One of Sen. John McCain’s strengths is his willingness to take principled stands on difficult issues such as torture. He has consistently opposed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques.
So what are Americans to make of his stunning “no†vote this week on a Senate bill that would outlaw waterboarding?
It appears that McCain, faced with either holding to principle or winning over the conservative base of his party, simply caved.
Talk about a flip-flop. This vote will come back to haunt him.
391 Comments
Ever since he lost the 2000 presidential nomination, he has been cosying up to the real conservatives in the Republican Party. He hasn’t been a straight-talker since he made amends and hugged President Bush.
As repugnant as McCain’s vote was, it will just be another piece of ammo. for whomever the Democratic nominee is to throw at him in the run up to the election. The Republic Party is in its death throes.
I suspect McCain’s on the wrong bus. At some random truck stop in Louisiana or someplace, he got “The Straight Talk Express” mixed up with “The Honeysuckle Rose” and Mac’s gotten into Willie Nelson’s stash.
Just as he ultimately broke and collaborated with his North Vietnamese captors, McCain’s now rooting for waterboarding, Shrub’s tax breaks for the wealthiest, his cozying up to (his words) “agents of intolerance.”
Add to that McCain’s agenda: 1) Jobs aren’t coming back; 2) Illegal immigrants aren’t going home; and 3) a hundred more years of George WMD Bush’s War in Iraq.
“I was against torture before I was for it.”
McCain has no principles left. It’s good he lost in 2000 and better we’ve been paying attention since then. He once was a man I thought did have principles and he has shown otherwise.
kelly – absolutely correct. It is a variant of Stockholm Syndrome.
It’s a towel over your face with water being poured on it. Panicked moment? Yes. Torture – probably not.
Why are we so nice to our enemies. They kill us by chopping off heads, burning, and sucide bombs. You can as civil as you want but, dead is dead.
Kelly said it best. So what did the Republican party promise him for following in lock step, after they disgraced him with lies? The Republican Presidential nomination in 2008?
Conspiracy theory? You bet! But why not?
It’s a towel over your face with water being poured on it. Panicked moment?
I don’t know, Regular. Have you ever experienced it? Done as the Government does it, that is, not simply playing a game. Shall we give it a try? Let’s stuff you in a box for a few months, pull you out, blindfold you and do it, just for a test. Then you can decide.
I am certainly glad we have people OTHER THAN Randy Scholfield, and many of the posters here, in charge of protecting this country from terrorism.
While waterboarding, by necessity, may well be enormously uncomfortable and frighting it will not injure anyone. If it is used judiciously and it might save the live of Americans then so be it. I would by far chose to make a terrorist simply frighted and uncomfortable than lose my life, or member of my family, or one of our men and women in the military. Of course if you feel differently, well that speaks volumes about you, and not in a commendable way at all.
Why are we so nice to our enemies.
Stooping to the depths of our enemies is okay with you, then, george? It would thrill you to have the U.S. called dispicable?
As I understand it, before the Bush administration took office, the Army’s interrogation procedures — which were unclassified — established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law.
If you can refute the above with facts, please do so.
The reason there are so many here so sanctimonious and seemingly upset about waterboarding is simply because they don’t feel personally threaten with danger. Let that happen and they will be whimpering for someone to protect and come to their rescue.
dispicable=despicable
Here is what McCain says about it. Sorry for the length, but I couldn’t find it without linking left wing propaganda.
I’m sure that Randy Scholfield will appreciate it so that he doesn’t have to continue to operate in ignorance.
SENATOR MCCAIN STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORT
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today submitted for the Congressional Record the following statement regarding the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization bill:
Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.
During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.
That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.
Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.
When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.
The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.
This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.
In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.”
It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.
It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.
We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.
America is a War machine. Maybe we should take some ideas from China, and become a business machine. Maybe we could transform the world by making people happier with jobs, and business, rather than forcing democracy on countries by the barrell of an assault rifle.
RD,
I’m sure it’s no worse than swallowing water up your nose at a depth of twenty feet which I have experienced.
Panic? Yes.
Did I die or have any lasting effects?
No.
Look at that pic.
Look at his eyes.
Then tell me you want this man for President.
You do? Oh well I’m sorry. He has no chance. When Senator Clinton gets this guy in debate, she’ll get him red faced and throwing his shoes!
“Did I die or have any lasting effects?”
That is certainly debatable. But I’ll just let your own record stand and not go there.
I know why he did this. The base is already asking whether or not he is conservative enough. Now faced with a hard line us or them vote, he had no choice…rather than appear to side with US, he had to toe the party line.
Oh yes, this WILL hurt him. He should have listened to the people rather than his base. This is why I’ve turned so against McCain lately. I used to root for a Clinton/McCain ticket.
Is it really good, for the world to fear us?
If you look back when you were in school, it is likley there was a bully, after people get sick of the bully, there are several people that stand up to him, and put him in his place. How long are we going to continue to be bullys before some one comes a long to humble us. We threw diplomacy out the window with the Bush adminstration, and they basically said to us and the world, they will do as they please. I hope stay in Iraq in fix the god foresaken mess Bush got us into, but I also hope we return to sanity, with Hilary or Obama, Lord knows McCanin is a decent man, but he will bring us a continuation of neo-con tyrants who wish perpetual wars for generations to come, in the name of democracy freedom, and any other word they can pervert to continue their nation building projects.
Torture – Water-boarding – How about making a terrorist sit in front of an plasma screen wall mount HDTV and watch The View reruns with Rosie O’Donnell as the Host. Thirty minutes of Rosie would equate to 24 hours of water-boarding. Of course, the ACLU, Amnesty International and Ted Kennedy would be right there with their fingers on the switch to pull the power after the terrorist goes completely out of his or her mind. How can water-boarding be all that bad, kids snow-board every chance they can . . .
Makes you wonder how much caving he’d do with a waterboard around. Heck if it only takes the threat of losing power….
Not that it matters, actually. Most of the Republicans will line up to support the candidate their Party nominates and will forget any criticism they may have as they march to vote for the person with the “R” beside their name.
Furthermore, most of the Democrats will do exactly the same.
Maybe this year a few more will stay home.
We all have an opinion and mine is the youth will make a big difference this election. From what I hear in my limited exposure to youth is they are motivated because they aren’t happy with the decisions made that have a great effect on their futures. I don’t think the youth vote indicates anything positive for McCain.
CLARIFICATION!
Most of the Democrats will vote for the person with the “D” beside their name.
I forgot something . . . snow-boarding and skate-boarding can lead to injuries and even serious death. Water-boarding can get you a snout full of water. Rosie O’Donnell would be my choice for “torture” but that might rise to the level prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Someone once said, “All’s fair in love and war!”
I think that youth AND independent voters will make the diff.
The only ‘torture’ here is the democrats continuing to put political grandstanding above national security. The stated purpose of this bill (openly admitted by the democrat leadership) is to embarrass the president and provide a political football for the upcoming elections.
McCain’s no vote on this bill in no way condones waterboarding by the CIA. (thanks for the clarification outlander)
Next topic?
Jim Woodward,
Let’s tie a towel around your head, put you on a snowboard and shove you down the side of a mountain. Does that work for you?
IOW, BIG difference between your CHOICE to risk your life on a snowboard and a person who is forced to endure waterboarding.
I am sorry for Senator McCains’ past imprisonment and torture.
You should read also about his survival, against all odds, of the fire aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. It’s the sort of experience that could make one feel…special in some way. As if they were divinely protected. Adolf Hitler felt such a sentiment.
It is not my place to judge his constituents in Arizona who have repeatedly elected McCain to Senate. But he is running for President now.
Has this man ever had an independent psychological evaluation?
Has this man ever had an independent psychological evaluation?
I think you’ve stumbled upon something there, JR. Maybe this should be mandatory of all presidential candidates. Would a psych test have told us that GWB is a sociopath? That Bill Clinton has a sexual obsession? That Nixon tended toward being a crook? Am I kidding? A little.
JR, posted,
“Has this man ever had an independent psychological evaluation?”
A better question is;
Have you, JR, ever had an independent psychological evaluation?
Now that would be a voluminous and twisted reading undoubtedly.
An even BETTER question would be has James of the many nics, including “boxlock” ever had an evaluation?
And, was it mandatory in order to justify his paid disability?
Well it’s only the most powerful and important job on the planet RD.
I’d say a psych test for the candidates SHOULD be mandatory.
a psych test should be require before any canidate decides to run, and if they fail the psych test, they should still be able to run for president but they should be required to make their psych test public if they failed it, if they wish to run as prez. sounds good to me.
“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College
Unless it’s campaign season. Oh wait, he said that in late October. How quickly torture becomes acceptable. Makes you wonder what he’ll lie about next.
Haven’t had a chance to read all the posts on this thread, yet, but there is a way for McCain to, actually, be VERY consistent on this issue:
McCain has always said that he does NOT want “torture” exceptions written into the law.
Hillary Clinton said that she would support a “WMD exception” written into the law.
McCain said, basically, “NO, if it is that important, make sure you are right about it, and you should get a Presidential pardon, but lets not write it into the law.”
The “Army Field Manual” is a military manual that applies to our uniformed armed forces, and controls our treatment of uniformed armed forces of other countries, when captured and held as POW’s.
It is a very bad idea to apply military standards, and Geneva POW status, to illegal enemy combatants who do not deserve POW status.
This, of course, is my view.
McCain’s view has always been that we should be careful what we write into the law.
Ben
Less than a month ago, YOU claimed that I had called McCain “mentally unfit” (in so many words) due to his POW experience. You stood up for McCain and blasted me, on that issue. —
Now you say this:
“Ben
Posted February 16, 2008 at 8:05 am | Permalink
kelly – absolutely correct. It is a variant of Stockholm Syndrome.
——
Stockholm Syndrome is, absolutley, a mental condition.
“illegal enemy combatants”
As defined by whom? Is an Iraqi civilian in Iraq an “illegal enemy combatant”? Is an Afghan in Afghanistan?
On the other hand; is a foreigh mercenary in Iraq an “illegal enemy combatant”? I seem to recall a big uproar when some mercenaries were summarily executed by an Iraqi group.
Paul – and I struggle to find an explanation for McCain embracing those he claimed mistreated him during the 2000 canpaign. (I realize that you deny that took place and that McCain’s claims are false)
Oh, and Paul – my comment had NOTHING to do with his POW experience.
JR posts;
“An even BETTER question would be has James of the many nics, including “boxlock” ever had an evaluation?”
Good Grrr–ief, what a paranoid!
Do you think everyone in the whole world that disagrees with you is this ‘James’ person.
Believe me here JR, there are loads of people that disagree with you and they aren’t all named James.
Even after all his years as a pow, sounds like McCain was never the subject of torture through waterboarding. Guess the Viet’s had some standards.
RD
You miss the point:
“RD
Posted February 16, 2008 at 9:04 am | Permalink
Why are we so nice to our enemies.
Stooping to the depths of our enemies is okay with you, then, george? It would thrill you to have the U.S. called dispicable?
As I understand it, before the Bush administration took office, the Army’s interrogation procedures — which were unclassified — established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law.
If you can refute the above with facts, please do so.”
——
The United States has NOT violed the Geneva Conventions with Waterboarding.
The Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to Illegal Enemy Combatants.
A large section of the Geneva Conventions spells out who is, and who is not, covered by the Geneva Conventions. Why bother, why doesnt that treat just say “The entire world is covered by this treaty, including all people in uniform and out of uniform, terrorists, pirates, criminals and members of the military”??????
Also, the US Military has NOT done and Waterboarding, recently.
3 cases have been brought to light.
The CIA did the Waterboarding, NOT the US Military.
The terrorist prisoner was NOT a member of any military unit, and was NOT in the chain of command of any country.
Geneva POW status did not attach to these 3 criminals.
Econ101
Posted February 16, 2008 at 10:33 am | Permalink
Stockholm Syndrome is, absolutley, a mental condition.
——
:lol:
Hell, you know even less about human psychology than you know about economics. I really didn’t think that was possible until now.
Stockholm Syndrome is a normal human behavior, that’s the whole reason behinds its significance in the 20th century. It is NOT abnormal. Far from it. In fact, its completely normal: all or most humans are subject to Stockholm Syndrome if certain conditions are met.
It’s like cognitive dissonance: it ain’t noble, but it IS normal.
Black Rhino
China?
HUH?
Without even looking it up, I can tell you that China spends a HUGE chunk of their GDP on their military.
Paul, I don’t hold ANY misconceptions that you will ever change your opinion or even understand what those (LIKE ME!) who see this topic differently are trying to say, but once again…
We know what the Geneva Conventions say and who they cover. We also know ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS isn’t covered under the Geneva Conventions. We get that this term was invented to cover whoever bushco wanted to torture or hold without charging or make disappear. We get that this new term had to be invented and we also understand that the next POTUS may decide you are an illegal enemy combatant and make you disappear, hold you indefinitely… That’s how much power has been given to the POTUS by The Patriot Act! There will be NO need to state what you are charged with, NO need to allow you a defense of any kind, it’s a judgment call allowed to the POTUS.
You really think anyone should be allowed that kind of power?
Pedant
Type “stockholm syndrome DSM IV” into your browser.
If it is not a mental condition, why is it mentioned in the “Bible” of the mental health profession?
—–
The fact that mental states are often affected by PAST experience, and that it is NORMAL for us to be mentally affected by our experiences, does not, in any way, reduce the fact that we might be suffering a MENTAL condition.
For the record, I do think that John McCain IS mentally stable and very fit, mentally, to be President.
I have commented, in the past, that McCain has a very hot temper. So what? Both of the Clintons have said, and done, far worse things than McCain.
Now that McCain is the likely nominee, the Dems who took shots at me, over bringing up McCain’s temper, are now calling McCain mentally unfit, or crazy.
Just as I KNEW they would!
Econ101
Posted February 16, 2008 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Type “stockholm syndrome DSM IV” into your browser.
If it is not a mental condition, why is it mentioned in the “Bible” of the mental health profession?
—
Stockholm Syndrome DSM IV: 9100 hits
cognitive dissonance DSM IV: 5090 hits
:lol:
By your “reasoning” I guess cognitive dissonance is also a mental condition.
Linda
No, Bush did not “make up” the term “Illegal Enemy Combatant” —
If the Geneva Conventions spell out what is LEGAL warfare, those things that do not fall under that category are “illegal” — why is that so hard to understand?
Did the Geneva Conventions cover Timothy McVeigh?
Of course NOT. McVeigh was a United States Citizen, who committed his terrorist act on United States soil.
Of course, McVeigh was given full Constitutional protections for accused criminals. This was the correct way to handle the McVeigh case.
My point? Well, what if the United States had “waterboarded” McVeigh? Forget, for a moment, all the legal, Constitutional questions. Assume, perhaps, that the Government feared that McVeigh was working as part of a larger conspiracy and that lives were at risk, in another bombing attempt.
Would any OTHER government, any foreign power, have the legal right to complain about our “waterboarding” of McVeigh?
Of course not.
McVeign was NOT a member of any military chain of command, McVeigh was violating the laws of war, McVeign was not a “POW” and did not deserve POW status.
Definitions are important.
Hard cases make bad law.
It would be stupid to force our intelligence and law enforcement officials to follow a MILITARY manual.
McCain understands this.
“So what are Americans to make of his stunning “no” vote this week on a Senate bill that would outlaw waterboarding?”
He’s a typical pandering pol who tells his supporters what he thinks they want to hear, moral consistency be damned.
Paul,
Are you comfortable with every and any person who holds the office of POTUS also holding all the rights given by The Patriot Act?
Linda
Also, it is entirely Legal and Constitutional and historically recognized that the Commander in Chief can suspend Habeas Corpus in times of war:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm
Linda
Every President holds the “nuclear football” as well.
Far more dangerous, in my mind, than any provisions of the Patriot Act.
By the way, the Patriot Act is fully Constitutional.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact” Lincoln?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Paul – what would happen if President Hillary clinton declared that Rush Limbaugh was an illegal enemy combatant and had him ‘rendered’? Would that be appropriate? Or suppose a squad of foreign fighters kidnapped you from the street in Wichita and transported you to a deserted camp in the hills of Pakistan – would YOU then be an illegal combatant?
remember, many of those we have ‘rendered’ were captured in their home countries. Just what makes them ‘illegal combatants’?
Doing combat or combatant type activities against the U.S. would be your first clue Ben.
Was MIT a middle school back when you went or did they teach spurious argument as a main course?
Paul, yes or no?
Ben
Actually, we do not have all the facts yet.
However, from what I have read, only 3 people have been “waterboarded” by the CIA, not the military.
The PURPOSE appears to be valid: protection of life, prevention of future attacks.
We do not do this to force confessions or to prosecute in court, but to protect ourselves from attack. It has been used rarely.
Now, by asking “what if” questions about me our Limbaugh, you are dodging a point I have made, repeatedly:
I am covered by the United States Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh is covered by the United States Constitution.
A terrorist, not in any military chain of command, captured on foreign soil, while engaged in illegal activity such as targeting civilians, does NOT have Geneva POW protections.
What Geneva does say, is that this person should be tried under the laws of the country in which he or she is captured.
How the hell do we do that, if Iraq does not want that person on Iraqi soil?
Still, the point is, this person does NOT have Geneva POW protection.
Let me ask YOU a question:
What DO we do with such people?
Geneva Conventions clearly state that we can hold a POW until the “end of hostilities” — I believe this would mean that we can hold any Al Queda member until Al Queda surrenders, if you wish to invoke Geneva. (Which does NOT fully apply, in my opinion.)
Are these people “criminals” in the domestic sense? Do they deserve “trial by jury” — meaning we have to tell the whole world, in court, how we captured them, all of our intelligence operations, and let the terrorists confront the CIA and the Military, in court?
Congress passed the Military Tribunals Law that SCOTUS said Bush needed.
What we are doing, as far as detention and tribunal, is perfectly legal.
Yes, this is a awesome power.
So is the “power” of a Marine, in the field.
The Marine can pull the trigger.
The Marine can decide NOT to pull the trigger.
The Marine does not have to consult any higher authority, other than his training. If his life, of the lives of others, is at risk, he can KILL.
Or, he can capture.
If you wish to give terrorists full criminal rights, and trial by jury, I think you tip the scales towards KILL, don’t you?
Linda
NO I am not comfortable with squishy liberals because they do not want to defend this country.
That is why I am a Republican.
Thank you.
McCain states several different times in that statement up thread that Waterboarding is, and should be, illegal….
I got an idea… Lets get Regular, and Boxer, and all the rest of you masochistic torture mongrels, and waterboard you the way the deed is done… And then you all come back here, and tell us it isnt torture…
McCain STATES that it is torture!!
He ALSO states that he doesnt feel as if the Military Manual should include NON Military agencies….
OK — Idea time — Compile a NEW Manual, for the NON Military agenciees… And then include NO WATER BOARDING in that Manual…. THEN it wouldnt be imposing military stuff on NON military agencies…
OR… Just scrap the term “military” manual, and call it an American Manual that applies to any and all intelligence gathering bodies of the U. S. Government??
It LOOKS like McCain has flip-flopped… But on the other hand, his statements in the upthread Congressional Record insertion, are very strong OPPOSING Waterboarding as Illegal Torture!!
Cut the old guy some slack… He is older, and his brain synapses dont work as fast as they did when he was younger — back before the Hnoi Hilton!!
Ben, Is MIT one of the schools you graduated? I guess I could probably use “the google” and find that out for myself. The night of the Democratic caucus — that snowy night when sooo many Democrats went out and supported the next President of the United States of America – I passed a man who stopped me to ask about my sweatshirt. He was an MIT grad. Could that have been you? Off to “the google.”
Econ asks >>>>
“Do they deserve “trial by jury” — meaning we have to tell the whole world, in court, how we captured them, all of our intelligence operations, and let the terrorists confront the CIA and the Military, in court?”
Ummm Econ — Suppose we capture a SPY among us, who is ONE OF US — you know, a citizen… We have to try THAT SPY in a court… in front of the whole world… AND in that trial, our intelligence operations are going to be presented as evidence in that trial…
What would be the difference in trying those Detainees in a Court Trial?? That would show the world that we consider ALL people to be deserving of the Justicce System we SAY our troops are fighting to protect!! Eh???
Chas
Part of Marine training, back in the day, was to walk into a tent filled with CS gas, take off your gas mask, and say your name and your social security number frontwards and backwards before putting the mask back on.
They would not let you out of the tent until you did it.
I would rather be drowned and then resuscitated by Hillary Clinton than do that again!
Waterboarding is a very mild action, when weighed against the possibilty of saving human life.
Understand that few of us would support waterboarding as a way to gain a confession, or for propaganda purposes, as done by the Communists.
However, if we think someone has information that might save human life — we should leave the option open.
Yeah Chas, brilliant idea – an American manual for operatives…
…turn to page 223 to determine who is an enemy combatant.
(1) If he fires at you with a weapon while smiling, he may be a friendly farmer warding you off from trespassing.
(2) If he fires at you shouting some Muslim phrase while guarding a bomb factory, he might just be a peace loving Palestinian.
(3) If he fires at you and you are hit, you must call your supervisor, who then in turn must get permission from Congress and Senate Intelligence Committees before you can return fire.
(4) If he fires at you and says any form of “Great Satan” or “Yankee die” phrases, you must relegate the person as a “freedom fighter” and let him go until he kills untold numbers of other people.
(5) If he fires at you and is captured, you will be held under scrutiny for the next 20 years, while being forced to testify before Congress and go into huge financial debt hiring attorneys to defend your actions. The detainee of course will be sent to a light security prison with TV and sports facilities and their lawyers will be provided free of charge.
Hey, Econ… Your Man, McCain even says it IS and should be Illegal!! That it IS torture… He spent 5 years in Hanoi Hilton… I would take his word for what constitutes torture a lot more than YOUR word for it any day….
You want to join my little group of folks that we can waterboard, and then come back and tell us what it was like???
I really dont think that is such a bad thing to ask… After all, you IDIOTS keep on defending something that one of your own Republican CANDIDATES says is Illegal, and Torture!!
Dont you all get it??? AMERICANS ARE NOT GOING TO SIT IDLY BY AND ALLOW OUR PEOPLE TO TORTURE OTHERS!!
Chas
In the case of the captured spy, the information has been released, and the damage to security has been done.
Your example does not hold up.
Also, Chas, neither Obama nor Hillary say that terrorists captured on foreign soil deserve Constitutional protections of the accused and trial by jury in regular courts.
I wish they would say that.
The public would reject that idea.
My example DOES hold up… YOU suggested that if the Detainee was tried in Court, all of the intelligence operations would be out in the open in Court…
Same thing with trying a SPY… Deal with THAT part of what I said… Dont spin it into something different… Wont Work, Econ… I dont play that baiting game!!
If waterboarding is not torture, then why was McCain against it the first time around?
If it fails to meet the definition of torture, then why is the Army prohibited from doing it?
Why is there a need to define waterboarding at all if it is so innocuous?
Hell, to listen to the Republicans here, waterboarding is no different than diving into a swimming pool.
Linda – you the Harvard (Cambridge Arts and Crafts) mom? Yes – I went to Charles River Trade School (MIT). Class of ‘69.
Answer this one Econ >>>>
IF those terrorists are captured on FOREIGN soil… For what crimes are they being tried??? Crimes against the United States???
OR for crimes against another nation??
IF they are being tried for crimes against another nation, then what business does the United States have acting as Judicial Authority on behalf of another nation??
IF they re being tried for crimes against the United States, should they not be tried for that crime IN the United States, according to OUR laws??? The same as any other criminal being tried for crimes against the United States???
Chas
McCain has said that he would offer a Presidential Pardon in a clear case, where an illegal act of torture saved lives.
Thts what I expected Econ… Dance around the issue, bring up other crap… Dont deal with the issue on the table…
And Babe Ruth hit more home runs that Bart Starr too!! LOL
I dont see you providing any support or your statement just now either… That insetion in the Congressional Record upthread certainly doesnt say that!!
Then, although without meeting, we spoke to one another.
Chas
I happen to believe that we should not state that waterboarding is illegal for the CIA to use against illegal enemy combatants.
McCain disagrees.
McCain wants it to be illegal, but McCain wants to reserve a Presidential Pardon in the event that the use of “torture” — any torture, saves lives.
Now, Chas, never in history have we been required to grant a full jury trial with full Constitutional protections to enemies of the United States captured by our military.
Never.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are dumb enough to suggest such a thing.
LOOK — I already SAID that McCain isnt necessarily flip-flopping on this issue… He has said repeatedly that Torture is Illegal, and that waterboarding IS Torture…. Therefore, it is illegal…
What he is clearly saying by his vote is that he does not want the Military Manual to be imposed on Non Military Agencies… He does NOT say it is OK for the Non Military Agencies to practice waterboarding, or other torture!!
I see why his vote is causing him some campaign problems… but I dont see him flip-flopping on the issue of Torture and Waterboarding!!
Get it???
When you sacrifice liberty for security, you get neither.
Rice and Powell wanted to close Gitmo, Cheney was against closing the detention facility and Bush does everything Dick tells him to do.
The question is why? Powell is a military career officer. Rice is an (alleged) expert on foreign policy.
They wanted us out of the torture indefinite detention business – Bush and Cheney fail to realize that Gitmo and torture have seriously damaged our credibility abroad.
Of course, Bush is the Decider, except when Cheney is.
Ahh but Econ… We have never before in history been involved in a war like this one either… now have we??
You still provide no link or support for McCain and his Presidential Pardon offer…
Cant you answer my challenge question??? Or is it too complicated??
Are the crimes of those terrorists crimes committed against the United States of America, or against another Sovereign Nation??
IF they are crimes against the United States, then should they not be tried IN the United States…???
IF they are crimes against another Sovereign Nation, then should they not be tried by that nation, instead of the United States acting as a Judicial Authority in behalf of another sovereign nation??
“Now, Chas, never in history have we been required to grant a full jury trial with full Constitutional protections to enemies of the United States captured by our military.”
If Nuremberg was good enough for Nazi war criminals, why isn’t it good enough for suspected terrorists?
Nuremburg was sort of a special kind of Court too, Clark… I could see that kind of a situation for trying Terrorists…
Chas
You have no law to back you up.
What George Bush is doing IS legal. No Court has held otherwise.
At least Nuremburg was a TRIAL… with defense attorneys and prosecutors, and real judges… Thats better than our military wants to give these detainees…
Good ol’ Paul, never met a torture/rape room he didn’t like.
WS
The Nuremburg trials happened AFTER the defeat of the enemy.
There was no risk of the enemy getting valuable information from those trials.
Again, you are way off the mark.
Doug
Actually, George W. Bush shut down Saddams “rape rooms” — they would still be operating if you liberals had your way.
OK — Econ is not going to answer my challenge… SOOOO why should any of us answer him…. Byeeeee Econ!!!
Econ — It would appear that the “enemy” doesnt need a public trial in order to get information…. So, YOU also make a moot point!!
Does intelligence information take precedent over JUSTICE in your world, Econ???
Sorry, dont want to live in your world!!
Know Justice — Know Peace!!
No Justice — NO Peace!!
McCain vs Clinton on torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
McCain has mentioned Presidential Pardons as a possibility, in this event.
Hillary wants a “ticking bomb” exception written into the law.
“What Geneva does say, is that this person should be tried under the laws of the country in which he or she is captured”
In that case Paul, how do we justify taking people out of the country in which they were captured and flying them to places like Romania etc for ‘extraordinary rendition’?
“Actually, George W. Bush shut down Saddams “rape rooms” — they would still be operating if you liberals had your way.”
At a cost of $1 trillion and counting, 4,000 dead Americans, thousands wounded and misdirecting resources from the true enemy – al Qaeda.
Of course, we were “sold” this war because Hussein was a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
And, of course, we IGNORE human rights violations in Darfur, China, Russia, etc.
Yeah, great job George.
History revisionism, honed to a fine point by Leftists…
Ben — Paul is saying that these detainees are not covered under Geneva…
But still, I want to know…. IF the detainees are captured for crimes against another nation, then why does the United States Military get to be the Judicial System du jour for their “trials” instead of the country against whom the crimes are committed….
Paul wont deal with that matter… I have asked that question repeatedly…
Chas
National Security trumps justice.
PERIOD!
Always has, always will.
No, we can not toture someone and then use any “confession” against that person, in court.
However, consider this:
You are on a jury.
A man is accused of murder.
The man shot a rapist and child abuser in the leg, in order to find the location of a girl who had diabetes and would die soon, without insulin.
The rapist died.
The man was the girls father.
Would YOU convict?
Actually, this case would never make it to trial. No prosecutor would be dumb enough to bring the case forward.
Ben
We are fighting a war in Iraq.
Iraq does not want to try these terrorists, they are not Iraqis.
What do you suggest we do?
WS
“He who picks the field of battle wins the war”
The Art of War —
How many attacks have we suffered, on American soil, since 9-11?
How many terrorists have we killed, in Iraq?
History re”visionism, honed to a fine point by Leftists…”
Oh, bullshit. Take a nap, work on your logic and try, try again.
Econ… Your link above is a little Bogus…. It is about HILLARY… McCain is thrown in only as a counterpoint… AND, the writer of the Article appears to be ANTI-McCain… unusual for the New York Post to support Hillary…. Hmmmmm….
BTW Econ… NOWHERE in that article is McCain quoted as saying HE would issue a presidential pardon for extracted information in the event of such an EXTREME emergency as defined!!
So, you want to try again???
“How many terrorists have we killed, in Iraq?”
How many al Qaeda terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion?
Only in a small training camp in the No-Fly zone that was under our control.
Chas
Yes, WHO should try them?
These terrorists are ciminals who do not have Geneva POW status.
Geneva says they should be tried by the country where they were captured.
Iraq does not want them. The Afgans do not want them.
What do we do?
It is you that must come up with an alternative, not me.
You claim that what Bush is doing is wrong.
What is the alternative?
Every alternative you come up with also brings up legal problems, jurisdiction issues, and national security issues.
The United States has a duty, right and obligation to defend itself.
Those who fire at our troops, or practice terrorism, must be killed or captured.
Again, I would lean towards the “kill” option, if I were in combat.
You suicidal liberals would release these terrorists back on society.
Several or belittling water boarding and may not be aware of this, it is required that a Doctor be present.
That is to revive the suspect because they lose consciousness because of it. They drown! Suffocate, lose oxygen, suffer the lost of brain cells and the body is shocked by the release of adrenalin.
Does it leave lasting damage to the body? Not if done right, but it is taking someone to the edge of death.
And it has been defined as torture by no other then wait for it…the United States Attorney general’s office in 1983! Using Lexis enter “water Torture” and get the ruling by the A.G. You would think the current A.G. with all the resources he has with the Department of Justice would have been aware of that?
Chas
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH would you?
McCain, in the quotes on the link I gave you, clearly hints at pardon.
He has said the word “pardon” as well.
I have quoted McCain, previously, saying such, just cant find it right now.
You lost this one. I am positive that I have posted a compare/contrast concerning McCain and Clinton on this issue.
I know that McCain does reserve the “pardon” option.
Give it a rest.
You lost.
Move on.
IF national security trumps justice, then what good is national security??
The case scenario you describe, while it is most touching, has NOTHING to do with the current WAR situation….
Oh, and if Iraq doesnt want them??? Ship them back to their countries of origin… I am still not convinced that it is the job of the United States to be the trier of fact for illegal enemy combatants if the crimes they commit are against a FOREIGN NATION…
WHY should WE be the World Court???
WS
So what if they all came to Iraq AFTER the invasion?
Would you think it better, had they all come to the US?
We are killing Al Queda in Iraq.
Two birds, one stone.
Saddam had to go. (Bill Clinton said “regime change” was his policy, in Iraq)
We are killing terrorists, in the process.
IF McCain talks about a Pardon option, he doesnt do it in that NYP article you posted above… He says if they extract that information it would have to be done illegally — And he would hope they would be forgiven, OR given a lighter sentence…
He did NOT say a Presidential Pardon!!
If you have quoted it previously, on some other day, I didnt see it… sorry!!
Paul – I’m talking about people we have taken in places like Italy and England and ‘rendered’. If we catch Saudis in Iraq that is a very different thing. They would be, in afct, foreign fighters. Perhaps even mercenaries like Blackwater.
Chas
So, in your mind, you give license to anyone to fire at US troops, on foreign soil.
If that foreign government does not wish to charge those criminals, those criminals are free to go?
Yep — Clinton talked about “regime change” in Iraq… But, Econ, c’mon — There is a HUGE difference between “regime change” and Invasion followed by Execution of the regime leader… I dont remember Clinton ever condoning Invasion of Iraq, in order to achieve “regime change” —
In fact, IIRC, Clinton (and Bush I before him) were HOPING that the people of Iraq would take out Saddam…
Now, where in God’s green earth do you see me saying anything even CLOSE to that piece of crap, Econ??? GET REAL MAN…. That is nowhere NEAR what I said, and YOU KNOW IT!!
“So what if they all came to Iraq AFTER the invasion?”
So, luring al Qaeda was Bush’s master plan? All that stuff about WMD, etc, was just so much bullshit?
And the majority of “terrorists” that we have killed were Iraqi insurgents, not al Qaeda.
Yes, al Qaeda did establish a foothold in Iraq AFTER the invasion, but they were primary located in Afghanistan prior to the war.
Military intelligence indicates that only about 5%
of the resistance in Iraq is foreign.
And for the 300th time – when Clinton established the Iraqi Regime change policy, Saddam had kicked out the UN Inspectors.
They returned in November 2002 and were well on the way to proving what we all know now – no WMD.
And……………….
“Would you think it better, had they all come to the US?”
Yeah right, they chose to fight where we had an Army of 130,000 combat and support troops.
Chas
Cause and effect.
You say that these terrorists should be tried in the country where they are captured, if they are not covered as POW’s under Geneva?
All well and good, but what if the country in which they are captured does not want them, on their soil?
That means: the US can either hold them or release them!
Cause and effect.
WS
I can find far more Democrat quotes, saying that Saddam had WMD’s, then I can find for Bush.
Bush, actually, rarely brought up that subject.
Saddam was a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” and he had to go.
State Sponsorship of Terrorism could not be tolerated.
“You suicidal liberals would release these terrorists back on society.”
Oh, horseshit, Rossell. You know damn well that is not true.
You know that, but you toss that crap out because you have nothing better to say.
If they are terrorists, try them, convict them, punish them under the law.
If they are not terrorists, release them to their home countries.
If they are not terrorists, we have no business holding them indefinitely.
WRONG Econ!! What I said was, if Iraq doesnt want to try them, send them BACK to their country of origin!! Can you READ today??
My point is, that WE should not be trying people for crimes that were not committed against the United States…
Look… IF you hold up the QT at 21st and Arkansas, and you take off for Oklahoma City… and you are arrested in OKC for that robbery…. Would you be tried in OKC for the robbery committed in Wichita??
OR would you be tried in KANSAS for the crime committed IN KANSAS…
Its that simple…
“Saddam was a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” and he had to go.”
Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a mortal enemy of al Qaeda – they wanted his government overthrown – we just did it for them.
“then I can find for Bush.”
That was the WHOLE premise of Bush’s war of choice on Iraq – he had WMD and was a threat to the United States.
Christ, a McCoward says that Democrats are attempting to revise history?
Damn.
Actually, Econ, what I SAID was that they should be tried BY the country against which they committed their crimes…. Naturally, that would be a trial in that country… And not a trial prosecuted by the United States…
Besides, SHOW SOME SUPPORT for your claim that Iraq doesnt want to try those arrested for crimes against Iraq??? Can you do that??
You keep SAYING that… but I see no proof offered??
By what Court was the first Trade Center Bombing ring tried???
Did we not have to set out our intelligence operations in THAT court??
Are they not now in prison???
Your arguments are weak and shaky Econ!!
Chas and WS
These terrorists were killing civilians and firing on the United States Military.
Return them to their “country of origin” ?? Why?
Their country of origin might not have legal grounds to hold them, or try them, either.
Your positions are absurd.
You “invoke” Geneva, then you ignore Geneva.
Geneva clearly states that we can hold POW’s until hostilities are over.
Yes, we are in a unique situation.
George W. Bush has done a good job of trying to address this situation.
The courts, currently, do not seem to have an objection to the way the Commander in Chief is protecting us from these terrorists.
Who says that they are terrorists?
Does a Marine in the field have more authority than the President?
I think that we all agree that the combat Marine can pull the trigger, if he spots a terrorist.
The Marine needs no judge, no jury, no warrant.
If the Marine captures the terrorists, instead, does he now have to appear in court to testify against the terrorist?
That is absurd.
“Doug
Actually, George W. Bush shut down Saddams “rape rooms” — they would still be operating if you liberals had your way.”
You mean those “rape rooms” which were used by the Americans to rape and torture Iraqis? Yeah, they weren’t shut down but the U.S. made another one in Cuba but there isn’t rape there but they do have an execution chamber which turned the concentration camp into a death camp.
You must be so proud to know which side of history you are on. It must be your “do unto others” Christian morality coming through.
WS
Bill Clinton’s State Department classified Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” — You already lost that argument, a long long time ago, remember?
Econ Wrote >>>>
You say that these terrorists should be tried in the country where they are captured, if they are not covered as POW’s under Geneva?
Now, thats just plain dumb… What you are saying there is that if they are captured in England, AFTER committing a crime in Iraq against Iraq, they should be tried in England…
That is not at all what I said…
IF THEY COMMIT A CRIME AGAINST IRAQ, THEN IRAQ IS THE NATION WHERE THEY SHOULD BE TRIED… Whether they are captured in England, France, USA, or Afghanistan….
Their crime is AGAINST the nation of Iraq… Iraq is rightfully the trier of FACT… NOT the United States Military!!
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY…. WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO MAKE ME SAY SOMETHING ANY DIFFERENT???
DO YOU POSSIBLY GET IT NOW???
WS
You are wrong.
Bush did not make WMD’s the reason for war with Saddam.
YOU claim that he did.
Your claim is false.
It was the Democrats who voted FOR the war who kept bringing up WMD’s
“We are killing terrorists, in the process.” -Paul
Yeah, like this terrorist:
http://www.nomorevictims.org/
I guess these children just had it coming. Good ol’ Paul, never shed a tear over a limb being blown off a child. Kinda makes you wonder how he’d treat his own kids.
“These terrorists were killing civilians and firing on the United States Military.”
Then try them.
“You already lost that argument, a long long time ago, remember?”
Nope. You STILL don’t know the difference between a Palestinian terrorist and an al Qaeda terrorist.
I’ll give you a hint, Rossell, it was al Qaeda, a fundamentalist Muslim terror organization that attacked us on 9/11.
Not Palestinians.
Doug
Prove any of this?:
“You mean those “rape rooms” which were used by the Americans to rape and torture Iraqis? Yeah, they weren’t shut down but the U.S. made another one in Cuba but there isn’t rape there but they do have an execution chamber which turned the concentration camp into a death camp.”
—-
Show us where the US Government ever encouraged or condoned rape as an interrogation method, would you?
Show us where rape was ever used, at Gitmo, would you?
You are making stuff up now.
Econ spins again >>>>
You “invoke” Geneva, then you ignore Geneva.
Geneva clearly states that we can hold POW’s until hostilities are over.
NO ECON — WRONG AGAIN!! YOU are the one who said Geneva doesnt apply to NON POW’s…
I never invoked Geneva at all, so how could I ignore it?? So, thats just the old straw man…. It doesnt work, Paul… YOU have said that these people are illegal enemy combatants… NOT POW’s…
What I AM saying… very simply… is that unless these foreign fighters have not committed a crime against the United States of America, then the United States of America has NO RIGHT to haul them into some fake Court, and try them….
Again, please refer to my scenario about robbing the QT…
Econ, Doug said very clearly, that there is NO RAPE at Gitmo… Please read carefully before you attack something not said??
Paul proves once again that you can’t cure stupid.
Give it up Econ101, these Leftist Libs – cheese-eating surrender monkeys will never change their minds.
Just give them a white flag and tell them to go hug a terrorist while kissing their Jihadist backsides.
Chas
Would you please READ the Geneva Conventions, and take my comments, posted here, in context?
The Geneva Conventions would not apply to someone arrested by law enforement, in England, as you mention, for a crime committed elsewhere.
Nobody currently held at GITMO was “arrested” by regular law enforcement, to my knowledge.
They were captured on the battlefield, even though they are NOT POW’s under Geneva.
The situation is unique.
Bush has handled it well.
Granting them POW status would actually mean that we could hold them until the “War on Terror” was over, and they would have no “right to trial” —
A Military Tribunal is actually a better way to handle non Afgans and non Iraqis captured in Iraq or Affanistan firing on the United States Military.
And, Chas
If you would READ before spouting off, the Geneva Conventions state, clearly, that those who do not qualify for POW status should be tried by the country in which they are captured.
The Geneva Conventions apply to combat situations, not regular law enforcement.
Again, do your homework.
BTW, just to be cantankerous… IF these illegal enemy combatants fire on our troops, in Iraq, and WE fire back at them… What you have there, quite literally, is two groups of foreign fighters shooting at each other, in somebody else’s sovereign nation…
And, furthermore, OUR troops might be looked on by SOME as illegal enemy combatants, since we INVADED Iraq to begin with… So, in essence, you could be seeing, in the eyes of some, two groups of illegal enemy combatants, shooting at each other in a sovereign nation…
I know, its a bit of a monkey wrench… but perhaps worth looking at a bit closer…
Yes, I say full Geneva protections do NOT apply to terrorists.
However, you liberals want it both ways.
You want to ignore the fact that we can hold a “POW” until the war is over.
— Yet, you want to grant terrorists all the POW rights and priveledges!
ECON >>>>>
“If you would READ before spouting off, the Geneva Conventions state, clearly, that those who do not qualify for POW status should be tried by the country in which they are captured.”
THAT is what I have been trying to tell you!!
You arent going to try to get me to argue with my own point, are you??
I know thats an old trick… But I already know that one… so keep trying….
Due to thread drift, the issue at hand is supposed to be McCain’s flip-flop, from a brave former POW to voting on the Senate floor for torture.
After steadfastly declaring his opposition to torture, McCain turned into a Pander-Bear and voted for it.
Then there was McCain’s “principled” opposition to Shrub’s tax breaks for the wealthiest… until he changed his mind.
Then there’s McCain calling evangelical conservatives “agents of intollerance” then sucking up to the Religious Wrong.
This is what qualifies as “Straight Talk?”
American jobs aren’t coming back; illegal immigrants aren’t going home; and we’ll be fighting a $5 Billion-a-week war in Iraq for a hundred years.
That’s what McCain has promised.
But he’s broken promises before.
The made-up definition of the word “terrorism” sure has traveled to justify an excuse for any lawless barbarian act its users want it to mean.
Paul, in your Christian moral sense, is it only torture if the Geneva Conventions say so? I say Christian morals because you must have those as opposed to real moral which other people have since in the Christian moral mindset it’s okay to torture people as long as you aren’t tortured yourself. Isn’t that what your Jesus said?
Chas
Obama is against the war.
However, I have not heard Obama call the war “illegal” —
Is it your view that ALL war is “illegal”?
Are you simply trying to tie the hand of any current or future President?
What will you say, if a President Hillary or a President Obama uses a Military Tribunal to try a terrorist?
Count on it.
It will happen under a Democrat, some day.
You know, Rossell, it really isn’t very becoming to twist, distort and attribute false statements to others, but that is your usual method of debate.
First, you mischaracterize a statement or false attribute a statement to someone that did not make it.
Then you condemn the statement.
Then you challenge your opponent to support a statement that he or she did not make in the first place.
Monkey
McCain never said that we would be “fighting in Iraq for 100 years”
Bring up the quote, that is NOT what he said.
McCain reminded everyone that we have been in Japan, Germany and Korea for a very, very long time.
Occupation does not bother the American people.
Casualties do bother us.
That is the point McCain was making.
Did congress vote and declare war on Iraq or terror?
WS
Actually, that is YOUR tactic, to a T.
You simply assume that everyone else uses the same methods, because it comes so naturally to you.
Sol Dev
BOTH!
“McCain reminded everyone that we have been in Japan, Germany and Korea for a very, very long time.”
Why? Why are we STILL in South Korea, Japan and Germany?
How does our continuing presence in those countries aid American interests.
And I don’t think that you can describe our presence in those countries as an “occupation.”
If it is, it certainly is news to those sovereign nations.
Can you please post where congress declared war on terror or Iraq. Not voted to give the president authority to use it as a tool, but used the exact verbage – declaring war on iraq or terror.
3960 dead Americans in Bush’s war on America just so pot bellied conservatives can beat their chests while they sit on the couch and tell themselves how patriotic they are.
And, again:
Come on liberals, McCain can oppose waterboarding and ALSO oppose this particular legislation, which subjects the CIA to the Army Field Manual.
McCain did NOT flip flop on this.
McCain has always wanted us to be careful about what we spell out, in the law.
“Actually, that is YOUR tactic, to a T.”
More bullshit from Rossell – every time you make a statement that “liberals think” you are LYING.
Christ.
Sol Dev
History and the law do not require what you ask for.
The war is legal.
Oppose it all you want.
But it is perfectly legal.
every time you make a statement that “liberals think” you are LYING.
Soooo. Liberals don’t think?
;-)
Ummmm Econ??? Can you show one single place where I have said here that the War is illegal…???
CLARK — Yes, I have seen Econ do that several times already… He appears to have learned well from Medved and Hannity, who use these cheap tricks daily…
Illegal?? Perhaps…. Immoral, definitely… But, Econ, may I humbly point out to you that it is very MORAL and LEGAL to oppose a war because you are against it!!
THAT is the American Way… That is one of the foundations of this great country!! If you take that away, then we are no better than the former Soviet Union, or the present day Iran….
I am GLAD Obama is against the war!! I could only hope MORE would join his views…
But, Econ Paul, I NEVER SAID HERE THAT THE WAR IS ILLEGAL… SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE ASSERTIONS THAT ARE SO PATENTLY FALSE!!
I said I believe TORTURE to be illegal… And so does John McCain….
YOU and several others, have said it isnt… I have invited those of you who say torture should be allowed, to submit to the REAL THING waterboarding, and then come back here, and tell us all about how “nice” and “wonderful” it feels to be “drowned”
THAT procedure is what I have said is illegal…
“Occupation does not bother the American people.”
Uh huh.
You are gonna find out how much it doesn’t in November paulie.
Make sure you show up and cry for us.
“Two weeks ago, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is- a war- and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional “support” for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded “authorizations” that they can back away from easily if necessary.”
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm
Doug
We lost more people, in a single day, literally dozens of times in our history.
Without this war, things could have been far worse.
How could we allow a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” who was ALREADY in a state of war with the US, to stay in power?
Bill Clinton was, legally, at war with Saddam’s Iraq.
Removing Saddam got Libya to swear off Terrorism.
If we had left Saddam in power, who is to say that the DOCUMENTED contacts between Saddam and OBL would not have blossomed into more concrete cooperation?
Who is to say that Saddam would not have financed other terrorists, against the United States, as he had against Israel?
Econ says >>>>
“McCain did NOT flip flop on this.”
That’s right Econ — And IF you look upthread, I SAID THAT VERY SAME THING!!!
Now you want it to look like I said something different… another cheap shot trick Paul!!
“Soooo. Liberals don’t think?”
Caught me, Mr. DevVB.
“If we had left Saddam in power, who is to say that the DOCUMENTED contacts between Saddam and OBL would not have blossomed into more concrete cooperation?”
What documented contacts – Curveball?
Yeah, right.
Bin Laden wanted to overthrow Hussein!!!!!
Damn, get that through your thick skull.
Kingdom Asks World Powers to Curb Israeli State Terror
Arab News
“RIYADH — Saudi Arabia yesterday called upon the international community to stop Israel from continuing state-sponsored terrorism against the Palestinian people. It also denounced the crimes being committed by the Jewish state in defiance of United Nations resolutions.
In a statement issued after the Cabinet meeting, chaired by Crown Prince Sultan, the Kingdom expressed its deep concern over the worsening situation in the occupied Palestinian territories as a result of continuing Israeli atrocities against Palestinian civilians.
“The international community must take a decisive stand on what is currently happening in Palestine and adopt effective steps to protect the Palestinian people from Israeli state terrorism,” the Saudi Press Agency reported, quoting the Cabinet statement.
The Cabinet expressed the hope that the visit of the Quartet’s Middle East envoy Tony Blair would play a positive role toward ending the Israeli blockade on Gaza and reviving the peace process.
The Cabinet reiterated Saudi Arabia’s support for every effort aimed at boosting the Middle East peace process and achieving peace and stability in the region and the rest of the world.
Referring to the Lebanese situation, the Cabinet hoped that the Lebanese factions would be able to overcome their differences in order to protect their country’s supreme interests. It also urged them to hold serious negotiations in the light of the Arab League initiative.
The Cabinet meeting took a number of other important decisions. It authorized the interior minister to hold talks with his Pakistani counterpart on signing an extradition treaty. It also authorized the General Authority of Civil Aviation to sign an agreement with Ghana for increasing cooperation in air transport.
The Cabinet approved a number of measures for the safe disposal of medical waste. It instructed the Health Ministry to set out a program for developing human resources in environmental health and the management of dangerous medical waste, making use of the expertise in national research centers.
The Presidency of Meteorology and Environment Protection has been urged to supervise the companies that work in the environmental sector, especially those that tackle dangerous medical waste, to make sure they follow relevant regulations.
The meeting called for conducting a feasibility study on setting up a joint stock company for the treatment of dangerous waste.
It also proposed the merger of existing companies in the field with the new firm that can accept foreign funds.
The meeting agreed not to collect fines owed by a dead person from his heirs if the fine was to be paid to a person or an individual institution. But this law will not apply to fines related to administrative contracts, the Saudi Press Agency said.
The Cabinet appointed Saud ibn Mohammed Al-Mufleh, Shariah consultant at the Court of Grievances, Abdul Aziz ibn Ibrahim Al-Hadlak, assistant deputy minister for social development, and Abdul Aziz ibn Nasser Al-Misaad, director of administrative and financial affairs at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=106708&d=12&m=2&y=2008
IF IF IF IF…. What a bunch of friggin Straw Men, Paul!! That crap about Saddam and OBL has long since been debunked!! By BUSH’S OWN PEOPLE!! Only Cheney is still hanging on to that!!
Ohhhh I get it… you want to get Bush impeached, so your REAL man Cheney can take over… OK… That would make sense out of your crazy arguments!!
You have lost on the McCain issue, so now you want to spin somewhere else…
Not going to play there, Paul…
Chas
The “legality” of the war came into play, on my part, primarily because, upthread, the hypothetical was asked about who could legally capture or hold a US Military member.
Geneva DOES apply to members of the US Military.
“Econ101″ is reduced to spinning like Nijinsky.
“What McCain really meant was….?
Yeah, right.
Just when was McCain being a “maverick” and when was it “Straight Talk?”
When he was against torture or when he voted for it?
“Without this war, things could have been far worse.”
No one is buying that crap anymore paulie. Get a new sctick.
WS
You have admitted, in the past, on other threads, that there WERE contacts between Saddam and OBL, through middle men.
You claimed that those contacts did not amount to much.
There were contacts.
Those contacts could very well have grown into something substantial.
What do Moslem countries, like Iran and Syria, have in common with North Korea?
Israel recently attacked a North Korean nuclear site in Syria.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” — Saddam and OBL could very easily have joined forces against us.
Chas
The OBL and Saddam link has NOT been “debunked”
Ask the question:
Did Saddam and OBL have any diplomatic or other contacts between them?
The answer is: YES!
Ask the question:
Did Saddam plan or execute 9-11?
The answer is: NO!
You can not take the answer to question #2 and apply that answer to question #1.
Hilter did not plan or execute the bombing of Pearl Harbor, either.
Article 1
Section 8: The Congress shall have power
…
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
JR
Your candidate, Hillary Clinton, voted for the war and said that Saddam had to be prevented from developing WMD’s.
I agree with your candidate, on that.
John McCain:
Yeah, come November McCain’s toast on this one.
The hoops a GOP candidate has to jump through to make the base happy…make that the base that won’t vote for him anyway. Hell, Americans should keep him out of office on the basis of this single stupid vote alone. Coming off a principled stand on torture to pander to idiots who won’t vote for you anyway: that ain’t exactly a quality decision.
I wonder if the flip-flop damaged his neck any. :D
Senator Clinton voted for authorization to use force.
george bush abused that trust.
Gotta be rough for ya paulie. Almost as rough as it was for Willard Romney to stand on stage with John McCain.
Now, you are in the place of trying to help elect a candidate you disparaged only days ago.
I should do a little looking and repost your REAL opinion on John McCain.
Waffling shill
Yeah pedant.
They should make an ad with that right next to the bit about picking lettuce for 50 bucks an hour!
I think paulie AND McCain are too aged and infirm for the gymnastics to spin outta this one.
CIA or American military forces – they are all American and WE are supposed to be the country with HIGH moral and human rights standards.
If we torture, we are no better than al Qaeda.
Econ said >>>>
“the hypothetical was asked about who could legally capture or hold a US Military member.”
Oh really, and where did that come into the discussion??? I missed that one Econ…
“You have admitted, in the past, on other threads, that there WERE contacts between Saddam and OBL”
Nope, wrong again, Rossell.
““The enemy of my enemy is my friend” — Saddam and OBL could very easily have joined forces against us.”
Nope, wrong again, Rossell. Saddam was fully aware that radical fundamentalist terror organizations wanted him overthrown.
That enemy of my enemy thing can only go so far.
KU over CO 2nd half… 62 – 29
“Yeah, come November McCain’s toast on this one…
I wonder if the flip-flop damaged his neck any.”
———–
McCain has not flip-flopped. Not even close. The story, if any, is in the subtle criticism of the administration in his statement on this. (Posted above) Scholfield missed it. Well, actually he obviously didn’t read it before he posted his misleading lead in. Can you find it?
I disagree stongly with McCain on the whole “waterboarding” issue.
However, the CIA only used the technique 3 times, in cases where the CIA says it might well have saved American lives.
McCain says a Presidential Pardon is the right avenue to take, on this subject.
I trust, should torture save lives, McCain would keep that option open.
I also do not believe that waterboarding is torture, but we all have a right to our own opinions on that.
Senate Intelligence Committee Report clearly states that there were meetings between Saddam and OBL, through middle men:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Randy,
As usual you get the story wrong or choose to present us with only half the facts.
The law would have not only prohibited waterboarding, but every other “harsh” interrogation technique as well.
It would have severly restricted the CIA in what methods they had in questioning prisoners.
Perhaps if the bill ONLY focused on waterboarding you would have a point.
Please don’t let those little things like facts and truth in reporting get in the way for you though.
Nathan
EXACTLY!
The Bill could say, “Waterboarding is illegal, and all terrorists must be given steak dinners, ever night, and satin sheets, and TV and golf lessons at the Naval base”
— and Randy would only focus on the “waterboarding” part.
How large was this Bill? How many words would it take to say, directly, that waterboarding is not legal?
This is pure politics.
I do believe Randy missed that subtle thing about the meaning of McCain’s vote… He just doesnt want to force Non military agencies to be bound by the same manual as the Military…
No flip-flop there… different subjects!!
However, I think his vote is still going to have a degree of effect on his party “base” –
Paul – HARDLY! From your link:
“Saddam has viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat, and his regime since its inception has arrested and executed members …
His (Saddam’s) record suggests that any such ties would be rooted in deep suspicion …
Bin Ladin generally opposed collaboration …”
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
James Madison
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter or lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln
Commerce with all nations. Alliance with none.
Thomas Jefferson
Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means.
Ronal Reagan
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargos on countries and peoples across the globe and who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy. A counterproductive approach that actually leads the U.S. to be more resented and more isolated in the world.
Ron Paul
Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ben, don’t confuse Rossell with the facts, it makes his head hurt and disturbs his digestive tract.
Yea, Paul… READ Pg. 69 of your PDF link above… Your remark about Saddam and Bin Laden is totally false and misleading… You even disagree with the United States Senate on that one!! And that was before November 2006!! LOL Paul, ya just cant fix stoopid!!
ECON said >>>>
Senate Intelligence Committee Report clearly states that there were meetings between Saddam and OBL, through middle men:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
The statement is blatantly, and intentionally FALSE… Not good Paul…
With all of the blatantly false statements here today about Saddam and OBL, and about waterboarding…
I think the Eagle should hold a demonstration, using those who post here on the blog that waterboarding is uncomfortable, at worst, as examples of what happens when waterboarding (as administered by inteligence operatives) I think it should be a PUBLIC demonstration…
At the end of the demonstration, all of these heap big macho men of the WEBlog can then stagger to a microphone, and tell us all what FUN it was!!
Somehow, I dont think there would be any takers…
And Sol, I think we could even find plane fare for you to come be part of the demonstration too!!
Any takers???
Can I waterboard Paul? Please, please, please!!!!
(jumps up and down with hand in the air)
Heh
Get line line WS.
Nice posts Sol, but one only gets freedom if they are willing to defend them.
Appeasement is for the weak, the weak-minded and those who chose surrender over their own freedom.
Walking a room with both hands in the air, doesn’t indicate strength, it invites complacent apathy.
And Sol, I think we could even find plane fare for you to come be part of the demonstration too!!
As the one who professes others be liars so much, I call you chas a liar.
Please post where I have supported water boarding?
Sure Chas, I’ll volunteer, only if I get to use the taser on you afterwards.:)
I want to see President Obama or Clinton allow Attorney General Edwards to use that technique on the Republicans as he carries out his investigations.
Chas – I think Sol has been with us on this one.
Sorry Sol — I sometimes get your posts confused with Max…. :-)
Invading a country on a most bogus journey gives freedom to no one. Least of all the attacking country.
We have depleted our soldiers, equipment and our money. They are slow bleeding us to death, just like they promised.
Freedom isn’t free and apparently neither is stupidity
And nice to see you disagree with our founding fathers, Reagan, and MLK. Nice position to be in.
No Regular, that isnt the way it works… We will deal with those who would administer it in their line of endeavor… not a bunch of amateurs…. And tasers??? Screw them too!! Cops have killed too many to keep those around much longer!!
Sol — Regular often lives in his own universe… Perhaps in his universe, there are no founding fathers, Reagan, or MLK… Gotta read up some more on that parallel universe theory!!
Oh yea, Sol — Tell Max if he wants to check out conspiracy theories, go to:
http://www.infowars.com OR
http://www.prisonplanet.com
SOL — I think we could still get you plane fare to come WATCH the waterboarding demonstration… But, I dont see any of these die hards volunteering (except for Regular)… but he wont because there is no room for a taser in this demonstration… LOL
Meanwhile, the consequences of doing a war on the cheap:
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/312558.html
WASHINGTON – Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.
The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press, accuses the service of “gross mismanagement” that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.
Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study. Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.
After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP (pronounced M-rap) the Pentagon’s No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.”
********************************************88
Oh well, as Rumsfield liked to say “We don’t send you to war with the military you should have; just what we choose to provide”
Chas lives in his own scrambled mind, making up facts as he goes along. If the made-up facts don’t work, he’ll scream, add a few exclamation points and stamp his feet. Chas = the living platitude of flaccid thought.
Yep… yep yep yep…. And when they lose, they snap and attack with absolutely nothing — like an old doberman with no teeth!!
Just like you did Chas – hypocrite.
Well, no offers for the waterboarding demonstration yet… I guess all of those macho guys are wimping out….
“Appeasement is for the weak, the weak-minded and those who chose surrender over their own freedom.”
Yeah, right, like FDR who defeated the German military machine and Japanese imperialism.
Moron.
Hey Regular, I’mnot the one who showed you up for what you are!! Talk to Sollie!!
John McCain:
Yeah, come November McCain’s toast on this one.
outlander
Posted February 16, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
Oh there’s plenty of story there. :D
Guy’s against waterboarding on principle, then to appease the base voila he’s for it. THAT’s a story, believe me. It ain’t half the story it will be come September or so, though.
You guys don’t get it yet. Subtle criticism ain’t going to cut it come fall. To get independents and Dems to cross over, he’ll have to defend votes like these. As you know, these are the kinds of votes the Dems will hang around his neck like a millstone, a milstone a.k.a. George W Bush. Every dollar McCain spends defending his vote is also a dollar that ties Augustus Stupidus around his neck.
You guys don’t want Bush on the ballot? Thanks to votes like these, McCain guarantees the ballot will feature Commander Codpiece, front and center. Votes like these guarantee the Republics will still be running on events from 2003 while the Democrats will get a free pass to hang Bush’s past on McCain while running on events of 2008 and beyond. Just watch.
And no, I’m afraid I didn’t dig deep enough to find McCain’s subtle criticism — it’s irrelevant.
FDR had no choice, the U.S. military fleet was attacked in Pearl Harbor, then Germany declared War on the U.S.
While FDR was sucking down his teas in D.C. millions of Jews were dieing in Europe and hundreds of thousands of Koreans and Chinese on the other side of the world.
“FDR had no choice, the U.S. military fleet was attacked in Pearl Harbor, then Germany declared War on the U.S.”
Yeah, and the REPUBLICANS prior to the war were isolationists – they wanted NO part of going to war.
Cowards. Appeasers. Wimps. Surrender losers.
Clark, you think those Republics of yore mighta even FLAILED an arm or two?!? Or done something else that could be weirdly described with the words “impotent,” “testicles,” or … something even weirder?!?
:lol:
Most likely, Pedant, most likely. They were adamant in their condemnation of FDR for his Lend/Lease program, barely veiled support for England, etc.
In other words, they were traitorous cowards that valued surrender over freedom.
Losers.
And the republicans voted in to end the war in Korea and Viet Nam?
Yes Sol, after the Democrats tried to run the war by policy and not through military arms.
Regular
Posted February 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Yes Sol, after the Democrats tried to run the war by policy and not through military arms.
Huh. Bet the troops thought there were military arms being used. As they were shot, killed and maimed. But lets not talk about that.
I know that this will come as a BIG shock to you, McCreepy, but the US military reports to their civilian bosses, not the other way around.
CIVILIANS determine policy, not the military.
Viet Nam, started by Ike was a DISASTER. It was further screwed up by that idiot LBJ and taken to new lows by an even more moronic RMN.
In the United States, the military does NOT have free rein – they report to civilians.
They don’t get to decide policy.
Dumbass.
Both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts had too many cooks in the kitchen. Military decisions were made by politicians.
It’s in the History books, you can read all about it.
Ah, the History Revisionists like Heebie chime in.
Dumb ass.
“Ah, the History Revisionists like Heebie chime in.”
Is that the best you can do, McCreepy?
Show me where I am wrong.
You Republicans NOW claim that we invaded Iraq to s-p-r-e-a-d Democracy and to SAVE the Iraqis from Saddam’s rape rooms, but you know god damned well that the justification for the war was the imminent threat to the USA from Hussein, his ties to al Qaeda and WMD.
Show me where I am wrong, Oh Nut Sack Fixated One.
Show you where you were wrong?
You were wrong when you were born, you’re parents abandoned you and your grandparents reluctantly took you in.
I know that this will come as another big god damned SHOCK to you, McCoward, but the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress can change their minds and decide that “shit, this was a really, really bad idea” and that stands.
The military does not have the right to change that.
Ask Douglas MacArthur.
Tough shit – this is a DEMOCRACY.
Get over it or move to Cuba, McCreepy.
Regular,
Are you defeated and can only attack a poster personally now?
“You were wrong when you were born, you’re parents abandoned you and your grandparents reluctantly took you in.”
Hey, dipshitted one, I was raised by my grandparents until I was six, my idiot and disgusting mother took me away from them shortly after my sixth birthday and placed me for adoption.
My grandmother and father TRIED to get me back, but that criminal enterprise, Lutheran Social Services denied them the opportunity.
Fleetwoodhole.
What a miserable loser you are, McCreepy.
“Give it up Econ101, these Leftist Libs – cheese-eating surrender monkeys will never change their minds.
“Just give them a white flag and tell them to go hug a terrorist while kissing their Jihadist backsides.”
“Ah, the History Revisionists like Heebie chime in.
“Dumb ass.”
“Show you where you were wrong?
“You were wrong when you were born, you’re parents abandoned you and your grandparents reluctantly took you in.
Note the total lack of content except for flaming.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Blow it off WS. Consider the source.
Sol, when the leftist libs stop calling me names and treat me like a normal person, I will stop.
Until then, they get no mercy.
I noticed not once have you called out those making disparaging remarks about me Sol.
Or is that your new found appeasement mode kicking in?
“Give it up Econ101, these Leftist Libs – cheese-eating surrender monkeys will never change their minds.
“Just give them a white flag and tell them to go hug a terrorist while kissing their Jihadist backsides.”
“Ah, the History Revisionists like Heebie chime in.
“Dumb ass.”
“Show you where you were wrong?
“You were wrong when you were born, you’re parents abandoned you and your grandparents reluctantly took you in.”
It seems to me you got this kicked off Regular.
“treat me like a normal person……..”
So when are you going to START acting like a normal person, McCreepy?
Even you would have to admit that your obsession with the (apologies to CapnAmerica) Capn’ scrotum is pretty damn weird.
Even for you.
Jeez, your fascination with another man’s genitalia is down right Creepy.
No, it started much earlier Sol. They do this to me every day. Accuse me of being other posters, call me names like McCoward, McCreepy. Call me insane.
Every day, not just occasionally.
Open up your eyes Sol.
So when they quit and ksassnostic acknowledges that his Leftist hoodlums are just as much the problem, then I’ll stop.
I said CapnAmerica had tiny balls WSClark. You’re the one that repeats it dozens of times of day. It appears you have an obsession with the term balls.
Go sleep off your drunk WSClark, no wonder you’ve been divorced three times.
“when the leftist libs stop calling me names and treat me like a normal person, I will stop.”
No you won’t.
Just like you won’t quit using multiple nics.
“Go sleep off your drunk WSClark, no wonder you’ve been divorced three times.”
Divorced twice, got custody of my kids both times, McCoward.
So I choose wives badly – at least I have been married – unlike you, being a fifty eight year old virgin.
And…………..
“I said CapnAmerica had tiny balls WSClark”
How would you know and why would you care, McCreepy? Why would it CONCERN you? Why would you even bring IT up? Why do you keep repeating stupid and juvenile insults about OTHER men’s genitalia? Why are you OBSESSED with male genitals?
Damn, you really ARE one Creepy SOB.
And that is why you are universally known as McCreepy.
Loser.
McCreepy, McCoward, what is your new nickname going to be?
Ha!
McCreepy, McCoward, what is your new nickname going to be?
Ha!
McCreepy, McCoward, what is your new nickname going to be?
Ha!
McLoser.
Randy: McCain will be waiting on your retraction/clarification. You do do that when you mis-state the facts, right?
Pedant: You are just flat wrong on your facts. Check it out.
So instead of addressing issues we get another night of tirades and personal attacks. Thanx so much.
I rest my case on WSClark’s 5:58 post.
The punk doesn’t know how to hold a civil conversation. The reason why he’s been divorced multiple times.
“The punk doesn’t know how to hold a civil conversation.”
You were the one that called me out, McCoward, you wanted to kick the shit out of me. Instead, you just didn’t show up.
You were the one that threatened physical violence – not me.
But you were the ONE that failed to show and weaseled out of a confrontation.
Like I said, McCreepy, at least I have BEEN married – twice – and although those marriages did not work out – at least I tried and was a good father to my children.
And you? The only date you have had in the last thirty years is the one with your best girl, Rosy Palms.
McLoser.
But, as Mr. Dev VB suggests, TRY to get back to reality.
Or just phuck off.
Regular
Posted February 16, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
“Show you where you were wrong?
You were wrong when you were born, you’re parents abandoned you and your grandparents reluctantly took you in.”
Can you be any more shallow ? Reap what you sow
Actually, I invited you to Denny’s, you’re the one who stated that I wanted to do something violent, not me.
It’s because you try and think with your pea brain, it gets you in trouble every time.
Yeah, Quick Trip Heebie, you went to a place that had armed guards. Such a brave, wimpy man you are.
Larry=Lib Troll
DNFTT
“Yeah, Quick Trip Heebie, you went to a place that had armed guards. Such a brave, wimpy man you are.”
Actually, McCreepy, at the back of QT (North side) they have a very large parking lot, servicing a strip mall and the flea market.
Not a problem with armed guards.
But read back through the posts – you called me out and I accepted your challenge – not because I am a violent man but because I KNOW that you are a coward. I KNEW that you would not show up.
You chickenshitted YOUR way out of YOUR challenge.
You called me out and you wimped out.
And that is why you get the tag – McCoward.
Actually, I said you can drive in Wichita anywhere in 15 minutes.
But keep dreaming Heebie.
Just like you distort my remarks about CapnAmerica and everything else.
You build up grandeur of illusions for yourself.
But hey, I guess an old drunk like yourself has to have dreams.
Hey, McCoward, I am a boy that grew up in Detroit – if you call me out as you did, you gotta expect that I will respond.
Truly, I am sick of this shit, but you just have to stop threatening people.
Enough is enough. Grow up. Be a REAL man. Cut the crap.
For Christ’s sake, if I have to I will fight, but you are hardly a worthy opponent.
Give it up and admit that you are a COWARD with a capital “C.”
“Actually, I said you can drive in Wichita anywhere in 15 minutes.”
So WHY couldn’t you make it to Pawnee and Meridian?
Loser Boy?
And introducing in the RED corner, weighing 299 pounds, with a record of 0 for life, Mc, Mc,Mc COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And in the BLUE corner, weighing 194 pounds, the undefeated, undisputed King of the Liberal, the one and only William Stephenson Clark!!!!!!!!
And McCoward TAKES a dive before the opening bell even has a chance to ring!!!!!!!
It’s over!!!!!!! McCoward weasels his way out of a confrontation because he is a big, fat, chickenSHIT!!!!!!!!
Oh! And what is happening now? McCreepy has retreated to his corner and, and can it be??????
McCreepy must have a very, very bad ape because now he is SPANKING HIS MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is too much folks, the big time LOSER in this match has been reduced to spanking his monkey in his corner!!!!!
He has lost the fight and he is apparently blaming EVERYTHING on his monkey. Avert your eyes folks, this is TRULY unbelievable, but the spanking goes on and on and on!!!!
I think that McCreepy may be turning Japanese!!!!
Oh! The humanity!!!!!!!!
I believe that the monkey may have had enough!!!!!
I’m late to the conversation.
Told you so.
Let’s torture everyone, y’know?, just for fun.
I rest my case, just take a gander at WSClark’s last three posts – no further explanation is needed.
Hey folks, go back to the Senate Report.
Some of you lazy liberals did not read the whole thing.
The Senate report says, clearly, that OBL tried, on more than one occassion, to cooperate with Saddam.
Read pages 60 through 63 of the Senate report.
Mean while, lest we forget,
#
outlander
Posted February 16, 2008 at 9:09 am | Permalink
Here is what McCain says about it. Sorry for the length, but I couldn’t find it without linking left wing propaganda.
I’m sure that Randy Scholfield will appreciate it so that he doesn’t have to continue to operate in ignorance.
SENATOR MCCAIN STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORT
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today submitted for the Congressional Record the following statement regarding the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization bill:
Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form.
During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.
That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as “waterboarding” constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.
Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, “Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA’s interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act.” This remains my view today.
When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I’d emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA’s detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.
The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.
This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.
In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a “shocks the conscience” analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding “shocks the conscience.”
It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict “serious and non-transitory mental harm,” which the MCA states “need not be prolonged.” Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.
It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.
We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.
Senate Intelligence Committee:
(U) Based on the limited information available about the relationship, Iraqi Support to Terrorism concluded that:
Iraq’s interaction with al-Qa’ida is impelled by mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family and by bin Ladin’s interest in unconventional weapons and relocation sites. In contrast to the patron-client relationship between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Saddam and bin Ladin appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other – their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qa’ida’s interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad’s interest in al-Qa’ida’s anti-U.S. attacks.
(U) During his testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in September 2002, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated that, “The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training and reciprical non-aggresssion.”
Sweet. McCain’s 2008 vote (and his speech) do nothing more than get him stuck in 2003…where he and the Republics will be for some time to come.
Meanwhile, the world — and the Democrats — move on.
Thanks to 8 years of the most purposely divisive government in recent American history — the electorate divided not for the sake of either national security or national unity, but for the sake of being able to seat the US Supreme Court (thank you Augustus Stupidus!) — who yall think’s gonna win that conversation, the R’s or the D’s?
ANS: it ain’t McCain.
:lol:
The Senate report would not let me cut and paste, thus the mispellings on my reprint.
Go to this link, pages 60 through 63:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
…and Econ101 ain’t even seen the light of 2004 yet. And he’s delighted to be there, arguing a non-existent link between OBL and Saddam Hussein.
Believe me: 2003 ain’t gonna be a good year come November 2008. :D
Econ — your KEY WORD there is TRIED… Saddam didnt want anything to do with Bin Laden!! And YES I did read it all!! Thank you very much!!
READ PAGE 69 Econ!!! I already told you that once earlier!! PAGE 69!!! YOUR link!!!
Give it up Paul… You lost on that one!!
It is difficult to argue with the libs on this Blog, as you do not all speak with one voice.
That, actually, is to your credit.
However, some of you libs have been arguing that OBL wanted NOTHING to do with Saddam, at least WS has made that argument, in the past.
The truth is, OBL DID want a relationship with Saddam, though some of OBL’s followers certainly did not.
The Senate report, itself, also states, flatly, that Saddam answered “Yes” to the question, “Did your government have any meetings with OBL or Al Queda”?
The Senate Report also states, clearly, that the IIS, or Iraqi Intelligence Service, Syrian Bureau, DID have a “Relationship” with OBL.
You liberals act like there was NO relationship whatsoever.
This is not true.
Both sides did not trust each other.
So what?
The Soviet Union was once allied with Hilter.
Alliances change.
The groudwork was there, for OBL and Saddam to cooperate, at any time.
And, Saddam DID paint a 9-11 mural on more than one government building.
It was a POLICE STATE, for Heavens sake, there is no way anyone in Iraq could celebrate 9-11, in such a public way, without Saddam’s knowledge.
It makes no sense for OBL and Saddam to get in bed together, Econ. They shared a common enemy, yes, but there is no way they could work together in Iraq.
The only other threat would be if Hussein were to fund OBL ops here in the US, or elsewhere in the West. That could theoretically happen, but it in fact never did. It’s hard to see a nebulous “woulda coulda” like that as a valid causus belli…unless you’re jonesin’ for war with Iraq to begin with. Now THAT I believe makes the most sense: you guys were looking for ANY reason to break Iraq, and now of course you need to keep the myth alive so it doesn’t hang your party in November.
But it’s incredible, and self-serving, what you ask Americans to believe. It makes no sense at all for Hussein to allow a religious nutcase like OBL inside Iraq long enough to stir up jihad. Not gonna happen under Saddam.
That’s your biggest hurdle to credibility here. Well, that and your apparent insistence we go to war over a mural.
Chas.
Posted February 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
READ PAGE 69 Econ!!! I already told you that once earlier!! PAGE 69!!! YOUR link!!!
—-
Page 69 of the Senate Report states, at the top, that a document which referenced a relationship between OBL and Saddam was LEGITIMATE, according to the FBI. (The previous page, 68, lists other intelligence experts who said this same document was legit):
—–
(U) DIA noted that “it is unclear why the IIS Syria section would have the lead relationship with bin Ladin when he was based in Sudan. It may have been personality driven. Faruq Hijazi served as the regional manager for Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Arabian Gulf countries from 1983-1991″ As discussed later in this paper, bin Ladin met with Furuq Hijazi in Sudan in 1996.”
—–
Section B, at the bottom of page 69, begins with a prewar intelligence vs postwar intelligence analysis concerning reported contacts between Saddam and al-Qa’ida (The way the Senate spells the Arabic word)
NOTHING ON PAGE 69 OF THE SENATE REPORT CONTRADICTS MY STATEMENT THAT OBL AND SADDAM DID HAVE CONTACTS WITH EACH OTHER!
“The groudwork was there, for OBL and Saddam to cooperate, at any time.”
You could argue that since you and I post the same blog that the groudwork is there for us you and me to cooperate at anytime too paulie.
You can argue it.
It isn’t anymore likely to happen than the secular Saddam working with the zealot bin Laden.
But continue to run McCain on the war. What’s another 5 percent to add to the landslide that will bury him?
OK PAUL For whatever reason, MY page 69 is Page 67 of the PDF document… And I cannot copy it to PROVE to you that you are WRONG!! Why I cant copy it, I dont know… but it will not let me Edit/Copy!!!
It says, and I quote: “Saddam specified that Iraq did NOT cooperate with Bin Laden…”
How much clearer do you want it to be??? It isnt a matter of argument Paul… It is a matter of FACTS… And you are trying to twist FACTS to make them fit what YOU want them to fit!! You might as well stop!!
Please read pages 69 through 74, now.
What in the world was the PURPOSE of the meetings between Saddam and OBL representatives?
The Senate Committee absolutely confirms that at least 3 such meetings DID take place, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
For what purpose?
Saddam DID support religious fanatics in Palestine. To say that Saddam would NOT support OBL, due to OBL’s fanatical religous beliefs, is just not credible.
Saddam was mad at OBL for calling Saddam a “non-believer” — a rather personal grudge, something Saddam would surely overlook, if an opportunity to strike the US, through OBL’s network, ever developed.
Again, read the entire report.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
There WERE, absolutely, connections between Saddam and terrorist organizations.
Yes, Saddam did NOT trust OBL, you are correct about that. The relationship was strained and awkward, but it did exist.
However, why would Saddam celebrate 9-11, paint 9-11 murals on buildings, and MEET with OBL representatives, if Saddam had NO intention of ever cooperating with OBL?
Another quote from Saddam:
“Saddam answered that the U. S., was not Iraq’s enemy.”
AND –
“He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China.”
ONE MORE –
“Tariq Aziz — Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about Bin Ladin.”
Can it be any more Clear?? SADDAM didnt LIKE Bin Ladin… SADDAM did not ally with Bin Ladin…
WHY cant you see that Paul?? I am quoting from YOUR LINK!!
Saddam stated that he MET with representatives of OBL.
I think you need to understand Saddam’s pride is at work here. To say he “cooperated” would be like saying Saddam was, somehow, subservient to a man who had criticized Saddam.
However, Saddam DID admit to meetings between his goverment and OBL’s organization.
Is Saddam the final authority? Can Saddam be trusted?
NO to both questions. However, Saddam admits that his operatives met with Al Queda members. Saddam also states that he did not “cooperate” with Al Queda.
Somehow, I thing that propaganda, painted in HUGE mural paintings of the 9-11 attacks, on Iraqi Government buildings, is a form of “cooperation”, dont you?
Agreeing to MEET with representatives of OBL, on at least 3 PROVEN occassions, would also be “cooperation” would it not?
“Cooperation” it Middle Eastern terms, is a term for the relationshp between equals, I believe,
Saddam was too proud to admit OBL as an equal, perhaps?
I dont know the answer to that, neither do you.
Still, Saddam claims “no cooperation” yet meets with OBL at least 3 times and paints 9-11 murals on his buildings, all the while directly financing other Islamic terrorists in Palestine?
No, OBL and Saddam were NOT two peas in a pod.
They were not, exactly, oil and water either!
Chas
Lots of historical allies did not like each other.
Personal animosity does not make an enemy, personal respect does not make a friend.
I stipulate that Saddam and OBL did not like each other.
They still cooperated with each other, at least enough for Saddam to allow his representatives to meet with OBL’s people at least 3 times, and at least enough for Saddam to celebrate 9-11 and authorize the painting of 9-11 murals on government buildings in Iraq!
Saddam deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul… (From Econ’s Link)
“the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq, and threatening offenders with execution.” (Econ’s Link)
The DIA said that Al Quaida “has proven ties to Ansar al-Islam, but noted that there were no indications of an Iraqi government role in these activities.” (ECON’s LINK)
One 9-11 mural in Iraq, on the Military Headquarters, even had the Iraqi Airlines logo printed on the airplane:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
Here is a mural of Saddam standing by the burning WTC:
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/911mural.htm
Paul — YOUR OWN LINK states over and over and over that there was NO COOPERATION between Saddam and OBL…. And you sit here arguing the point against your own Post!! Why are you hollering at ME about it?? I am merely referring to the LINK YOU provided!!
Why did Saddam celebrate 9-11?? Probably because he didnt like U. S. policies… just like your LINK states… However, Saddam did not see the U. S. as his enemy!!
“However, why would Saddam celebrate 9-11, paint 9-11 murals on buildings, and MEET with OBL representatives, if Saddam had NO intention of ever cooperating with OBL?”
Wow WHAT a leap in logic! The US had been and ally to Saddam. The US had USED Saddam. Then the US turned on Saddam. Then the US fought a war with Saddam.
And because Saddam celebrates an attack on the US, he is automatically complicit?
Paulie if you suddenly lost everything you own, I’d celebrate. I wouldn’t paint any murals as I am not artistically inclined. But I’d be happy in your loss. That does not mean I would have been complicit in it.
But keep reaching. McCain can’t lose by enough for my taste!
Chas
I agreed that the relationship was strained, between OBL and Saddam.
But there WAS a relationship.
You gotta remember… Saddam celebrating 9-11 isnt exactly like us celebration D-Day!!
Those people do not value human life the way we do… Saddam saw the fall of a financial empire on 9-11 — Loss of life to him was only collateral damages…
Econ, the paper states there was no compelling evidence of cooperation between Saddam and OBL. It’s just not there. That Saddam supported suicide bombers in Palestine is a proven fact. That he had any dealings with OBL is anything but proven. It’s a non issue.
That is not a point of view that WE comprehend, and do not believe in… But the Middle East is a different culture!! Totally different!!
They dont observe the same values we do!!
Econ101
Posted February 16, 2008 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Who knows? Maybe to reach an agreement on keeping OBL out of Iraq?
Or. The thing is that it makes more sense for OBL and Saddam to reach a pre-emptive truce, one established before an OBL deposition of the royal family in Saudi Arabia, than it does for them to work together on another 9/11. Or at least as much sense. After all, Saudi Arabia is OBL’s home, it’s near Iraq, and it’s oil rich. To seize the home of Mecca from the royal family and use it as a base to convert/murder Shi’ites in Iran (but stay out of Iraq) would be of more interest to Saddam than funding an attack on the US. What would being the “secret partner” in another 9=11 earn the secularist Saddam in fundamentalist circles? I’m thinking not much, not unless it’s a secret open enough to also earn him a handful of US ICBMs up the wazoo. I don’t know, but I’m also not going to conclude that my ignorance justifies assuming the worst about Saddam, especially if that “worst” means war.
Again, the only way you add your 2 and 2 together and get “Saddam and OBL were allies” is if you WANT war enough to find justification for it anywhere.
NO ECON There was NO relationship!! Saddam didnt LIKE him… didnt TRUST him… didnt want OBL’s Extremism anywhere influencing Iraq!! That is ALL in that Senate report!!
I really wish you would stop trying to invent something that didnt exist!! I know you might like Dick Cheney… but VP Dick is just a bag of hot air!!
Chas
So, you believe the lying mass murderer, Saddam, when he says what you want to hear, and you do not believe Saddam, when he says something you do not want to hear?
To schedule meetings takes cooperation. To support a terrorist attack is a form of propaganda, Pro-Al-Queda propagand IS cooperation with Al Queda.
You can discuss the LEVEL of cooperation, but Saddam is, obviously, LYING when Saddam stated that there was NO cooperation.
JM
The Senate report clearly states that Saddam’s government met with OBL operatives at least 3 times.
AMEN Pedant… and that is essentially what the Senate Report says:
“The analysis was detailed, didnot make definitive statements, and left the issue open to the consumer to decide what constituted a ‘relationship’.”
Yeah and george bush met with representatives of the Taliban when he was governor of Texas paulie.
Is bush complicit in the activities of the Taliban?
Chas
Thanks for being honest in that last post.
The Senate report did NOT Say that there was “no relationship” between Saddam and OBL.
But ECON — They didnt meet about 9-11!!
And some of those meetings were for the purpose of Saddam to tell OBL to stay they hell out of his country!! Geez!! Read the whole context!! SADDAM DID NOT LIKE BIN LADIN!!
Saddam even executed Shia’s and Sunni’s for being radical Islamic extremists!! Geez!!
No, but neither did it say there WAS a relationship…. It simply didnt SY!!
JR
Who said anything about “complicit” — I did not.
Yes, I believe that Saddam was an “accmplice after the fact” — in that Saddam supported 9-11 with Saddams own, internal propaganda.
I never said that Saddam planned or suppored 9-11 before the fact. I never even claimed that Saddam knew about it, ahead of time.
“Complicit” is your word.
I do not need to prove such, to show that Saddam was a very dangerous man, the leader of a country listed as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” even by the Bill Clinton administration.
Just one more example of how McCain is two-faced–on a GOOD day.
Chas
Definitions.
Do meetings prove cooperation?
Not up to it, right now, but I am sure, on other threads, some of you have stated, flatly, that there were NO meetings between Saddam’s Iraq and representatives of OBL.
I have proven otherwise.
I was never trying to prove that Saddam was “complicit” in 9-11, before the fact.
Only that he was dangerous, and sympathetic, and supportive.
Paul, the Senate report doesnt agree with you on that kind of cooperation… Cooperation for a meeting in that corner of the world depends on having a coffee shop on a street corner in some city… They dont THINK like we do!!
WHY are you spinning??? I am not spinning anything here… Just showing YOU what YOUR OWN link says… that YOU are disagreeing with!!
Geez, man, the way you are carrying on, one would think you have some kind of personal stake in proving Saddam had a thing going with OBL!!
Whats up with that Paul???
Hey, I said BEFORE the invasion of Iraq that the war was bogus… either had to do with oil, or finishing daddy bush’s first war, or something… but certainly no connection between Iraq and 9-11!! NONE at all!! And that has since been proven TRUE!!
What is so hard about that?? We were duped as a nation!! I have been called MANY names because I rejected Bush’s argument for war!! I have NOT changed my position since 9-11!!
I am still waiting for Bush to “track down the evil doers and bring em to justice…” like he said he would do when he made his bull horn speech at ground zero!! I am still waiting…. Havent seen anything yet!!
BTW, I wasnt real happy with Clinton sending troops to Bosnia/Herzagovinia either!! Just so nobody throws Clinton into the mix…
Chas
You are reading things into the Senate report that just arent there.
To state that Saddam and OBL could NEVER cooperate, in the future, is not supported by any, credible evidence.
Saddam had no trouble supporting other Islamic radicals.
Granted, he did so when the radicals were rather far away from Iraq. (Jordan would be a buffer, when Saddam supported radicals in Palestine).
It is a myth, a pure fabrication, that Saddam and OBL could NEVER cooperate.
Moslem extremists cooperate with North Korea and with Venezuala.
I never said that Saddam took orders from OBL.
I never said that OBL took orders from Saddam.
I said, clearly, that there were contacts between the two.
Paulie, Saddam didnt have any delivery systems available to him to be dangerous to the United States… What were we afraid of??? A Scud missile landing in the middle of the Mediterranean??? LOL
I gotta go for now… Got some drafts to get ready for tomorrow…. Later!!
And
Back to the original thread topic:
McCain did not “flip flop” at all.
Some of you libs say he did, some of you libs say he did not.
Just because a proposed law has one thing you agree with, in it, does not mean that you have to swallow a bunch of other stuff you do not agree with.
McCain is wrong on waterboarding, IMHO, but McCain has been very, very consistent.
He has not flip flopped.
“Moslem extremists cooperate with North Korea and with Venezuala.”
But SADDAM didnt!! Did he??
Chas
I believe that SAME Senate report does state that Saddam did conceal some missles that had a range much longer than what was allowed, by UN sanctions.
Econ101
Posted February 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
The measure was designed to get McCain to commit to one of two mutually exclusive options.
One, he could vote “no,” flip flop on the waterboarding issue (although not on the balance of the measure), keep the terms of the debate stuck in 2003, link himself directly to Bush, and keep his base happy, or two, he could vote “yes,” remain consistent within his principles on waterboarding, move the argument up to the present, make a clean break with Bush, and piss off the base.
He chose option 1, to flip flop. He’s now flip flopped on waterboarding, he’s stuck in 2003, his base won’t vote for him anyway, and he’s wearing Augustus Stupidus as a millstone around his neck. He’ll now have to live with it all come November.
It was a Sophie’s Choice vote, by design.
Nope, that’s wrong: McCain definitely flip flopped on waterboarding.
Econ, you’re grasping at straws here. Such as, where were those missiles the senate report says Saddam had? He may have met with OBL’s operatives, which proves nothing. Saddam himself stated, in his last interview, he had WMD because he didn’t want Iran invading him, and he misjudged our reaction. He wasn’t the brightest fellow.
As for McCain; he has been against waterboarding from the start, then he’s okay with it? No contest: he sold out.
Those who claim we shouldn’t use non injurious water-boarding as a method of protecting lives from terrorists please see what we are up against.
Link:
Click here to see the video on a Turkish news site (WARNING: Very disturbing Images).
Lets try this link, the hyperlink didn’t work:
Link:
http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=2107
Boxlock
Posted February 16, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
I didn’t check your link, but let me guess. It’s a severed human head?
In any case, gore is irrelevant. What we’re up against is our own principles, those attitudes about freedom and democracy that are unique to the USA.
I for one find it infinitely sad that some Americans would choose to abandon them because they’re frightened. Not much of a principle if it gets flushed by a little scare.
There are worse things than death in this life.
Chas
WRONG again, Saddam DID try to buy advanced missles from North Korea.
Saddam got ripped off!
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=40343
I do realize that I just posted Al Jazeera, but there are other sources to the same event.
Saddam DID try to cooperate with North Korea.
So, Boxer… We know those people are barbaric… That is the VERY REASON we dare not join that sort of barbarism in our treatment of prisoners… BTW, that video is a planned, and most likely, not a government planned… EXECUTION… That was Execution… not torture!! There was no expectation of any information from those three victims…
ECON — Well, he might have tried, but he didnt get what he wanted… eh?? No cooperation there… sorry Paul, you keep striking out on this thing…
Look, Saddam was a loser… He didnt like OBL… He wanted the kind of power to defend his country… like all nations want…
You really havent proven anything… except for a lot of pseudo facts… You know, stuff that MIGHT be good, IF it ever happened, which it never DID happen, and now, never WILL happen!!
It’s over, Paul!! Saddam didnt do what YOU say he did… not in the WAY you want it to look… Even your Senate Report says it is left in the mind of the consumer…
Let it ride, Paul!!
Well, it’s Sat. nite, and I have much to do tomorrow… So, I leave the Blog with this Prayer of the Evangelical Agnostics, by Susan Werner, on the album, “The Gospel Truth” –
Thy Kingdom Come,
in every nation;
Thy Will be done,
In everything we do;
Lord lead us not
Into temptation;
But deliver us
From those
Who think they’re You!
– Susan Werner –
Good night; Good luck; and God bless;
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Chas
You are not coherent here, at all:
—-
Chas.
Posted February 16, 2008 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
“Moslem extremists cooperate with North Korea and with Venezuala.”
But SADDAM didnt!! Did he??
—–
I prove, to you, that Saddam tried to buy technology from North Korea, and you say that SADDAM did not cooperate? Because North Korea screwed Saddam?
By your logic, every “John” that gets arrested, on South Broadway, should go free, if the “hooker” was really a police decoy, huh?
Come on! Saddam DID cooperate with North Korea.
You stated that he did not.
You lost.
Getting ripped off for $10Mil. isnt exactly what I would define as cooperation… Paul, cooperation is a two way street!!
I said NOTHING about hookers on Broadway!! Why do you keep inventing phony stories??
“By your logic, every “John” that gets arrested, on South Broadway, should go free, if the “hooker” was really a police decoy, huh?”
Where in the hell are we talking about decoys??
Did you change books, or what??
Can you please stay on point???
“Doug
We lost more people, in a single day, literally dozens of times in our history.” -Paul, the heartless
If your child dies do you just shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, people die all the time.” or do you actually express an emotion? How many people have to die for your entertainment before it becomes wrong?
I know, I know, I’m not a Christian so I don’t share your superior morality because I don’t take pleasure in torture and death.
Keep propping up that strawman, Rossell, keep working on it, you can’t bring yourself to admit that Bush screwed the pooch with his war of Choice, the War on Iraq.
Iraq was no threat to the United States.
Iraq was not involved in 9/11.
Iraq was not involved with Muslim fundamentalist terror organizations.
Iraq was not a threat nor did they possess WMD nor did they have a program for same.
Iraq was not a front on the war on terror(ism.)
The citizens of Iraq are Arab – that is as close to making a case for the War on Iraq that you can do, Rossell.
According to you, we should kill all Arabs and Muslims in the god damn world.
Loser, Rossell, you are a loser.
Your moto – when in doubt, kill someone.
WS
Other liberals, on this very thread, admit that Saddam funded Islamic Terrorists, in Palestine.
Strike one, you missed.
Bill Clinton’s administrtion listed Iraq as a “State Sponsor of Terrorim”
Strike two, you missed again.
Pauls grandchild enjoys the best of medical treatment.
And yet he has asked for our best hopes for her here in the face of her illness.
But Paul has none of the same to share. He and his party would deny even the most base of care simply as to who can pay and who cannot.
He cannot be ashamed of himself. I will be ashamed of him in his stead.
Iraq IS a front on the war on terrorism NOW, regardless of its status, prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Strike 3, WS, you are OUT!
McCain wants to prove he is a real conservative so he can say “I am part of them”. By election day everybody will hate him.
“Other liberals, on this very thread, admit that Saddam funded Islamic Terrorists, in Palestine.”
Paul, I realize that you are a Republican, and by definition, stupid, but do you have any concept, the slightest understanding of the differences between the Palestinian issue and fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups?
Really.
The two are as different as could be – are you that truly stupid that you can’t see that?
JR
HUH?
You want FREE health care. Hillary is YOUR candidate, and even Hillary has threatened to GARNISH your wages and force you to pay for your own health care.
How in the world do you link my humanitarian, public minded resistence to goverment botched health care to this topic?
It is absolutely possible to resist government control and government mandates based on a humanitarian love of freedom.
You think that socialism is morally superior.
I think conservatism is morally superior.
However, I do not attack your morality, I attack your logic.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The promise of government help comes with the curse of government control.
I truly believe we are all better off without a government that can give us everything we want, because a government that strong can very easily take everything we have.
YOU are the terrorist paul. It is how you make your living.
If there were any credible threat to you and yours do you imagine for a moment I would rise to defend you?
Let me relieve you of that delusion right now.
WS
Do you claim that fundamentalist Islamic Jihad plays no part at all in the Palestinian conflict?
WS
By the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, linked on this thread, quite a bit, mentions Palestinian TERRORISTS.
That Committee Report was bi-partisan.
Was the entire US Senate wrong to call the PLO and Hammas and Hezbollah “Terrorists”??
I believe that Saddam helped all three TERRORIST groups, didnt he?
It’s what you want isn’t it Paul?
US vs them I mean?
Except you want to define us and them when I am us and YOU are them. Then you want to distract me with an imaginary enemy.
I know who my enemy is paul. It’s you.
JR
I would defend you, because that is who I am.
I do not have to like you to defend you.
However, I would worry, should I see you at the hands of someone else, suffering injury, that you might deserve it.
By your very words here, on this Blog, you are proud of your hate and you want your political enemies to suffer, financially and physically.
I think you are warped and misguided.
However, I would still defend you, if more force was being used against you than was necessary for legitimate self defense.
I would do so because, JR, I am NOT a “terrorist” — even if your very words and statements would indicate that you would not do the same for me.
Paul, you are truly an idiot.
Palestinian “terror” groups – wanting to establish a Palestinian homeland.
Islamic fundamentalist terror groups – wanting to defeat Western influence in Arab countries.
See the diff, dumbass?
Christ, you are just being WILLFULLY ignorant.
WS
NO, you are.
Israel contains NO oil, none at all.
The Moslem states and radical Moslem groups attack Israel as a way to avoid the truth:
Arabs and other Moslems treat Palestinians like dogs.
How much Arab and Moslem Oil money builds hospitals and starts businesses in Palesitine?
Other Moslems use Palestinians as cannon fodder.
Egypt kicked out the Palestinians.
Jordan kicked out the Palestinians.
Saddam paid Palestinians to blow themselves up.
How many hospitals did Saddam build, in Palestine?
How much food did Saddam send to Palestine?
There would be peace between the Palestinians and Israel tomorrow if only the terrorists would stop killing innocent people in Israel.
I’m honest paul. You are not.
Oh no you would never OPENLY hurt me and mine.
You do it with ledgers and calculations and profit margins.
I’m not dishonest in my hatred of same.
To put a finer point on it, you could watch me and mine suffer and die and pay lip service to how you are oh so sorry about it. And then you do the numbers and move on.
Me I’m not so duplicitous.
“Israel contains NO oil, none at all.”
Huh? WTF does that have to do with the topic?
Jeez, Rossell, you are REALLY a moron.
Try again, this time ATTEMPT to make sense.
WS
Quite a few Democratic politicians have spoken out against Palestinian terrorist groups.
Are they all “idiots” and “stupid” too?
“Econ101″ –
Nice use of Republic Party boilerplate talking points when you posted: “…even Hillary has threatened to GARNISH your wages and force you to pay for your own health care.”
I particularly enjoy (and you do, too, obviously, since you CAPPED it) the word “garnish.”
Fact is, income taxwitholding, FICA premiums, your 401(k), and health insurance premiums (if any) are paid via “garnishee,” a legal term that merely states an employer can pay a third party for obligations to a third party.
The misrepresntation of a payroll deduction by using the inflamatory and fear-mongering hyperbole of “garnish” (Ooops. Sorry, “Econ101.” I meant to type “GARNISH!” like you do.
The 1990s called. They want their sleazy Republic Party tactics back.
WS
The “no oil in Israel” point actually is very much on topic.
We support Israel, Israel has no oil, therefore the claim that we are only in Iraq for oil is weak.
However, that is not the primary purpose of my “no oil in Israel” comment.
The primary point is that the Moslem world does very little, in the way of humanitarian support, for the Palestinians.
The Moslem world wants to cause grief, for the State of Israel.
Suffering Palestinians do more to hurt Israel than do healthy, happy Palestinians.
Therefore, the Moslem world WANTS unhappy Palestinians.
Therefore, the Moslem world does very little to truly help the Palestinians.
Monkey
HILLARY used the term “Garnish” — I heard her say it on TV, from her own mouth.
Dont get mad at me for what Hillary said.
“Quite a few Democratic politicians have spoken out against Palestinian terrorist groups.”
Rossell, are you incapable of seeing the difference between a Palestinian group and an Islamic fundamentalist group?
Really, I am serious, they are two totally different animals.
Like cats and dogs.
Really, you can’t be THAT stupid, Rossell.
You have made much of your suffering grand daughter paul.
How many kids her age and in a similar condition died in America while your grandchild recovers? And they died because they had not the resources that you and yours build on the backs of others.
“We support Israel, Israel has no oil, therefore the claim that we are only in Iraq for oil is weak.”
Huh? When the phuck did I say that?
Dumbass.
Obama has also attacked Hillary for the “garnishment” idea:
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/hillary_garnish_wages_for_my_h.html
WS
NO you are wrong.
There are, of course, many different types of Islamic Terrorists.
Some of those terrorists are Palestinian terrorists.
You are making a fuss about something really stupid.
Islamic terrorism is real.
Palestinian terrorists are a branch of Islamic terrorism.
End of story.
Of course, WS, you probably think it is OK for Palestinian terrorists to blow up innocent civilians and for Palestinian terrorists to launch missles into Israel.
You feel that any act against Israel is justified, so that act, once justified, can not be called “terrorism”.
I understand you perfectly.
For the record again paul, it flows both ways.
You do not care if me and mine suffer and die.
My better liberal but conservative roots included, I’ve no problem seeing you and yours suffer and die.
JR
The truth is, frankly, you are wrong.
Though my daughter has great coverage, now, through her own hard work, my grand daughter had NO coverage, through much of her original illness, 5 years ago.
That had absolutely NO affect on her treatment.
None what so ever.
You just shot a huge blank.
Health care and health insurance are two entirely different things.
Nobody is denied treatment for lack of coverage.
My grand daughter actually proves that point.
JR,
Have you gotten any health insurance for your son yet?
I am curious. I still see you droning on about how others don’t care about you and yours.
The question I have for you is:
Why don’t you care for you and yours?
“Garnishee” is one of those perfectly mundane legal terms which is as common as payroll deductions.
But its implications are inflamatory in political discourse. And for anyone who knows just about anything, your use of all-CAPS to parrot Republic Party talking points is self-evident of its intent.
It’s disingenuious, like the old joke about how a candidate was seen matriculating in public!
Twenty minutes with Blackwell’s and I could conjure up a case which makes a routine traffic stop “Kidnapping under the Cover of Law” or something. Eh.
JR
by your own words, YOU are the terrorist, not me.
I wish you no ill will.
I only wish and pray for your enlightenment.
I take no pleasure in the suffering of anyone.
I simply understand that defense of our country will, sometimes, require such suffering.
And, again, I would defend you if someone kicked you, when you were already down.
Even though you are the type that would be very likely to stab me in the back, thereafter.
You are wrong about me.
I dont take it personally.
From your posts here, you are pretty much wrong about everything, so how can I be so arrogant as to take it personally?
WS
Hitler was NOT a Christian.
I proved you wrong, on that point, long long ago.
Hitler hated Christians, he was simply smart enough to realize he could not get rid of everyone he hated, all at once.
Nathan in the company of paul.
That’s little surprise.
Hey Nathan? When were you ever responsible for your own insurance or medical care? Do you even know how much it costs?
And
WS
When did I ever say that Al Queda and Palestinian Terrorism were “one and the same”???
You stated that Saddam did not support terrorism.
I proved that Saddam did support Palestinian terrorism.
You now seem to claim that there is no such thing as Palestinian Terrorism.
You are arguing with yourself, I think.
Paul you make your living in weighing who is and is not worthy.
I’m just more honest than you.
“I take no pleasure in the suffering of anyone.”
Jesus H Christ!!!!! Look out!!!!!! It is the Paul Phucking Rossell nose growing!!!!!!
Holy shit on a cracker!!!!!!!
Protect yourself, you and yours!!!!!!!
Rossell is loose and his nose is growing!!!!!!
God damn, save yourselves!!!!!!!
JR,
I have paid for my own insurance for most of the past 7 years.
I gave you a link to a website where you could fill out the application and get all the information you need on insuring your son.
I bet it wouldn’t cost more than 150 dollars a month if even that much.
That would mean working about 20 hours more a month so your son could have insurance JR.
So, why don’t you care enough about your son to get him health insurance?
JR
Those who work for an employer who provides health insurance DO provide for their own insurance.
It is part of the package.
Hey paulie?
“I wish you no ill will.”
Want me to go get a post from you where you lied on me and proved otherwise?
“Hitler was NOT a Christian.”
Next, you are going to tell us that he was a Muslim, right P. Phuck Rossell?
Yerkov.
My son is insured through Healthwave which bush is seeking to destroy.
Before that I insured him and myself. And I did not find fault with the uninsured.
I might be jumping into this conversation a bit late…
But who cares if Hitler was a Christian? What is your point?
Obviously his beliefs didn’t embody the message of Christ or Christianity. I could call myself a Jew, but that doesn’t make me one.
JR,
If your son has helth insurance then why in the hell are you on a blog crying about why others don’t care about him?
For heavens sake man, get some pride and take care of your family and stop trying to push your socialist guilt on me and others.
Nathan
I did the same thing for JR, awhile back.
In fact, I can get insurance even cheaper, through Coventry Health Care of Kansas it would cost $61.00 a month for a 16 year old, with a $1000.00 deductable and $20.00 office visit copay.
I doubt seriously that any government program will be as good for JR’s son, or as cheap.
Wait-a-hold-it!
“Econ101″ –
Perhaps you want to amend and revise your comments when you posted:
“…my grand daughter had NO coverage…”
“…None what so ever.”
“…Health care and health insurance are two entirely different things.
“Nobody is denied treatment for lack of coverage.
“My grand daughter actually proves that point.
JR
Bush has NEVER said that he wanted to do away with “HEALTH WAVE” — you are not telling the truth.
Monkey
NO I dont want to revise anything.
It was not my daughters fault.
Her X sent her to the wrong hospital.
His insurance did not cover that hospital.
The lack of insurance did not affect her care.
Not in any way.
“For heavens sake man, get some pride and take care of your family and stop trying to push your socialist guilt on me and others.”
Nathan?
I could go and look. My memory is pretty good.
I am thinking you have posted as to how you were in government housing and on food stamps.
Am I wrong?
Nathan
I think you are on to something.
JR does not want to admit that he is crying for us to pay for HIS health insurance.
That is the reason why JR brings up his son.
Now, JR tells us his son has Health Wave, a program for the poor that George W. Bush has ALWAYS supported.
Paulie
Bush vetoed schips.
Oh by all means glom onto Nathan while you tell us why your grandchild is worthy of care and other kids are not paulie.
Good night y’all – hope that some of you die in your sleep tonight.
Oh, not really, but I thought I would make a Republican inspired comment as a parting shot just for S & G.
Ha!!!!!
JR
Nathan is not faulting anyone who needs a helping hand.
Not by my reading.
However, Nathan is absolutely right to make you face up to the fact that the taxpayers are ALREADY supporting you and your child.
You are no longer an advocate for your child, JR.
You are just another ungrateful passanger in a wagon you do not want to push, insisting that you have the right to tell the rest of us where to go and how fast to take you.
JR
Bush supports the current SCHIPS program, the program under which you ALREADY qualified.
Bush never advocated cutting back the program you are already benefitting from, with your child.
Paulie you are invited to post or bonedig when ever I have posted as to my lack of insurance or denial to get same.
JR
You are a very sick puppie, arent you?
Do you sit in front of fancy restaurants and tell those walking in and out the door that you deserve what they have, instead of hamburger?
Do you sit outside car lots and tell others that you “deserve” to drive the cars they drive?
Of course not. Because you know you would look like an idiot.
However, you get on this Blog and tell us we are, somehow, heartless, because we will not pay for your “child’s” health insurance, then you tell us that your child DOES qualify for Healthwave?
Well, maybe you would sit in front of a restaurant and tell us your kid deserved more than hamburger, as you don’t seem to have the guts to beg, honestly, for yourself.
Oh I am absolutlely an advocate for my child paulie.
I teach him everyday about creeps like you.
“Econ101″ offers:
“NO I dont want to revise anything.
“It was not my daughters fault.
“Her X sent her to the wrong hospital.
“His insurance did not cover that hospital.
“The lack of insurance did not affect her care.
You just don’t get it, do you, “Econ101?”
We’re not facing a healthcare crisis in America, we’re facing a PAYING FOR HEALTHCARE crisis in America.
And every step of your grand-daughter’s experience contributes to our failed system. She got medical treatment for her ailment without having the means to pay for it? Is she the hospital’s charity case or the physicians’ tax-writeoffs? Or is she facing bankruptcy?
“Sent to the wrong hospital”??!! What’s that supposed to mean?! You’re run over by a truck, “Econ101,” and EMS is johnny-on-the-spot to pick up your bloody carcass off the pavement… but first they need to know from you which is the “right” hospital.
Else, your insurance won’t pay the bills.
Great system you’re defending.
Begging is what YOU do Paulie.
Like when you sold out your union?
Monkey
Your politics cloud your logic, at least a little bit.
Actually, government support for education has INCREASED the cost of education.
Likewise, more government support for medicine will INCREASE the cost of medicine.
Increases in demand will usually cause an increase in price.
However, I do not disagree that people should buy health insurance, or work for an employer who provides health insurance.
Scold JR. He is the person who does not want to buy his own insurance.
Dont scold me.
I have protected the financial health of thousands, in my 25 years in the health insurance business.
Also, I would say that we do have a “health crisis” even more than an “insurance crisis” in America.
Heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, violence, drug abuse, alcoholism — all to various degrees preventable, or greatly diminished threats, depending on lifestyle.
Do you want to give government an excuse to regulate lifetyle?
Under government controlled health care, count on it. The Nanny State will control everything you eat, your weight, your every move.
It’s inherited the failure?
Paul failed in his marriage and his daughter did too.
Now he wants to judge on others?
JR
For Heavens sake.
I voted with the majority, EVERY time the Retail Clerks Union voted on anything.
Each and every time, my side won the vote.
I never crossed a picket line.
Not once.
How did I “sell out”?
I suppose, to a Union thug, anyone who does not support a “scorched Earth, take no prisoners” approach is a “sell out” —
You were probably the kind of Union thug that put nails in your co-workers driveways, and squirted paint-thinner on their cars, when they did not do what you wanted them to do, aren’t you JR?
How “Democratic” of you, to support their right to vote, honestly, to strike or not to strike!
“Scold JR. He is the person who does not want to buy his own insurance.”
Uh no. I cannot afford to buy insurance.
This is because I work for myself and have not sold out as paul has.
Do defensive all night paulie.
It won’t redeem you.
And are you trying to convince me?
(who you so disrespect)
Or are you trying to convince yourself?
JR,
How can you not afford to buy insurance?
Did you go to that website and fill out an application?
How much would it cost for you to buy health insurance for yourself a month?
Get a damn job and pay for some health insurance.
JR
Who have I “judged” here?
I think the county is better off with less government control of our lives.
You “fight” that argument by making personal attacks.
WOW JR, you act like “St Paul” getting struck off his horse. What a GREAT revelation: “Nobody is perfect. Conservatives, therefore, arent perfect. Therefore, if I attack conservatives, personally, they will either run away, in fear, or admit that I, JR, am “right” and give me what I want”
Save yourself, JR, nobody else can.
You are not the “Messiah” — you are not even a prophet to any Messiah.
I have many faults. I admit them freely. However, I am an honest man who wishes no harm on anyone.
Not even you.
I simply insist that my country defend me, and my family, even if it means harm must come to others.
Defense is the first, primary, primal reason for society.
However, our defense budget is but a very small portion of total government spending.
Personal attacks are all you have, huh?
JR
Did you just contradict yourself? Or are you doing a quick CYA?
—–
J R
Posted February 17, 2008 at 1:31 am | Permalink
Paulie you are invited to post or bonedig when ever I have posted as to my lack of insurance or denial to get same.
—–
J R
Posted February 17, 2008 at 1:51 am | Permalink
“Scold JR. He is the person who does not want to buy his own insurance.”
Uh no. I cannot afford to buy insurance.
This is because I work for myself and have not sold out as paul has.
—-
Sorry JR, I just dont follow.
First, you challenge me to prove what ever you might have said, in the past, about your own insurance coverage.
I do not, immediately, take the bait. (Even though it looked rather tender).
Then, you say you can not afford insurance???
And again, JR, what is your definition of a “sell out”???
Hillary worked for financial services companies.
Hillary worked for Savings and Loans.
Hillary gets millions of dollars in campaign contributions from health insurance companies.
Hillary worked for Walmart, a great company though their own insurance benefits are not the best.
Seems to me that your hero, Hillary, should be judged by the same “standards” as me.
Maybe worse? I never pretended to represent those who Hillary pretends to represent.
Again, do you consider anyone who has a job a “sell out”???
You own your own business? Great.
Why havent you hired anyone?
Would you hire a Union worker?
You are a bitter, angry person, JR.
You will remain miserable until you look in the mirror and except responsibility for your own life.
Me? I am a happy and lucky man.
I envy no one.
I hate no one.
I wish everyone, even you, the very best.
— unless, of course, you do me or my country harm.
As a goodnight…
“Personal attacks are all you have, huh?”
Paul F Rosell would you like me to revisit your own personal and false attack on me that destroyed your credibility here? I can. But I don’t think I need to.
And Nathan.
Have you ever lived or worked in the public domain?
I could be wrong, but my understanding is you have not.
Dad was away and you lived in government housing and (and this is just plain wrong) on food stamps to eat.
Now Dad is on his well earned government pension AND his keeper wife’s money.
Sorta distances you all your life from the average American is my take Nathan.
Try not to judge from on high.
You think on that. And good night.
“Econ101″ parrots a conservative platitude –
“Increases in demand will usually cause an increase in price.
Well, yeah. “Usually.”
But healthcare is not a market-driven economy.
Nobody’s gonna run out and get cancer just because they have healthcare coverage.
Just as no one buys car insurance and goes out to intentionally have a wreck, “because I paid for it.”
You have a vested interest in for-profit insurance, “Econ101.” I understand that. If someoone were a pimp, they might object to legalized prostitution, since their job depends on its illegality.
If you were a crack dealer, you’d probably prefer its illegality, since that’s where the profit comes from.
“Econ101″ parrots a conservative platitude –
“Increases in demand will usually cause an increase in price.
Well, yeah. “Usually.”
But healthcare is not a market-driven economy.
Nobody’s gonna run out and get cancer just because they have healthcare coverage.
Just as no one buys car insurance and goes out to intentionally have a wreck, “because I paid for it.”
You have a vested interest in for-profit insurance, “Econ101.” I understand that. If someoone were a pimp, they might object to legalized prostitution, since their job depends on its illegality.
If you were a crack dealer, you’d probably prefer its illegality, since that’s where the profit comes from.
Monkey
The insurance industry will remain, primarily, a private industry.
Even today, CMS or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services contracts with PRIVATE claims and “customer service” companies, other INSURANCE companies, to answer phones and process claims.
Also, I work, primarily, in the “senior markets” — there is virtually no chance that Congress or the next President will do anything to change the insurance plans of those over age 65.
Sigh…one more since paulie begged it?
You’re dirt paul. You don’t get to make me dirt to make you feel better.
JR
My “Credibility” is much higher than yours.
I try to win arguments based on logic and ideas, not personal attacks.
You have lied about me, repeatedly. You have called me “chickenhawk, medically discharged, scab” and many other names. All of them false. You have repeated your lies, even when you knew your insults were lies.
I have never lied about you.
You admit, clearly, that you hate me and you wish harm to come to me.
I have no such malice towards you.
I pitty you.
You will never be happy until you deal with your worst enemy.
Just a hint: It isnt ME!
“Econ101″ –
And universal Medicare — for everyone, not just the elderly — is the rational approach.
Medicare covers old people who’re likely gonna die pretty soon. Some sources report that 80% of all the money spent on an average person’s healthcare is spent in the last year of life.
So what does America do? They provide damned good healthcare coverage to the people who need it the most or, at least, will spend the most.
It’s like America being in the business of insuring only drunk drivers.
Universal healthcare coverage is simply a matter of expanding the risk pool so even your grand-daughter’s treatment is paid from within the risk pool, instead of making yours and my health insurance more expensive.
Don’t worry. Just as with Medicare, there will be supplemental policies for you to sell. Nancy Reagan isn’t gonna die in anything but a private hospital room.
The cleanest, most cost-effective policy would be universal Medicare in America. All the numbers crunch the right way. And yeah, the most logical way to pay for it is with a “tax increase.” But you won’t be paying for your for-profit health insurance executives’ Learjets and Gulfstreams.
Monkey
You do realize, dont you, that the Federal Government already pays about $27,000.00, on average in benefits, for every senior, don’t you?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97411.php
If I were a truly selfish person, I would go for the “universal medigap” solution.
I don’t have to support it, even though several industry leaders agree with you, that this is the easiest “solution” —
But not the easiest.
The easiest way to deal with it is to cut around the edges. Support for the status quo will grow, after the election.
Tell those on Medicare that their benefits are about to be put at risk, by expanding the number of beneficiaries right before the boomers retire?
Now, tell the AFL-CIO, the NEA and the Teamsters that their benefits are about to be cut.
The Democrat Party will be at war with itself, over “universal coverage” —
It aint gonna happen.
Perhaps a “buy in” for those who are uninsured?
Fine.
Medicare Part A is “Free” to the beneficiary, and Part B costs around $100.00 per month. (It is means tested these days, exact figures are not possible).
However, the taxpayer Subsidy, for Medicare, is over $700.00 per month, I believe. If you press me, I can get you very close to the exact number, but I am only trying to make a point here —-
Where oh where will the money come from?
Again, we are back to Hillary and garnishment, arent we?
By the way, I do admit that the government “subsidy” figure does not, at first glance, adjust for the Seniors who pay taxes on their SS benefits.
To me, taxing Seniors MORE is the most likely source of more Federal revenue.
Smart Seniors will figure this out fast.
The Senior market is growing the fastest.
Why did Willie Sutton rob banks, again?
Ok
Here is the taxpayer’s bill for Medicare costs, on average, per beneficiary:
Part A = $410
Part B = 270
Part D = 80
————————–
760.00 per month.
This figure is not perfect. It is approximated from the “census” CMS uses to figure out how to subsidize “Part C” or privatized Medicare.
——
Medicare makes no allowance for age, the premiums are the same for every age group.
(Premiums for Part B do go up, with income, starting at $96.40 and going up to $162.10.)
Medicare has “open enrollment periods” and “special enrollment periods” — people do mess up their paperwork and screw up their own coverage, in Medicare, all the time.
For those who want to “buy into Medicare” you should realize that the “gaps” in Medicare, are rather large.
For services outside the hospital, count on a $135.00 annual deductable and a 20% copay, with NO out of pocket cap or maximum.
For services IN the hospital, expect a $1,024.00 PER ADMISSION deductable (You can be admitted several times per year.)
Also, for sercives IN the hospital, expect to pay $256.00 per DAY, after day 60.
Expect to pay $512.00 per DAY for days 91-150.
After 150 days?
YOU pay EVERYTHING!
JR
My “Credibility” is much higher than yours.
With who you?
Don’t think so paul.
Whatever JR.
I just learned, long ago, that those who say “trust me” while calling others liars, were usually the ones to watch out for.
You mention “credibility” so often, I think you are a bit defensive about your own.
Me? I never bring up honesty or credibility, accept in self defense.
My facts and my posts speak for themselves.
You never have any facts.
Just insults and personal attacks.
accept my spelling of except, long day!
I never realized how many Nobel Prize winning psychoanalysts there were living within 500 miles of me. Perhaps we should tie them to a water-board or give them a choice to listen to Rosie O’Donnell and her metallurgical engineering opinions on a flat screen HDTV with that plasma stuff in it. These terrorists are not soldiers under the Geneva Convention and are therefore not afforded that protection as were the Americans held by the Japanese during WWII or has anyone heard about that war? Ah heck! Just lop off their heads and be done with it.
13 Trackbacks
eddie guerrero death…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
hot arab girl…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…
Truck Gas Saving…
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday….
Eric…
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark…
pictures of brenda songs…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…
Nigella Lawson…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
How To Avoid Panic Attacks…
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often….
insulin resistant diabetes…
Alice has been overweight, borderline diabetic, and has facial hair and acne caused by elevated testosterone. Low thyroid function (hypothyroid)…
Tv lover…
I always wondered how that should be done, now i know thanks….
Eric…
The most thorough and informative information I have found. Enjoyed it immensely….
heather mills pics…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Maria Kanellis Nude…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
Strength Training Equipment…
Thanks for this post!…