now simply the war itself, for whatever purpose; noble or most likely not.
Well Bush did not give it to us straight. I suffered through yet another of his trite, infrequent, (thankfully I think) rah rah speeches. Same old blah blah 911 blah war on terror blah blah stay the course blah blah fight-em-there not here blah blah bringing freedom blah blah blah.
What I was waiting for was a progress report on getting those weapons of mass distraction, er I mean destruction. I mean that was the reason given to the American people and the world at large for our need to invade Iraq. I think the words “imminent threat” were bandied about quite a bit too. But tonight there was no qualification for these things. No there was no explanation as to how our pre-war intelligence could have been so wrong, or manipulated. And of course it could never be admitted that the reasons given for the Iraqi war might have been simply invented….for whatever purpose, noble or most likely not. The justification for war is now simply the war itself, for whatever purpose; noble or most likely not.
Randy, Jay is dead-on. Bush belched the word “terrorism” 31 times by my count. That word pops out every time Sharon pulls his chain.
Great Posts!! My friends.
Ed,
I see that you are still preaching your Sharon/Bush garbage.
What evidence do you have to support your claim of this supposed link between Sharon and Bush?
I asked you the same question in another blog too.
Nathan, By the tone of your question you’re already supporting the extreme right-wing Likuds in Israel and Zionism in general. And I would be the first to defend your right to do so. Also you have the right to insult my intelligence with your “garbage” reference. If you can’t recognize violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions, or even ask a civil question, then there is little I could do to convince about facts concerning the Middle East situation. Mind you, I could try, but what’s the point?
THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD…
Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]
AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED…
Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]
Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE…
Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” [5/3/03]
BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN…
Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ…
Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]
Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”
[5/4/04]
AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS…
Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]
NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR…
Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves… And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]
“Randy, Jay is dead-on. Bush belched the word “terrorism” 31 times by my count. That word pops out every time Sharon pulls his chain.”
Ed, you just gave me an idea for a drinking game at Dubya’s next address. Every time Bush says “terrorism”, take a drink. Every time he mentions 9/11, finish the bottle.
Ed, while I’m sure Israel has a lot of influence in the Whitehouse, don’t you think you’re over-doing it a little with the anti-Jew spiel?
Nathan, you keep squealing for evidence…like you’re going to make some fair and impartial judgment. Yeah, right. Your mind was made up long ago. If Jesus himsel came down and proclaimed Bush a liar and fraud, you’d demand “evidence”. Can anybody say “republican poodle”?
Ed,
That is what I like to call evading the question when you have no answer.
I ask you for evidence to support this claim of yours about Bush doing whatever Sharon tells him to.
either you are making this stuff up for some agenda of yours or you have proof.
Right now you have no proof so I will go with you just making it up.
D.A. Rider,
Do you believe that Bush is doing whatever Sharon tells him to do or that most of what Ed says is true?
Why?
It has nothing to do with me already making up my mind. It has everything to do with me seeing someone say something so far out that I have to question it and ask for evidence.
So… what is it that makes you think this way?
Nathan, Part, or a segment of the answer to your query is in my post. Perhaps you could find someone to explain that to you.
Speaking of terrorism and 9/11, whatever happened to those guys (who actually WERE involved) that we were supposedly doggedly tracking down? They seem to have been lost in the shuffle in the White House. Apparently they aren’t as important as we once thought….
D.A. Rider, The Jewish State of Israel has a right to live peacefully behind its borders. I do not have a problem with that. So much for that “last resort.”
Nathan, go back and read my last post. This time, try a little comprehension. You’re not going to drag me into an arguement about Israel…I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t waste my time trying to convince close-minded neocons or hard-core lefties for that matter, about anything. My opinion is, Fox news already has you convinced.
Ed,
Yet another non-answer. You must be a student of the liberal spin technique.
If it is so obvious that you answered my question in some other post then is it too hard for you to show me?
I admit, I could be blind or uncapable of seeing it. The simple fact remains that I dont see where you answered my question…
D.A. Rider,
So you just waste your time defending people who make claims they cant back up?
Why even interject yourself into this if you dont want to be a part of it?
You can say I watch Foxnews and I am brainwashed or whatever you want to. It is nothing more than taking away from the actual issues and trying to attack me.
If that is the best you can do, then have fun.
Nathan, you just get further out there. I don’t recall defending anybody. And I haven’t tried to “attack” you. Paranoia is such a sad thing. WeBlog is on the OPINION page, therefore, I’m stating an opinion. Whether or not I convince anybody is of little concern to me whether on the left or the right.
D.A. Rider,
Ok, so you were not defending Ed. Fine. I am not exactly sure what you call it when I ask the guy for evidence to prove his claim that Bush is taking orders from Sharon and you chime in wondering why…
What exactly was your purpose then?
Perhaps my definition of “attack” could be a bit different than yours.
I usually take comments such as:
“This time, try a little comprehension.”
“…close-minded neocons”
“Fox news already has you convinced”
“Can anybody say “republican poodle”?”
So, please tell me what those were if not “attacks?”
Yeah, it is your opinion. An opinion of me which is meant to be deragatory. Thus an attack.
My logic could be a bit off, so feel free to clarify if I got something wrong.
In his address, Bush put out a call to service. Now we know of Bush’s “service” or lack thereof during the Viet Nam war. Perhaps Bush should lead by example now as he did not then. Let him speak again and tell us that his twin daughters have enlisted.
Rimel, so sorry to see you still haven’t figured out how to use your etch-a-sketch except for repetitions of mindless anti-war propaganda.
Ed F., Why have Palestinians stopped strapping bombs on their children to blow up Israelis?
Nathan,
You’re insulted when someone suggests using a little comprehension? Show me where I called YOU a close-minded neocon. Saying you’re influenced by Fox is an insult? Did I call YOU a Republican poodle? In another post, you accused me of calling you “brainwashed”. Show me where I used that term to describe you.
You’re always asking for evidence. Well, show me some evidence. Thin-skinned paranoia is so unbecoming. Do you regularly have feelings that someone is “out to get” you? Obviously, we can’t have an honest discussion without you having problems. Please don’t waste anymore of our time.
(a la Karl Rove, touche!)
Free Saddam ! Them people need a dictator !
newland, you reveal typical anti-war bigotry with a childish comment like that.
Rider, you aren’t one to call anyone paranoid. Nathan just made a factual summary of the childish comments that you and your hate-Bush buddies hurled at him.
Nathan asks questions, you all respond with typical hatefulness. Nice logic.
Tricia,
How can one be an anti-war bigot? If that’s really a condition of being, then count me in. I’m certianly prejudiced against war.
Considering how hawkish you are, I’d assume you have no children of military age. If you did, would you advise them to fight in a needless war? I had a friend who reciently lost her only son in Iraq. I hope you never have to go through that.
So you think I’m paranoid? Show me how you jumped to that conclusion.
Poor Nathan just made a factual summary but he doesn’t seem to be able to get any “facts” from anybody.
Trisha, what color is the sky on the planet where you live?
D.A. Rider,
“You’re insulted when someone suggests using a little comprehension?”
I AM NOT INSULTED. The question is: What was your purpose in saying that? Was it to attack me?
Lets look at the context:
“Nathan, go back and read my last post. This time, try a little comprehension.”
You clearly said that as if I wasnt using comprehension. Which is a snide way of trying to attack my intelligence. Am I wrong?
“Show me where I called YOU a close-minded neocon.”
You were responding to my post where I asked why you intervened in the conversation between myself and Ed. Using my reading comprehension skills I can only assume that the comment was made in against me.
If not me then who were you talking about?
“Saying you’re influenced by Fox is an insult?”
Again, my being insulted was not the question. Were you attacking me was the question. You actually said:
“Fox news already has you convinced.”
“Did I call YOU a Republican poodle?”
I don’t know did you?
You made the following comment after commenting to me:
“Can anybody say “republican poodle”?”
Why were you asking that question if not to infer that I was one?
“In another post, you accused me of calling you “brainwashed”. Show me where I used that term to describe you.”
You never used the term “brainwashed” however, when you said Fox news has me convinced what did you mean?
“You’re always asking for evidence. Well, show me some evidence. “
Um… You give me my evidence in the same paragraph you asked for it:
“Thin-skinned paranoia is so unbecoming.”
I have no feelings that anyone is out to get me. Just asking questions which people love to evade in every topic.
D.A. Rider,
You ask a very loaded question:
“If you did, would you advise them to fight in a needless war?”
In the question you say needless war. I doubt anyone wants their children to fight in a needless war.
Where we disagree is if this war is needless.
“Trisha, what color is the sky on the planet where you live?”
Let me guess. That was meant to be a legitimate quesion and not an attack?
Nathan, first you’re insulted, then, you’re not insulted. Pointing out that you missed the drift of a post is reasonable. You still don’t get it. I said that Ed had gone a little overboard and you think that’s defending him? Low comprehension skills.
You seem to think that answering questions with questions is providing answers. More of your word games.
” You clearly said that as if I wasnt using comprehension”.
We both know what I said. How you took it is of little concern.
“Can anybody say “republican poodle”?”
Why were you asking that question if not to infer that I was one?
I don’t know…you seem to be the one jumping to conclusions here.
“You never used the term “brainwashed” however, when you said Fox news has me convinced what did you mean?”
If I never used the term “brainwashed”, what’s your problem? Surely you’re not ashamed of Fox?
“I have no feelings that anyone is out to get me.”
But you seem to think you’re being attacked. Hmmm…..
You seem upset that I “intervened” in a conversation between you and Ed. Check your post above where you jumped into the one betweem myself and Tricia.
Some would call that hypocracy. What would you call it?
Nathan, you’re boring me to tears. You can have the last word, that seems very important to you (there’s a term for that, too). I’m done.
D.A. Rider,
I never said I was insulted. This is a classic example of how the actual issue is not discussed. Did you attack me?
You can easily tell someone they did not get the point of your post without questioning their comprehension skills. You chose to go the insult route. Understandable seeing the way you not only treat me, but others too.
If I am jumping to conclusions then tell me what you did mean by it. You are not denying what I said, only evading again.
Once again, my being ashamed or not of Fox is not the issue. The issue was you used it as an attack on me.
You are attacking me with your words. Has nothing to do with me being paranoid. I have shown you where and ho and you have yet to show me what you meant by the comments in question if they are not attacks.
I am not upset that you got into the conversation at all. I will talk to anyone here that wants to. This is a public blog not a private messenger. As soon as you did jump in I merely asked you questions about what you said and after a few personal insults towards me here we are…
The truth is what is important to me.
My posts are concerned with issues and not personal attacks. I do not know why they repeat. I am on webtv and if anyone can help address this I would be grateful. Annoying as they must be, I am pleased that they annoy T Tricia in particular. Perhaps by reading a factual post that addresses issues twice she? may learn to post some issues her?self. As another poster noted, this forum is for thoughts and ideas, not irrational blind cheerleading.
And so I say again, If bush issues a call to service to HIS war; let him explain his service or lack thereof in the past. Let him call his children to service.
Rimel, I am thrilled to hear that I give you pleasure. I’ll put another notch on my computer case.
Jay Rimel,
Instead of clicking on the “post” button, have you tried hitting the “enter” key to post? Might give it a try.
W.R. Locke and Jay,
I’ve been reflecting on Nathan’s posts, and the fact that evidence contrary to his convictions just seems to bounce off. You can put it in there, but he doesn’t seem to see it. This confirms the research of Lakoff and others about cognitive frames. Once a frame, which is a set of themes, narratives, and details (or something like that) has taken hold, it is impervious to facts to the contrary. That’s why you can provide all the documentation in the world and Nathan brushes right past it. I think he literally doesn’t see it, or that, in light of his convictions, it is refuted by the frames. That’s why no ‘evidence’ is ever convincing enough; it can’t get past the frame.
That’s why I don’t bother. When you have the facts on your side and the other guy keeps asking questions like a 5 year old, you can’t get anywhere.
CF,
What evidence is it that I dont see?
This is absolutely the most preposturous thing I have seen here yet!
I ask for someone to back up their assertions over and over again and they never do, then you come along and say that I cant see the evidence they never provided in the first place?
This is just too funny now. CF you truely do amaze me.
Jay Rimmel,
Bush was Honorably discharged from the Air National Guard. He did fulfill his duties.
Jay Rimmel,
The military is an all volunteer military right now. If Bush’s kids wish to join they can or will. It is not up to Bush or any other parent to make their kids join the military.
Besides, since when was making your kids join the military a prerequisite to being able to support war?
I’m going to try a little experiment with Nathan.
The other day he asked me to give my definition of torture and to document the administration’s decision to employ it. I decided not to do so because I suspected that no matter what I found, he’d say it didn’t count as torture. In what follows I’ll break with my usual practice and include citations.
First of all, the document making this legal is the August 1, 2002 memo authored by Jay Riemel, Alberto Gonzales, and others. I acknowledge that they subsequently revised the memo to reflect criticisms. But because this document was in force until 2004 and seems to be the template for the torture we’ve seen since, at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, I cite it here.
There, Gonzales said that the Geneva Convention III (GPW) don’t apply to combatants who fight on behalf of an organzation or a non-legitimate government: in other words Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Now, right there, I stop and say, “they’ve legalized torture.” I say this because the record is the Administration will do whatever it thinks it can get away with in a legal gray zone. Nathan, however, will say “where’s the evidence?” And unless I produce some document that names names, he can pronounce himself unconvinced.
His insistence on a standard of evidence that requires guilty people admitting to what they did, just isn’t realistic. Guilty folks lie, official documents are more important for what they don’t say than for what they do, and one has to read between the lines.
Moving on, the August memo got specific about what was and was not torture. I quote at some length here from a WaPo article of June 8, 2004:
” The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that “it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture.” The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture of another person.
“While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture,” the memo advised, “. . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law.”
“For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture,” the memo said, “it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” Examples include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, “post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression.”
So, let’s review: for the Bush administration, anything that kills you is torture. Anything that physically disfigures you is torture. Anything that makes you crazy for the rest of your life is torture. Anything that doesn’t kill you, feel as if it could kill you, or leave you insane, isn’t torture.
The Army’s definition of torture is far more humane: “By contrast, the Army’s Field Manual 34-52, titled “Intelligence Interrogations,” sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.”
So, what’s my view? I agree with the Army, not the Justice Department. And if Nathan or, for that matter, Ed Ireland come back and say that depriving someone of sleep isn’t torture, I say, bullshit. It absolutely is. And everything from there on up is, too.
So, I’ve done what Nathan asked and backed up my assertations. Let’s see what he does.
CF,
My foster kids deprive me of a lot of sleep. Can I invoke the Geneva Convention against SRS and Youthville? Or against the clueless parents who poisoned this screaming, trembling baby I’m holding with meth?
Call torture what you will. I haven’t seen anything to complain about at Gitmo compared to real life, or compared to the grisly tortures by jihadists and the mass murdering gulags of communist Russia.
An important fact in this issue is that jihadist training manuals emphasize the “duty” of prisoners to exaggerate claims of mistreatment and torture. Only jihadist apologists give their complaints any credibility.
Bush haters get all teary-eyed about a shivering prisoner at Gitmo and whether the prisoners’ Koran’s are dry enough — while jihadists saw the heads of their prisoners for the video cameras and liberal “artists” happily dunk the crucifix in urine and spread feces on images of Mary to the collective delight and fawning admiration of liberal philistines everywhere. These are examples of why we say that you anti-everything zealots have an abysmal sense of proportion.
OK, you discussed your “assertations”, whatever they were supposed to be. But you also proved that your sense of proportion is terribly flawed.
Ire,
My sense of proportion is ‘terribly flawed’? Really. Guess that’s why it’s the MILITARY who oppose the use of torture; it affects them directly. That is, the soldiers from countries who torture are more likely to be tortured. It’s that whole Golden Rule thing, I guess.
You also assume that everyone caught up in the Gitmo and Abu Gharib dragnets actually are Al Qaeda. Many of them aren’t. “Bring in all the usual suspects.” So, are THEY exaggerating torture?
Finally, torture doesn’t just affect the tortured. It also affects the torturers, their families, and the societies of which they are a part. It poisons everything and is very difficult, societally, to come back from. Look at Chile, South Africa, etc. The acceptability and use of torture reflects negatively upon the morality of our nation, your good works with foster children notwithstanding, Ire. The only person’s actions for whom I can be responsible are my own. That goes for us as a nation, too.
‘Proportionally,’ I’m a lot more worried about Presidential directives and practices than about Andres Serrano’s sculpture. Oh, and putting a crucifix in urine is not the same same as sawing someone’s head off. Duh. Are you really trying to claim that if liberals approve of the first they also endorse the second? Try shutting off Rush Limbaugh and using your brain.
So long as Republicans control the Presidency, the Congress, and now, imminently, the Supreme Court, It’s my duty to be ‘anti-everything.’ SOMEBODY has to be.
We talk so much about supporting the troops. If we torture, what position do we have to protest if our troops (or civilian contractors for that matter)are captured and tortured? We talk about cutting heads off…it really seems to shake us up, but in the mid-east, it’s an acceptable practice (kind of like pissing on the Koran at Gitmo). When we complain about atrocities, shouldn’t we occupy the “higher ground”? Our conservative friends seem to think that because the Islamists do it and the Russians did it, we should do it? I think that as Americans, we should be better than our enemies, hold oourselves to a higher standard. We used to set an example for the rest of the world. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost that.
CF,
You misrepresent what I said. I avoided saying the training manuals were from Al Qaeda. I only mentioned jihadists. Anyway, giving prisoners swept up after a firefight the benefit of the doubt when they claim they weren’t involved is silly. Claims of innocence are another transparent jihadist trick.
Your giving Serrano’s potty crafts the dignity of the name “sculpture” reveals which side of the elitist fence you’re on.
You missed my points that 1: the false claim about flushing a Koran at Gitmo raised a furor among the same elitists who thought Serrano’s blasphemies were wonderful art; and 2: we already have the high ground compared to jihadist atrocities to prisoners.
You said:
“It’s my duty to be ‘anti-everything.’ SOMEBODY has to be.”
I take that to mean that I can stop arguing with you over your endless litany of skewed trivialities because it is clear that nothing will change your anti-everything mind.
Locke,
Jihadists won’t ever admit to their not having higher ground. They see world domination as a religous duty, so they consider themselves to hold the highest ground by definition.
Besides, they keep a giant scorecard that we could never find peace with. They still hold the crusades against us. They claim that they won’t be done just getting even until 4 million Americans are dead. Attempts to reason with them on your basis are useless. Any effort we make to defend ourselves is seen as another affront to Islam that they add to their scorecard. Indeed, they see our very existence as an affront. You cannot negotiate peace with them; and the idea that treating our prisoners kindly will induce jihadists to do the same is delusional.
We do nothing to our prisoners like jihadists do with theirs. They brutalize and slaughter their prisoners, even the innocent ones like Margaret Hassan.
Nothing I say can be interpreted as supporting the idea of using jihadist tortures in our prisons.
By way of contrast, the Abu Ghraib dustup looks more like a dumb fraternity hazing than the tortures employed by jihadists. How can anyone compare what a handful of our immature troops did to what the jihadists regularly do, or to what Saddam did to his own people in the same prison just months earlier?
OK, the immature prison guards embarrased the prisoners. But who publicized their embarrassment before the entire world and freely broadcast jihadist propaganda? Why is there no accounting for the irresposibility of media that willingly and maliciously play into jihadist hands?
We do hold up a higher standard to the world. Our prisoners don’t get their heads brutally sawed off in front of network TV cameras as a recruitment tool for young men to join the army. We have punished the troops responsible for going overboard at Abu Ghraib. And you will notice that we get no credit for that in the media, Arab or otherwise.
You say we used to set an example for the world, but have lost that. Was it during WW2 that we set a good example by throwing our Japanese citizens into concentration camps and confiscating their property? Was it in Vietnam, when leftists convinced the democrats to renege on America’s promise to continue supporting South Vietnam, letting Communists run amock to kill a million people in the region? Was it in the Bay of Pigs? Carter’s triumphant foray to release the Iranian hostages? Clinton’s bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? When?
All those things somehow seem to recede into the background, while every current setback or imagined setback is highlighted by the media and waved about as proof that we’ve lost our high ground/respect of the world/whatever. If it weren’t for Arthur Chrenkoff, we’d never hear about the enormous good we’ve accomplished in Afghanistan or Iraq. What we’ve lost is honest media not afraid to support us against jihad.
Guys, we got bigger problems than Gitmo. Since the jihad against the USA started 20 years ago, there was never a time when we could turn back the clock, negotiate it away, play nice, or hope that they’d all return to their pre-medieval quiet. No, they have too much oil money, too much hatred, too much religious fanaticism, too much lust for power and domination, and they aren’t all stupid.
They are in a fight to the death. You don’t seem ready for it; they are banking on that.
Ooooh, Ire calls me an ‘elitist’! Horrors! I’m probably effiminate, too!
I wonder, Ire: will anything ever change your apologetic, ‘pro-Bush’ everything mind? In your cognitive world, is any evidence to the contrary possible or even permitted?
And still no Nathan. Where is he? Lurking? Scared of a fight?
Whoa Ireland, ease up there, you’re putting in words that I didn’t say. In fact I agree with a lot of your post. Just so we’re straight, I wouldn’t EVER suggest trying to reason with terrorists about anything. Let me clarify: I don’t think we have any business torturing anybody and I think it puts us in a bad position if our troops are captured and tortured. In the world court of opinion, I don’t think we should give terrorists, radical Islamists, or any of the other assorted filth that threaten our nation the option to say, “Well, the United States does it too”. And that, my friend, is as far as it goes. Yes, I’m anti-war (Iraq War) and I don’t like Bush. I’m anti-war (Iraq War) because attacking Iraq did nothing to further America’s cause. We have gained nothing from this war except a lot of needlessly killed American kids. That said, let me point out that most of the people who flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and that putrid scum bin Lauden were Saudis. The radical Wahabbi (did I spell that right?) Islamic sect is a Saudi export, and they’re the ones who are giving us so much grief. And it’s rich Saudis who are financing these Islamists that don’t want to play nice.
Now pay close attention Ireland, because this part is important: I think we should have nuked Saudi Arabia right off the face of the planet. This serves multiple purposes.
It sets an example. It shows the world that we damn well mean business (as opposed to piddling around in Iraq with a minimal troop level trying to fight an insurgency on the cheap).
It also solves a major part of the problem. Wahabbi terrorist wannabes who have been vaporised don’t fly planes into the side of buildings.
Rich decedent Saudis who’ve been vaporised don’t fund terrorist organizations.
It gives us a butt-load of oil. I have no problem with going after the oil…just being lied to about it. And eventually, we’ll have to go after the oil for the strategic good of the country.
Nuking Saudi Arabia makes economic sense, doesn’t cost 300 billion and counting, and it spares American lives.
Oh gee…Locke is a redneck liberal…damn straight.
Locke,
You and I may come to more agreements than differences. A redneck liberal! Love it!
I wouldn’t base my ethics on merely being a lesser tyrant or torturer than the other guy, though it probably seems like I’m saying that. I’m just calling for a sense of proportion.
It’s hard to justify having anything to do with the Saudis, except that they have the center od Islam in their country and no one is up to taking that on.
Granted, attacking Iraq was like swatting a beehive, but so was attacking Afghanistan. As I’ve already mentioned above, the jihadists already have too big a scorecard against us to believe that any good we do will make them less deadly.
Ireland, Just so we know, It’s not so much a personal distaste for torture as it is the message it sends. My gut instinct would be to tell the rest of the world to piss off, but since we have to live with them, there are some distasteful things we have to do (like not torturing the hell out of Islamics and pissing in their book). I’m trying very hard to live according to my Christian faith which makes me believe it’s probably wrong to torture prisoners if they don’t deserve it. I’m in a real moral dilemma here, so follow my thinking. Now I don’t disagree with your assertion that jihadists are trained to lie about being tortured and profess innocence when captured. But whether you agree with me or not, I’ve read some very good reporting that indicates we have too many people in custody in Gitmo and Abu however-you-spell Ghraib. That’s why I think we need to go through the process and separate the wheat from the chafe, so to speak. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t want innocent people tortured. I don’t want torture on our part used as an excuse to torture our people. But I think we can both agree, the only good jihadist is a dead jihadist, and how they die (how slowly) is of little concern to me. I know that sounds conflicted.
For the record, I have no problem with the attack on Afghanistan. They had bin Lauden, getting in the way of our getting him was a serious piece of stupidity. They paid the price. It’s not a good idea to thumb your nose at us after we lost 3000 of our countrymen.
Incidently, on the subject of the scorecard you keep bringing up, and another thing I’m a little conflicted about. Do you think there can be peace in the long run between Islam and Christians?
Or is it the “Highlander” thing…there can be only one? Considering what the Bible has to say about Armaggedon, it worries me.
You said:”The center of Islam is in their country”. Reference my last post, heh, heh. Location, Location, Location.
Locke,
It should be at least theoretically possible for Muslims and Christians to get along. Turkey has had some success in converting to a secular government, and they were once the center of the Ottoman Empire.
The main problem today seems to be the extremist elements, especially the Wahabis, who preach violence, militance, and bigotry, much like the Ali parody on the Gitmo thread. Apparently, the Shiites are somewhat less bigoted, and the Sunnis are more amenable to a secular world. A second problem is the way Islam tends to combine religion and government, a dangerous mix.
The situation in Saudi Arabia is something like we would have if the Branch Davidians had grown large enough to run all the churches and schools in Texas, and intimidated all the government officials with death threats; and then declared war on all foreigners and infidels. Yes, that kind of thing can be stopped, but it usually has to be forced on them (although in the little Branch Davidian case, the force used by our government was over the top)
Michael Ledeen has been consistent in saying “faster, please” about cleaning up the jihadist problem. Terrorist tactics will become even more deadly the longer we let it go on. I think Bush’s intelligence data was right in concept, but the timing or location was off. Unfortunately, the error will now make it even more difficult to gain support for rooting out nuclear weapons from the mad mullahs of Iran.
The mission creep in Iraq – from deposing Saddam to imposing democracy – is a worthwhile experiment, even if it drives some people nuts to think about it. If successful, that success will be a powerful incentive to the peoples of surrounding countries to overhaul their governments and contain the Wahabi hate. We need to be ready to support those people when the time comes.
If this doesn’t work, the alternatives may be submitting to terrorism or escalating the conflict — and, ultimately, nukes. All that sand would make a lot of nice glass.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks that true Democracy will ever get a foothold in the Middle East is dreaming. All they’ll do is elect another religious fanatic, look at what just happened in Iran.
Ireland, I don’t suggest a nuclear option lightly and my preference would be to co-exist. I have nothing against Muslims, I have friends and co-workers that are of the Islamic faith, and I find them to be good and honorable people. I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree on issues of religon, but being a good red-neck liberal I’ve always believed that the rights of others ends where my nose begins. If it has to be an “us or them” proposition, my vote is for US.
Did you know that Michael Ledeen is a dirty word in liberal circles?
On Damoon’s comment about Democracy in the Middle East, I have to agree whole-hartedly. Americans as a nation work under a mis-conception. We think that everybody else thinks the way we do. What is logical to us should be logical to everybody else. Newsflash..people in other countries don’t think like us. Having been fortunate enough to be widely traveled, I was shocked to find out how different people in other countries see things. While we see democracy as the be-all end-all, a lot of people see it as evil and decedent (in some cases with good reason). But they confuse democracy with capitolism, just as we confuse communisim and socialism with totalitarism. Worlds of difference, both issues. Granted, Democracy can be encouraged, but it can’t be inflicted, and I think it’s a nonsequitor in the Middle East. Arabs and Persians don’t have anything in their history that would abide Democracy. And if they want to live under an Islamic Theocracy, it should be their right to make that choice. I really don’t see any difference in that and what a lot of our fundamentalist friends have in mind for this country.
Ireland, do you suppose miles and miles of nuclear glass would make a good parking lot for the world’s biggest WalMart? (just kidding)
If you really want some insight into the war from a Middle Eastern perspective, read Trudy Rubin’s “Willful Blindness”. As a journalist for the Philadelphia Enquirer, she has studied the Middle East for over 30 yrs.
W.R. is right, just because we embrace freedom and democracy, doesn’t mean the rest of the world sees things the same way. There is too huge of a difference in culture and ideology between Middle East and the Western world, we might win the battles, but it’s pretty unlikely we’ll ever win the war for their hearts. When you have a culture of people who are honored to die for their ideology, what kind of leverage does that give us? It just doesn’t seem very hopeful to me that the US is going to facilitate a major cultural change in that area of the world.
Doing nothing about terrorism is not an option. Talking nice hasn’t worked. Swatting their hornets nest at least has them focused on their own quixotic jihad. We had to leave Saudi Arabia. Iraq is better than Saudi Arabia would have been in a few years.
Turkey has had a decent run of mostly non-terrorist secular government for 75 years. Some call it democratic. You probably wouldn’t. No one expects Middle East countries to adapt a democracy like ours. Some will be better than others. Or, from your almost clinically pessimistic viewpoint, some will be worse than others.
Well, ya’ll are in good company:
“We can’t do anything for those people. Leave them alone.” — Richard Nixon