Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Radio Clown Mark Levin Shows Disdain For Clintons, Truth

Radio Clown Mark Levin was in rare form tonight.

The subject was Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) -- or as Levin so "humorously" puts it "Her Thighness" -- and her defense of what husband Bill Clinton said during an interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace.

Levin didn't really care what Sen. Clinton had to say. He made up his mind long ago that President Clinton was a failure fighting terrorism. Why?

"Your husband was too busy taking a dip in the intern pool," he said.

It's such a predictable statement from fact-challenged conservative ranters. Levin really isn't interested in the truth, but "truthiness." And if he can get in a couple of cheap, nasty shots against the Clintons, all the better. Name-calling is commonplace for Levin; it's the best the radio clown can do to get laughs from his fringe conservative audience.

But don't take my word for it, or even President Clinton's. Take the word of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, which says on Pages 117-118:

9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: At the time, President Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, which continued to consume public attention for the rest of that year and the first months of 1999. As it happened, a popular 1997 movie, Wag the Dog, features a president who fakes a war to distract public attention from a domestic scandal. Some Republicans in Congress raised questions about the timing of the strikes (against Al Shifa, a Khartoum pharmaceutical plant, which intelligence reports said was manufacturing a precursor ingredient for nerve gas with Osama Bin Ladin's financial support. CIA Director George Tenet concluded the strikes probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.)

... Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. (National Security Advisor Sandy) Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the (inconclusive) nature of the Al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint.

***

Levin might have been confused, of course, because the recent ABC "docudrama" Path To 9/11 suggested Clinton was distracted by intern Monica Lewinsky. And that in turn has caused reporters from the mainstream media to get the story wrong.

The New York Times wrote in its Sept. 8 review of Path To 9/11: "The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat." (It corrected the error in the following edition.)

And last week, Reuters incorrectly cited Clinton as saying he was too distracted by the "Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks." That unnecessarily created an artificial debate on the subject. Reuters should have cited the report as a definitive source.

99 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAKUNA MAKAKA my leftist friends.

Amazing how much hatred you have for a man who proves you libs wrong each and every time. If Mark didn't care what Shrillary had to say, why did he play all those clips proving how wrong she is? And I wonder why the Slimes corrected its previous report. Could Bills boys have threatened the Slimes like they threatened ABC? Hmmmm, very interesting.

Lets see, her thighness said, "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled `Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,"

Well I guess her thighness wasn't in the oval office directing traffic when the memo came across BJ's desk in 1998 saying Bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S. using planes.

I find it fascinating that his woman who wants to be president cant remember something like that. Yet then again she does have a track record of losing records so I guess it isn't her fault.

By the way, how is that Scooter Libby investigation going?

Until your next asinine post, have a very Marxist day.

7:58 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Who is the anonymous clown anyway?
You see, Repukes do not have a problem with Levin and other Republican hacks rewriting the 9-11 Commission report as long as it makes Clinton look bad.
Fact: The Repukes criticized Clinton attacks on Al Queda in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 as "Wag the Dog" diversions from Monica Lewinsky. These same Repukes are now attacking Clinton for not having done enough (see anonymous above, for example).
Fact: The Repukes tried to get Clinton to "cut and run" or pull troops out of Somalia, which had been sent there by Bush Sr., and attempted to undermine his efforts via cutting off funding for the mission. Clinton kept the military in Somalia for another six months after the Black Hawk Down disaster because he wanted to preserve American credibility in the region.
But we can ignore Levin and his flocks like anonymous above, with the understanding it's all a smoke screen to hide the fact that their Master and King Bush has failed to capture Bin Laden in over six years. More recently, the Repukes want to use the Clinton "debate" to obfuscate the released NIE shows the Bush folly in Iraq has only been a blessing for Al Queda and has made the U.S. more in danger of the terror group and other Islamic extremists than ever before.

8:30 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I want to add, as Keith Olbermann so incisively pointed out the other day, it is the Republicans who are guilty of turning the government and the political discourse of the country to Monica Lewinsky, and away from terrorism, as part of their vicious, purely partisan "Get Clinton" movement.
These same Republicans are now accusing Clinton of being "distracted" by Lewinsky when history shows they were the ones who were allowing themselves to be defeatedly distracted by the problem for more than two years.
http://tinyurl.com/zvsyy

8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again TWOT cant come up with an educated answer to my post. Only able to resort to name calling. Why didnt Shrillary remember the 1998 memo TWOT? I never said anything about BJ raping interns. I never said anything about wag the dog. I only mentioned the 1998 memo. You libs are so paranoid its amazing you ever leave your homes. Again, and I will type slow so you can understand the question. Why didnt Shrillary remember the 1998 memo? Its the last time I will ask it because the lib stupidity is getting on my nerves.

9:07 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I did answer your question,
annoy-mous, when I said:
"Fact: The Repukes criticized Clinton attacks on Al Queda in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 as "Wag the Dog" diversions from Monica Lewinsky. These same Repukes are now attacking Clinton for not having done enough (see anonymous above, for example)."

There is a bigger issue over whether Hillary Clinton remembered the 1998 memo. I would have to check the exact chronology but it is entirely wrong to state, as Repukes do, that Clinton did nothing about the Al Queda threat as cited in the 1998 memo.
Even if Hillary recalled the memo, she could have added what her husband had done.
Fact: A certain August 2001 memo again cited the Al Queda threat, but comparatively received no action from the Bush Administration.

9:19 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I stand corrected. Bush indeed did do something about the August 2001 memo. He cussed out the CIA agent who presented it to him for disrupting his vacation.

9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "Wag the Dog" bombing happened in August 1998. It was in December I am referring to.

In December 1998, an intelligence assessment concluded that bin Laden "is actively planning against U.S. targets . . . keenly interested in strike the U.S. on its own soil."

So Clinton bombed the aspirin factory before the memo hit his desk? You libs are right. He's a genius and a mindreader.

10:04 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

It's not like you can just go kill Osama. If that were the case, Bush would have done it long ago.

But did Clinton put together a game plan? Yes, the 9/11 Commission Report said he did. And he gave that plan to Bush.

What exactly did Bush do prior to 9/11 to combat terrorism? If this was such a huge issue, and a gaping hole in the Clinton presidency, why didn't Bush bring it up while he was running for president -- "The first thing I'm going to do is capture Osama Bin Laden, because he poses a huge threat to the U.S." or words to that extent.

Why didn't Bush, the day he entered office, demand that the CIA determine how big a threat Osama posed, and act decisively to take him out? Richard Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, said he told the Bushies how big a threat Osama posed. Sandy Berger said he handed Condi the plan the Clinton administration had drawn up -- a point backed up, again, by the 9/11 Commission.

So why didn't Bush do something? Why didn't he take seriously the Aug. 6 memo? Why did Condi try to suggest the memo was "historical information," when we could all see after it was declassified that it included a mix of background and current info?

The 9/11 Commission said that everyone failed. The fringe conservatives want to rewrite history -- Levin included.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are not rewriting history. They are going back and examining it. Big difference. And why dont you libs talk about BJ little speech on Long Island when he admitted to failing to taking out bin laden? And I see you sidestepped my December 2998 reference. Also, yesterday Condi said they didnt get anything from Clinton. Hmmm, who to believe, Condi or a pathological liar. Tough one.

I AM DONE WITH YOU TROLL!

11:40 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Also, yesterday Condi said they didnt get anything from Clinton. Hmmm, who to believe, Condi or a pathological liar.

>>

How about who to believe, Condi (who lied to the 9/11 Commission about the Aug. 6 memo), or the 9/11 Commission Report, which confirmed that the Clinton Administration gave the Bush Administration a comprehensive plan for containing Al Qaeda, and ultimately capturing Osama?

All you're saying is that if the administration says it, it must be true. All I'm saying is, don't believe Clinton if you want. But the 9/11 Commission Report should stand up as an objective source -- Bush praised it, for pete's sake.

11:44 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Let's put these issues to rest:

Here's what the 9-11 Commission actually said about how the Clinton Administration acted in response to the Dec. 1998 memo:
"The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports."
On the other hand, here's what the 9-11 Commission had to say about the Bush's reaction to the Al Quada threat:

"Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her -- and the new President -- to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need ... a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

And further that the 9-11 Commission:
"found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

The 9-11 Commission Report also appears to collaborate Clarke's reporting in his book on Rice almost immediately after Bush taking office demoting him, or downgrading of his position as terrorism czar.

What this info shows is that RICE COMPLETELY LIED IN HER REBUTTAL ON THE WALLACE-CLINTON INTERVIEW IN THE NEW YORK POST YESTERDAY. Every newspaper in America instead of touting the unchallenged bogus of the NY Post story on Rice's comments yesterday should be matching her statements in column form to what was actually stated in the 9-11 Commission Report.
LET THE ENTIRE COUNTRY RECOGNIZE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION IN CHARGE SPEWS OUTRIGHT LIES TO THE PUBLIC.
Because the MSM is not properly challenging Rice's comments with the 9-11 Commission findings, only proves that we have a fascist press more interested in spinning and lying than in truth.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Mark Levin has disdain for the Clintons, but disdain for the truth? Never.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Once again TWOT cant come up with an educated answer to my post.
Where to start with this? Why would anyone say anything educated to you -- you wouldn't understand it anyway.

As for "trusting Clinton or Condi," maybe look at the facts in the 9/11 report as others have posted? Do facts exist in your world?

3:33 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Mark Levin has disdain for the Clintons, but disdain for the truth? Never.

>>

If he makes things up, rather than accepting the 9/11 Commission Report -- as President Bush has -- doesn't that qualify as disdain for the truth?

3:50 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Bush has only said he accepted the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.*
He said this as his own Secretary of State Rice revealed she did not accept the findings of the 9-11 Commission when she outright lied about its contents.

*This represents more empty talk from the Bush Administration such as Bush's earlier claim the Iraq invasion has made the U.S. safer from global Islamic terrorists.
This was a lie Bush could maintain as long as his own intelligence agencies' report contradicting his assessment could be kept out of the public eye.
Will somebody please officially expose these lyers for what they are?

6:05 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Today, we have a new poll showing that 71 percent of the Iraqis want the U.S. troops out of the country within a year, eliminating yet another piece of Bushie propaganda about Iraq (on top of the other revealations of the last few days).
http://tinyurl.com/qreby
Will the Bushie Republicans and conservatives finally acknowledge the entire Bush Administration position on Iraq is based off a fetid, stinking, heaping pile of lies?
How obvious does it have to be? What would it take?

6:44 PM  
Anonymous Cromwell said...

TWOT, I'm sure if President Bush knew that your backyard was available to hold a lovely 'religion of peace' war upon, he would be accomodating to you and bring the troops home. It may not be long before your Islamic terrorists friends are knocking down your door, anyway, so keep the fridge stocked with food; they are always hungry.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

TWOT, I'm sure if President Bush knew that your backyard was available to hold a lovely 'religion of peace' war upon, he would be accomodating to you and bring the troops home. It may not be long before your Islamic terrorists friends are knocking down your door, anyway, so keep the fridge stocked with food; they are always hungry.

So your basic analysis of this situation, where we're trying to offer a bit of debate, is to fall back on the "they're coming to get you" rhetoric. You scared, scared, sad little man.

10:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"It's not like you can just go kill Osama. If that were the case, Bush would have done it long ago.

But did Clinton put together a game plan? Yes, the 9/11 Commission Report said he did. And he gave that plan to Bush."


Here we go again. I'm going to post this one more time. Rob, Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism czar, made it clear that just did not happen. In his own words, he said this:

"there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

Here is a portion of an interview Clarke did.....

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.f


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

11:11 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.>>

this is semantics. The Clinton Administration gave info to the Bush Administration, and said that this was the most important issue.

The Bush Administration didn't do squat before 9/11. the committee it formed didn't meet. Clarke was demoted. The Aug. 6 memo was ignored.

11:49 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

also, Trinity, you didn't answer any of my questions. you're looking at one tree. I'm looking at the forest.

11:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"The Bush Administration didn't do squat before 9/11. the committee it formed didn't meet. Clarke was demoted. The Aug. 6 memo was ignored."


See? Now when you say things like that, rob, it gets me angry, because you only want to see your own side, and then I have to point out that Clinton has a terrible record on fighting terrorism.

As Richard Miniter points out,

"By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years."

What did Clinton do about all of those attacks? Here's more, since you're so quick to say that Bush didn't listen to Clarke:

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

In all honesty, I don't like the idea of blaming our presidents, neither past nor present, for what these barbarians did to us on 9-11. But neither do I want to hear Clinton or his wife placing the blame on President Bush. Sadly, it took the atrocity of 9/11 to wake us up to what sort of threat we were facing.

Apparently, some still don't get it. If they did, they wouldn't work so hard at undermining President Bush's efforts to go after terrorists no matter where they may be. Nor would they be so concerned with giving these butchers rights that were only meant for uniformed soldiers who were fighting for their country. You guys are so warped.

1:36 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity, you're suffering from a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Condi Rice the other day charged that the Clintons left the Bush people no terrorism strategy -- no comprehensive strategy. That's not what this interview is talking about - this is talking about specific plans related to going into Afghanistan. They're not the same thing.

Nor would they be so concerned with giving these butchers rights that were only meant for uniformed soldiers who were fighting for their country. You guys are so warped.
It has nothing to do with them. It has to do with us, and how WE treat people, no matter who they are. It worked for the Nazis in Nuremberg, it can work for this.

7:20 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, your postings are out of context, and anyway do not reflect what the 9-11 Commission Report found.
I posted above passages of the 9-11 Commission Report, regarding Clinton and Bush's efforts on fighting terrorism.
The 9-11 Commission Report even Bush and Condi (even while the latter lies about its context) as the definitive source of information.
So then, why the hell cannot you accept the 9-11 Commission Report on this topic as the definitive source?
You can say Clinton did not do enough. But you cannot say he did not do anything.
You cannot say that the Clinton Administration via Clarke did not pass on info on Al Queda to Bush. Reread the passage I quoted above from the 9-11 Commission Report above.
You can say however, that Bush did not hold a single hearing on Al Queda from the time he took office until after 9-11. It is in the 9-11 Report. See quoted passage above.
I don't know why we even bother to debate with you since you persist in your wacky, out of context spin, postings of a single Clarke interview, WHILE IGNORING EVERYTHING ELSE POSTED HERE.

9:12 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

More objective headlines from this morning again on a more critical subject on the Bush's failed foray into Iraq and overall failed record on terrorism.

Six in 10 Iraquis support attacks on U.S. troops, and the majority of Iraqis want us out of the country immediately and are only making the terrorism situation worse
http://tinyurl.com/kuv7n
AND we have a new report from the United Nations backing up the NIE assessment
"a new U.N. report said the Iraq war was providing al Qaeda with a training center and fresh recruits, and was inspiring a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan hundreds of miles away."http://tinyurl.com/jxp3x

To keep this info on topic, what was that Trinity and other Bush sheep, about Clinton being weak on terrorism and Bush somehow being better?
Run that by me again?

9:25 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Bush will never again be able to call Iraq the central front on the war on terror under the wide knowledge his incompetent policies have themselves turned Iraq into central front on the war on terror.
He never again will be able to forward the lie his Administration is winning the war on terrorism and winning Iraq without the NIE and UN Reports coming back up to bite him.
Bush will never again be able to say the majority of the Iraqi people support the U.S. occupation. Maybe they can be spun like his conservative flocks here in America, Bush has likely believed.
I believe most Americans are more intelligent than this Administration takes them for(oh well, there will always be a smattering of Bushie sheep and conservatives).
What's the biggest revealation of the last week.
Bush no longer has any credibility on Iraq or the war on terrorism.
Bush was wise to stay out of the Clinton bashing debate of the last week, to save himself from being the target of even more mocking.

9:37 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Bush will never again be able to call Iraq the central front on the war on terror under the wide knowledge his incompetent policies have themselves turned Iraq into central front on the war on terror.
He never again will be able to forward the lie his Administration is winning the war on terrorism and winning Iraq without the NIE and UN Reports coming back up to bite him.
Bush will never again be able to say the majority of the Iraqi people support the U.S. occupation. Maybe they can be spun like his conservative flocks here in America, Bush has likely believed.
I believe most Americans are more intelligent than this Administration takes them for(oh well, there will always be a smattering of Bushie sheep and conservatives).
What's the biggest revealation of the last week.
Bush no longer has any credibility on Iraq or the war on terrorism.
Bush was wise to stay out of the Clinton bashing debate of the last week, to save himself from being the target of even more mocking.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"It has nothing to do with them. It has to do with us, and how WE treat people, no matter who they are. It worked for the Nazis in Nuremberg, it can work for this."


Aaarrrggghhh! Dave G., please. With all due respect. I've heard this before from someone or other here on JABBS, and never got around to responding. Let me do that right now, short and sweet.

We did not bring war criminals into court in the middle of WWII. The Nuremberg trials did not begin until after the war was over. What the President is being forced to do now, is completely unprecedented in the history of our country. And for very good reason. It's sheer folly! Our enemies have to be laughing their asses off at us foolish Americans.

Also, with regard to the way we treat these illegal combatants, (not prisoners of war) most Americans do not have a problem with their being subjected to tough, aggressive interrogation. It is NOT torture. Sleep deprivation is not torture. Bright lights and loud music is not torture.

Even water boarding, although very unpleasant and disturbing and scary, I'm sure, should not be taken off the table when dealing with the worst of the worst of these animals.

Those of you who think you are so noble, and so superior a human being because you won't allow tough interrogation, only goes to prove that you lack the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to protect us from being slaughtered again.

These people are not like us. They don't respect our values. They look upon them as our weakness. It further emboldens them and gives them hope that they will be victorious in making us submit to their sick ideology. You and I have a serious difference of opinion, my friend.

12:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Just as an aside, I would remind everyone that we never did find Hitler during WWII. He committed suicide in his bunker under the sewers on April 30, 1945. History is an important tool when trying to put things in perspective.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

That last post of your was hardly worth posting twice, twot. ;)

12:15 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

Dave Goose picking on Cromwell and calling him 'scared, scared sad little man' just because you are a coward who wants to hide behind 'dialog' and 'summit meetings, exposes your own craven timidity towards the Islamic terrorists that intend to slaughter you. Why do you want to talk to people that you say are not a threat, anyway?

But, talking to them wont work. Their swords are faster than your tongue. Acknowleging that our enemies, the Islamics plan to lill us is hardly the act of a frightened man. He's not the one who is holding a white flag and begging to parley.

12:57 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

Actually the Islamics plan to KILL us (smile)

1:02 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, I did not mean to post my comment twice. Must have been a computer glitch.
Nevertheless, it is more worth posting twice than your irrelevant, faulty, and purely obfuscatory historical analogies are worth posting once.

1:19 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity said: What the President is being forced to do now, is completely unprecedented in the history of our country. And for very good reason.
Because the war is still going on, right? And if you were just talking Iraq, I maybe could see it. But we're in a war against "terror," which promises no end. Which suggests you want people to be executed without seeing the evidence against them. That makes sense to you?

Even water boarding, although very unpleasant and disturbing and scary, I'm sure, should not be taken off the table when dealing with the worst of the worst of these animals.
Dealing with what? Once they're in prison, they're in prison. And they'll either get sentenced to die there or die by execution. I don't see why that doesn't satisfy you.

Those of you who think you are so noble, and so superior a human being because you won't allow tough interrogation, only goes to prove that you lack the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to protect us from being slaughtered again.

Respectfully, bulls***. It doesn't take intestinal fortitude to beat the crap out of a person who is in a prison. It doesn't take any guts to execute someone who can't see the evidence against them. That's not strength. That's weakness. And that's not what Americans are. We're not weak. But the Administration is, and is run by weak people.

These people are not like us. They don't respect our values.
No, they don't. But we should try to respect our values; otherwise, why have them? Our values is what has made this country great, and to throw them away wantonly is the sign of weakness and fear in the sight of the terrorists.

They look upon them as our weakness.
So we should just give them up? I look at our values as our strength, not our weakness. Why would you give in to the terrorists so easily?

It further emboldens them and gives them hope that they will be victorious in making us submit to their sick ideology.
Ideology that includes torture. Why do you want to emulate the terrorists? Why do you glorify their cause?


And Mellowman, maybe if you wanna have a conversation, you'll talk to me, instead of the straw man floating around in your head.

1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post David g. Will cause the heads of many Bushie conservative bloggers here to pop, I am sure.

1:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Which suggests you want people to be executed without seeing the evidence against them. That makes sense to you?"


And I said that WHERE, exactly? Talk about straw men arguments, Dave G. When did I ever suggest that we execute anyone?

I'm talking about the worst of the terrorists. Those deemed too dangerous to be allowed to return from whence they came. I have absolutely no problem detaining them indefinitely, for as long as they and those of their ilk are trying to slaughter us.

After all, they're the ones who could make all this blood-letting stop, not us. We did not start this war, they did.

4:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"Excellent post David g. Will cause the heads of many Bushie conservative bloggers here to pop, I am sure."


Hardly.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David G. said...
"Dealing with what? Once they're in prison, they're in prison. And they'll either get sentenced to die there or die by execution. I don't see why that doesn't satisfy you."


Where do you get your misinformation, David? You have obviously bought into the myth that we are mistreating these detainees, when that is so far from the truth, my head just might pop after all. You are extremely ill-informed.

I am referring to the really bad, dangerous dudes, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed et. al. The ones that the CIA had in custody. If they have information that we need, I have no problem with subjecting them to very aggressive interogation. To call that torture, is stupid.

I can send you a link to a video of Saddam's Iraqi Baath party cutting off tongues and breaking arms and severing fingers and hands, and pushing people with their hands bound behind their backs off of high buildings etc. if you need to see it to comprehend the difference.

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

You have obviously bought into the myth that we are mistreating these detainees, when that is so far from the truth, my head just might pop after all. You are extremely ill-informed.
Myth? You aware of Abu Ghraib? You aware of the Canadian citizen captured and taken to Syria to be tortured? You're aware of the abuses at Guantanamo?


I am referring to the really bad, dangerous dudes, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed et. al. The ones that the CIA had in custody. If they have information that we need, I have no problem with subjecting them to very aggressive interogation. To call that torture, is stupid.
Waterboarding is torture. Period. And it's stupid. And it doesn't work. Torture works in the sense that it scares people. But that's not our goal here.

And plenty of intelligence officers agree with the likes of Col. John Rothrock, who said "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything."

Or Rear Adm. John Hutson, who said: "I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that just because we are in a battle with some terrible people. In fact, in a war like this, when we are tempted to respond in kind, we must hold ever more dearly to the values that make us Americans."

I can send you a link to a video of Saddam's Iraqi Baath party cutting off tongues and breaking arms and severing fingers and hands, and pushing people with their hands bound behind their backs off of high buildings etc. if you need to see it to comprehend the difference.

So your standard, essentially, is that we're better than Saddam. That's not much of a selling point for "America's values," when you're trying to use that as a point -- that we're better than one of the worst bastards in history. "America: We're Not as Bad as Saddam." Wow.

4:53 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To all repukes on these boards ---- if we want to live under the rule of law, live by an established and accepted constitution, live by the credence of equality of man that "all men are created equal" ideals, then we must have "stick to it fortitude" to be the shinning light for the world.

Example: Say a batter gets up in the world series baseball game, hits a home-run and decides to run the bases from third to second and then to first and then home, is the batter out? Repukes probably say no problem, but the rule says he is out. No harm done, but the player was not following the accepted rule. If you do not play baseball by the rules and the accepted norms of the game, you are not playing baseball.

I know most of you repukes are educated enough to know that during WWII the Germans and the the Japanese were ruthless warriors, not unlike some of the "terrorist" today maybe minus the beheadings.You read some of the history of the war and you will read about the atrocities committed by both and all of the news reports written that caused Americans to feel the same way we are feeling now. There was a ferver among the American civilain population to do the same things to the enemies.Another difference was those enemies wore uniforms, therefore torture was not allowed because of that and because we were still a nation of values. The enemies in WWII (this ia also true during Vietnam War) were de-humanized just like the "terorist" are today. The Germans and the Japanese wanted to kill Americans then just as bad as the "terrorist" do today and they had the greater fire power, troops, desire, economic power than does the terrorist of today.

Another difference today and WWII is the support of the American people.Bush had the chance to unite the American people to fight "terrorism" in Afghanistan, but instead decided to go after the OIL in Iraq and to use the Republican ideology of divide Americans and conquer. Even the boastfull repukes are not enlisting to support this war now. All we hear from the repukes is how patritoic they are verbally. Repukes want to wrap themselves around the "religious values mantra" to hide their un-American, un-patritoic,intolerant,sanctimonious,"chickenhawk" stench that engulfs their entire being.

I know you repukes have read some history that one reason that Germany,Italy and Japan have become such great freedom loving countries is because we treated their captive soldiers like human beings. When their soldiers went back to their country after the war, they understood how valuable it was to treat people with respect and dignity.

Another thing, when Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay came to power they converted our nation into - you support the Republican party or your an enemy and are not human. Well, they got they wanted for America, a divided America that hates each other and we no longer have any civil debates. Then along came Bush/Chaney with all their sheep and took this ideology to new heights. It took the democrats about 40 years to corrupt our government, but only about 10 years for the Republicans to do it and to do a much better job of it.


When are Republicans( who now control most all of our government) going to tear down the "FOR SALE" signs for our governemnt, both domestic and foreign?

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Lemme rephrase that last bit - the standard seems to be, "We're not as bad as Saddam." Which isn't exactly what we should be striving for.

4:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Respectfully, bulls***. It doesn't take intestinal fortitude to beat the crap out of a person who is in a prison. It doesn't take any guts to execute someone who can't see the evidence against them. That's not strength. That's weakness. And that's not what Americans are. We're not weak. But the Administration is, and is run by weak people.


Like I said, Dave G. You speak out of sheer ignorance, and a willingness to always believe the worst of Americans that you hear from the propagandists. So sad.

Dave G. said...
"No, they don't. But we should try to respect our values; otherwise, why have them? Our values is what has made this country great, and to throw them away wantonly is the sign of weakness and fear in the sight of the terrorists."


Excuse me? What are you talking about? Could you please cite a reliable source that demonstrates all of these abuses you say we are heaping on the detainees? These guys at Gitmo are treated very well. Please research this issue before you go around repeating all the bogus information you have been brainwashed with.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is really terrifying to see what the U.S. has become under the occupation (hopefully temporary) of the U.S. by the Bush Repukes.
We can all shudder at these subhuman conservatives who are condoning torture.
No true American would ever condone any practice of torture, as so eloquently put by Keith Olbermann.
http://tinyurl.com/zvsyy
Watch it at your peril conservatives and hold onto your head.
POP! There goes one now.

5:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"There was a ferver among the American civilain population to do the same things to the enemies."

Dave G. said...
Lemme rephrase that last bit - the standard seems to be, "We're not as bad as Saddam." Which isn't exactly what we should be striving for.


You both have your heads on backwards. Nobody is suggesting anything even slightly close to what you are saying. There's a fundamental misunderstanding here of how these guys are treated.

They're provided with a clean living area, plenty of exercise, culturally sensitive meals, a copy of the Koran, etc. They get better health care and dental coverage than we do. Give me a break you guys. You don't know what you're talking about.

In fact, it's our guys who are taking care some of these creeps that are constantly spit upon and who have fecal matter and urine etc. thrown upon them when then pass by.

Here's one article that covers Guantanamo:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200505270809.asp

And here's a Declassified Dept. of Defense report:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050304info.pdf

5:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"We can all shudder at these subhuman conservatives who are condoning torture."


You're a complete and utter asshole.

5:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonyous said...
"We can all shudder at these subhuman conservatives who are condoning torture.
No true American would ever condone any practice of torture, as so eloquently put by Keith Olbermann."


We're not talking about torture, pinhead. And I can think of many words to describe Olbermann, but eloquent would not be one of them. Anonymous, you are a complete and utter asshole, as is your hero Keith Olbermann.

5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity. Here is your homework assignment for tonight.
Carefully reread in their entirety all of David G.'s factual posts on the torture/detainee abuse issue and then reread your own posts on the subject.
As you know, the Levin Limbaugh Faux News detoxification process cannot begin until you accept full responsibility for your foolish statements.

5:54 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Like I said, Dave G. You speak out of sheer ignorance, and a willingness to always believe the worst of Americans that you hear from the propagandists. So sad.

Believe the worst of what from who? I've been reading newspapers - multitudes of newspapers. These facts are not in dispute. I see what's been done. To do these things is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of weakness and fear. I believe a lot of good things about America and American people, but not of my president and his administration.

Can you please cite a reliable source that demonstrates all of these abuses you say we are heaping on the detainees?
I need to know what "reliable source" is to you, Trinity, because I don't know what you consider one. I know what existed at Abu Ghraib. I know about the renditions, and about Guantanamo, people being forced to sit in stress positions for hours. These things have not been disputed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/

You both have your heads on backwards. Nobody is suggesting anything even slightly close to what you are saying.
You brought up Saddam's torture methods, not me.


You're a complete and utter asshole.
I seem to remember you getting all upset a couple of weeks ago by not being "welcomed" by anybody around here save for the site admin and one other person, and I myself promised to be more decourous. So what happened to that, Trinity?

6:26 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

We won't even get into all the allegations by human rights groups and others of the U.S. military under Bush torturing people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bushies do not want to get into a discussion of where to draw the line, or whether the Bush policies might easily pave the way to larger offenses that could be dangerously turned against our own soldiers.
Bushies do not care that the individuals being abused or tortured, whatever, might be fully innocent. They turn their heads from news of actual documented cases linked above of innocent people being subjected to torture and abuse under the Bush Administration.
They can only pray that it will never be them or one of their family members.
Bushies fail to see harmful precedents in the policies they endorse. They cannot see beyond their own shallow biases, stereotypes, hatred, and paranoia.
Everything to them can be conveniently reduced to "We must do everything possible to protect the country from Islamic radicals who want to kill us."
Or, "It is only be applied to the worst of the worse."
Such reasoning has been used as an excuse by governments and societies to prosecute and kill innocent people for centuries.

The framers of our Constitution understood it. George Bush and his flocks seemingly never will.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Bravo, TWOT. Dead-on.

9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How have we gotten so mislead? Why don't we have a Jane Fonda? I am beginning to get discouraged in my Marxist pursuits. I mean, come on! I brown nosed a dictator who endorsed Noam Chomsky's latest scribbles. If you pinko commies aren't going to get behind me after that, what good are you? Get with the program.

P.S. HAKUNA MAKAKA YOU LEMMINGS!

12:02 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Better trolls, please? Anonymous has gone off the deep end. He is no longer spouting just invective, but it is incoherent as well.

8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bushie trolls and puppets, they remind me of Chucky, have nothing left to say here.
But like at the end of one of those Chucky movies, after the scary puppet is killed, sliced, beaten, blown up, and smashed into a pulp, you know he will nonetheless be back for part XXX.
So it will be for our Bushie Chuckies.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"I seem to remember you getting all upset a couple of weeks ago by not being "welcomed" by anybody around here save for the site admin and one other person, and I myself promised to be more decourous. So what happened to that, Trinity?"


I don't remember saying that I was upset about not being welcomed here, Dave G. You may have inferred that, but I simply stated that rob and cutiepie, as well as David, were nice enough to welcome me here. Trust me, I couldn't care less for the nasty trolls who didn't. ;)

As for your offer to start over and be nice, I accepted that offer from you, and said that I was all for new beginnings (with yourself) and would try to be civil. lol That didn't apply to anyone else. I'm only nasty or unpleasant to those who are that way with me.

Sort of like with the Geneva Conventions, Dave. You cannot make nice and apply Geneva Conventions rights upon foreign enemy combatants. They didn't sign any treaty with us, and no matter how well you treat them , they will never apply those same humane standards when our guys are caught.

There you have it. Embrace it. It's the truth. Nancy Pelosi is a complete fool when she suggests that we use the "Golden Rule" when dealing with Islamo-extremist jihadists. Which again, illustrates why our country cannot afford to have people like her in majority leadership positions.

5:58 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said: "They didn't sign any treaty with us, and no matter how well you treat them, they will never apply those same humane standards when our guys are caught."
How dangerously nieve!
How do you know that? Have you ever heard about setting an example? This could be a long-term solution that can influence and reform thousands of other would-be
terrorists.
What you recommend would be a short-term fix that might only temporarilly reform the terrorist, while creating thousands of additional ones who may be even worse.

Consider a fair analogy.
What is more effective treatment for a bully at school who constantly beats up on all the other kids.
Should the bully be beaten into submission by more powerful adults because "he will never apply humane treatment no matter what you do," as Trinity would suggest.

Or should the bully instead be treated with kindness and dignity, while demonstrating to him why beating up on other kids is wrong.

The former treatment can only reenforce the bully's violent behavior and outlook on life, increasing his chances of growing up to be a wife-beater or even worse.
The latter treatment stands a much better chance of reforming the bully so he can become a peaceful and productive human being.
Here's another result of the more humane treatment.
Other bullies and would-be bullies at the school would recognize the dramatic change in their peer. They would be interested in what brought about his change. It would likely motivate them to strive to be better human beings as well.

The benign treatment does not demonstrate weakness. On the contrary, it demonstrates STRENGTH in that it demonstrates a solution, or an ability to solve a problem and stop and even bigger one.
A solution that corrects the problem is ALWAYS a stronger one than the one that exacerbates it.
It is human psychology. It is common sense.
This is the way to influence entire masses of people, rather than encourage endless droves of additional killers and other evil-doers.
I CHALLENGE TRINITY OR ANY OTHER BUSHIE ON THIS BLOG TO POINT OUT HOW MY ARGUMENT HERE IS FLAWED.
Torture or other forms of indiginities can only result in one thing --- MORE TORTURE.
The Bushie conservative position is extremely dangerous, hopeless and nieve.
The only reason Bush's recent detainee torture bill passed Congress is solely for political reasons. Dems voted for it, for example, in fear of losing the upcoming election. They are looking at, I suppose, the more important accomplishment of empowering their standing in the
House and Senate to be in a better position to forever stop these kind of Bush unconstitutional and unlawful abuses.
The fact that Repukes and Bush managed to create an environment condoning the new detainee law only demonstrates HOW LOW EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR HAS SUNK UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

7:00 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity - 99% of your response post to what people say that is different from your screwed up beliefs are nasty, nasty and rude. To your sanctimonious beliefs everyone is an asshole, idiot, or some other elementary school yard name used by 100% of all other repukes on these post. I guess you and your other friends think that if you keep it up we will give up and agree with you.

I do not read where you answer any reasonable question that is posed to you except with snide, caustic and child-like remarks.

Maybe you will answer this politely: If there never was or is not any torture, then why did they need legislation to de-criminilize it, or to redefine it in the Geneva Convention rules, or to use Rendition to those countries that use it? If this Administration is not using torture, then why all of the hoop-la about it? Show the proof, be open and honest, have oversight. As you have said about other subjects on these post, if someone is not willing to have an honest open debate about something( like Santorium's opponent's financial records), then they must be hiding lies.

7:09 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Trinity said : ...Clinton had a terrible record fighting "terrorism".

Do you mean this only becuse he never put boots on the ground, whereas Bush did and still screwed it up.

Did you read the "911 Commission Report". It gives a different version to your statement.

Clinton tried to get the Omnibus Bill passed in 1996 that had several billion dollars in it for airline safety and other terrorism fighting measures. This bill failed because of the "Wad the Dog" mantra from Republicans,mainly Jesse Helms and Trent Lott. If you want you can google this information. Clinton tried to get An Anti-terrorism bill passed with about $1.097 Billion price tag. This also was fought by the Republicans, mainly Phil Graham who thought it damaged the banking interest of American companies's overseas holdings, especially those of Enron( one board member was Graham's wife). Graham called this effort by Clinton "Totalitarian".

During Clinton's tenure, the Republicans only had one major plan in mind and it was not to serve the American people. It was a bigger effort to get Clinton then than the effort now to get the "terrorist".!! The Republicans worked harder to get Amercian unity to get rid of Clinton than they are now to get unity to fight the "make believe war on terrorism". It took Republicans from 1992 until 1999 (7 years)to finally get him. IMO this crusade against Clinton during his tenure was one of the reasons our nation did so good econmically: the Republicans were too busy to screw it up. This is also the reason Clinton could not get any thing passed to fight "terrorism". This is also the reason that our politics is so sour today and the reason there is little support for the fake "war on terrorism"and the war in Iraq ( the repukes only support it verbally - no boots on the ground). Support for the war in Afghanistan is totally different, was 100% but fading fast.

I agree that Clinton destroyed every past and future credible good deeds by his lying about getting the BJ. But, IMO it was none of our damm business if he was getting a BJ every day( I wish I could - at least when I was younger). I would like the repukes on this post to tell me honestly they do not like sex, if they think Republicans never have affairs( you can exclude Newt Ginrich and Bush senior if you want to), if repukes on this post think repukes never get a divorce (most caused by infidellity) and that repuke males hate a good BJ.

8:19 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

TWOT, I cannot believe you are so naive. You say that if we treat with sweetness and negotiation the bullies at school they will stop being bullies, wife -beaters will love their wives, the Islamic Fascists will give up their religious hate of non-Moslems, and no doubt child rapists will rush to reform. This is out of which Grimms Fairy Tale?

TWOT, I thought you had more intelligence than that. Wife beaters usually get worse when their wives enable them and so do bullies. You might be either if you were to disagree with the statistics on wife-murderers. But I realize you are afraid of the Islamics and have to wave a white flag to them just incase they plan to make you a slave and not slaughter your cowardly skin. Dont waste your time.

The Islamics made plans to take over the world and murder anyone who stood in their way, centuries ago. Way before 9/11, and the placing of US troops in Iraq by a very brave President Bush. Yes, President Bush has more gumption in his little finger than you have in your whole body, yellow stripe and all.

You feel that by citing your day dreams you have quoted examples. Here is a real history lesson. People tried negoiating with Adolf Hitler, so he felt he should take over the Sudtenland in 1938. People said he's just a little bully at school and appealed to his 'better nature' with humane treatment called appeasement. Like all bullies, Hitler took that to be a sign of weakness, and in 1939 he took invaded Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and other areas of Europe. People kept on treating him with kindness anbd ignored the pleas of his victims, and Hitler went on to murder 6 Million Jews, many feeble minded, gypsies and millions of other helpless people. Did the 'benign treatment' you recomend work to rehabilitate that 'school-yard bully'?

You may have written that post as a joke, of course. A crude joke, but a joke. Any intelligent person knows that terrorists are not reformed. There are none. They kill others and then themselves or they are killed. The blind cleric who planned the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, is in prison and working to get out and kill more non-Moslems. After allo these years, he is not reformed, even though he is treated better than many working American citizens. The same Americans he hates and plans to murder work to support him and other terrorists.

Now, since you believe so fervently in the goods nature of Islamics, why dont you go over there and talk to them like you talk to your fellow Americans. Tell them they are nuts, or something simmilar and see how long their 'sweetness' will continue. They would hand you your head. Literally. Even if you went to play nice and treat them with humane tgreatment. Remember Daniel Pearl? Non-combatant, nice reporter Daniel Pearl?

8:47 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

As for your offer to start over and be nice, I accepted that offer from you, and said that I was all for new beginnings (with yourself) and would try to be civil. lol That didn't apply to anyone else. I'm only nasty or unpleasant to those who are that way with me.
Fair enough. I'm all good with that. Heck, I'm not nice to anonymous, so I shouldn't throw stones on that one.


Sort of like with the Geneva Conventions, Dave. You cannot make nice and apply Geneva Conventions rights upon foreign enemy combatants. They didn't sign any treaty with us, and no matter how well you treat them , they will never apply those same humane standards when our guys are caught.
The British didn't treat our soldiers humanely during the Revolutionary War. But George Washington refused to act the same way toward them. Our strength is that we are better than them.


People tried negoiating with Adolf Hitler, so he felt he should take over the Sudtenland in 1938. People said he's just a little bully at school and appealed to his 'better nature' with humane treatment called appeasement.
I hereby evoke Godwin's Law, as the person who brings up the Nazis has lost the argument. Thanks for playing, Mellowman.

What you're still, still not getting is this. Neither I, nor TWOT or Cutiepie or anyone else here on the left is suggesting we "be nice" to terrorists in the combat zones. They're firing at us, we should be firing at them, with better weapons, better intelligence and more firepower to kill them. We should be using our intelligence to hunt them down and kill them or, if taken captive, imprison them for the rest of their lives. Period.

What we're saying is that once captured, we don't need to torture them. You consider "not torturing people" some form of appeasement, even though you really have no idea what the word means. That refers to making a deal with someone - what deal are we making with them? None. They're going to stay in prison until they're sentenced to die or die in prison, depending on level of involvement. That's not a "deal." That's not anything but justice. Which is what they deserve.

9:57 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I'm not sure, Mellowman, if your comments about alleged negotiations with Hitler is correct.
I'm not sure exactly how other nations dealt with Hitler prior to the WW2 build up. I would have to research this.
Nevertheless, I can state the following with confidence.
I am talking about a broad, longstanding reform that will demonstrably work with any race.
You have two choices on how to handle wayward people of any race or creed: the way I have stated.
Or the way you and most Bushie conservatives seem to believe, beating, torture, beating people into submission, killing them, bombing them into oblivion etc..
Most any sane person would agree my way would work the OVERWHELMING majority of the time, ON TOP OF the added perk of setting a peaceful example for thousands, if not millions, of additional citizens and would-be terrorists.
For those times my way does not work, we have imprisonment, etc. as defined by most civilized societies.
My way is grounded in human psychology, common sense, the teachings the Bible, and lessons learned from more than 2000 years of human civilization. My way is the very basis of laws governing humane treatment as outlined in the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, and the U.S. Constitution.
Your way is grounded in stupidity, prejudice, hypocrisy, hatred and utter naivety. Your way is the very basis of laws governing humane treatment by none other than -- TERRORISTS AND TERRORISM SPONSORING GOVERNMENTS.
Your way of a "kill them all" mentality only promises only one conclusion-- to breed an endless inexhaustible supply of terrorists and terrorism.
Your way inspires no hope for humankind. Your way, if allowed to go unchecked, would result in the end of all human civilization.

P.S. Bush is an idiot. His way of bullying Iraq into submission via an unprovoked attack proves my very point. Bush, in perhaps the greatest military blunder of all time, has swatted a giant hornet's nest, opening up the region and the world to an even threat of Islamic terrorism than before 9-11, as newly affirmed by the NIE revealation and the new United Nations report. He accomplished nothing.
Moron.

10:12 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I want to be clear. I am too talking about treatment of people after they have been captured or singled out for necessary reform to correct evil.
Torturing people does not set the proper longstanding example for how we would wish to be treated.
And the kind of so-called abuses approved by Bush's detainee bill can only pave the way for torture. As pointed out by Whoop and David G. above, the reason Germany, Italy and Japan became freedom-loving people after WWII came about as a direct result from how we treated their POWs.
I want to add also, for anyone interested, that David G. did a far better job in defining our position in above posts than I have.
Thanks,

10:29 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

TWOT,
Japan is happy because they has enough sense to only allow people born in other countries who are Japanese to become citizens. No foreign non-Japanese national need apply. During the war the POW camps were hell-holes where prisoners were decapitated. The Japanese were like the Islamics in their belief the being a Homicide bomber in a plane brought Paradise. The difference for the Japanese is the new lifestyle and they dont worship the Emperor anymore. Unlike America, they export more than they import. Happy Japanese. We nhad no Geneva convection to follow in our treatment of Japanese POW's
We had only a handful of Italian POW's and they acted more French than followers of Musselini. They didnt care how they were treated Thedy were jusrt thankful to be out of the war and away from a madman. They continued to have trouble with Socialists and the Mafia, and have an unstable economy. no benefits from POW treatment there.
For Germany, if you speak of the fact we transported many of the German POW's to Georgia and other states, there was no influence on the German populaqtion as a whole. After the war, most of the young men settled in the United States. There was nothing to go back to. We rebuilt Germany despite the Russians, and the Germans are held hostage now by the Euro and their economic aggreement with other countries. They also have too many third world immigrants who drain the social services, who they are trying to deport. Some bright future.

11:02 PM  
Anonymous MellowMan said...

Addendum on last comment. The hell-hole camps were where the Japanese kept the Allied POW's. Like the Vietnamese acted later and how the Islamics treat their own people now. We didnt treat Japanese POW's with kid gloves like we treat the Islamic prisoners.

These are religious fanatics with one aim. To kill you. If you hate Christians and Jews who havent harmed you, wait till the Moslems come to your town. Convert or Die.

11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be blunt, the Bush government that has passed interrogation rules allowing torture, prosecution by heresay and obtained through duress that brings the U.S. back to the Medieval Times and ignores thousands of years of advancement.
Fascism.
I have seceded myself from this government, at least until I can vote on Nov. 2

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Grunion, Whoop-de-do and Twot, you are either the same person or separated at birth, You don't have an original thought of your own, and you call on the rest to circle the wagons with you, when faced with the truth. I notice that Trinity can lick the lot of you with one hand tied behind her back. Really, guys, taken by a mere girl.

It appears none of you consider yourself a "chicken-hawk". How do you know, are you on the battlefield right now, yourself, or just armchair warriors?

Whoop thinks there were no beheadings during WWII. Ever hear of "Devil's Island" where Allied prisoners were often beheaded? The Japanese used a long practiced form of execution which would appear gruesome to Westerners.

Whoop said 'One reason Germany, Italy and Japan have become such great freedom loving countries is because we treated their captive soldiers like human beings. When their soldiers went back to their country after the war, they understood how valuable it was to treat people with respect and dignity.'

Whoop, there's nothing respectable or dignified about wasr. During war people die and things get destroyed. Any favorable treatment of the people of Germany and Japan occurred while they were occupied by Allied troops who were there to keep order and reconstruct.

There were few nations more respectable and dignified than the Japanese. They regarded the westerners as 'barbarians'. The soldiers who returned theree were more interested in making a new life than dwelling on the war. During the occupation period after the war, the ordinary people remembered the kindness of the American soldiers. The way the occupying armies ran the countries set the groundwork for the future prosperity of both countries. In Okinawa. Japan, the ranking American officer was the 'governor general' for many years later and set the laws and economical structure which causes such 'freedom-loving' today.

The German Nazis separated American POW's who were Jewish and murdered them or sent them to concentration camps. According to you both countries should pay dearly for their atrocities.

You believe that the Germans and the Japanese had 'more fire power, troops, desires, and economic power' than the Islamic-fascists have now. Surely you cannot be that naive. The Islamo-Nazis have nuclear weapons now, there are one billion Moslems in the world today, all reading the same Koran, with the same fifth pillar of faith which instructs them to rage Jihad ('holy' war) on non-Moslems, and their obsessive desire is to kill all 'infidels', and introduce Shiria law into the Wesern Hemisphere. Due to their oil deposits, the Middle East has more economic power than Germany and Japan combined have today, with which to buy any fire-power, extra troops, and loyal desires from other countries as they need them.

If the treatment of a country's soldiers who are POW's during wartime is an indication of the type and level of all reciprocal actions required during the 21st Century, then America is long past due the right to nuke the Middle East back to the Stone Age. The Islamic-fascists have ill-treated our soldiers abominably. Is the gang rape of a young female soldier not considered torture? Or the deliberate neglect of wounds on an American POW acceptable? Where does beheading a POW or similar torturous death fit into your list of established behaviors?

Certainly we must annihilate these animals because we have no choice. Our soldiers as POWs were the unwitting recepiants of much disrespectful and undignified ill-treatment at the hands of our enemies, the Islamo-Nazis.

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Shorter Widget: All Muslims are terrorists and we should kill them all.

9:40 AM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Dave Guillotine, you told Widget that you believed 'all Muslims are terrorists and we should kill them all.'
Now that way you have admitted how you really feel about the Islamic population,-fascists, a extraordinary amount of things become clear about you and your racist opinions.
For instant why go to the length of decrying a misbegotton item about a wish for the demise of a news reporter, while thinking commonplace the continuous hateful verbal attacks, death threats and assassination movies about the president of the United States. Indeed, you were delightful intertained by the notion. Now you state all Moslems must be unjustly massacred.
This unequal mixture of hilarious apathy and righteous indignation explains your true postion on the fate of all who are not like you.
In fact I would go as far as to denounce you as a racist and a religious bigot.

10:58 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Widget is really terrifying to read. Let's hope for God's sake only the fringe right thinks like it* does.
In my opinion, if to follow its* advice,:"let's nuke all them good-fer-nothin' filthy A-Rabs" would cause a retaliation that would reverberate throughout the world and spell the end of human civilization.
You talk about a case where the "Islamo Facists" gang raped a femal U.S. soldier.
Perhaps you missed the congressional hearings this week where General Batiste, the original lead commander on the grounds in Iraq, testified the U.S. has imprisoned some 13,000 Iraqis in Guantanamo, of whom by his accounts "99 percent are innocent," and many of whom are being subjected to torture and mistreatment by young female and male U.S. military personnel trained to do so under the frightening Bush/Rumsfeld torture policies.
A friend of mine last week related a recent experience of attending a party in Nevada for about two-dozen U.S. military members returning from Iraq.
She said she couldn't believe her eyes and ears. She said each of the young men in their early twenties gulped hard liquor straight from the bottle. They shared stories of acting under the orders of their superiors in killing droves of innocent Iraqi children and torturing and murdering their parents. These innocent people were guilty merely of being in the wrong place, the soldiers said. Some of them were filled with guilt, others with hatred and a kind of warped jingoism. Some bragged about their experiences, before ultimately breaking down in tears, my friend, who is a very reliable witness, said.
These soldiers are the kind of mind-fucks the U.S. military is creating each day in Iraq.
My point is violence and immoral policies can only result in more of the same. An endless cycle of war and terror which is precisely what Bush's corporate buddies want.
Yes, war is ugly but don't compare a senseless, unprovoked war in Iraq where the only "value" so far has been to feed the military-industrial complex with a necessary war such as WWII.
You are lost in illusion if you believe the U.S. faces as mortal threat from "Islamic Facists" as the Germans and Japanese in WWII.
Point the finger at your own Bushie Administration for increasing that threat.
You say these Islamic-extremist groups already have nukes. Where is your proof? You want to wrongfully categorize the North Koreans as part of the Islamic movement? Why don't we then merely nuke all the Asians as well.
Perhaps you are nieve to the fact that many of the provisions on detainee treatment arose out of the WWII experience. But Bushies do not care to learn from history.
These Bushies lack an ability to put any part of this issue into any appropriate or relevant historical context. They are therefore a true danger to the U.S.

*Widget, when it makes statements like it does above does not deserve a human pronoun.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"How dangerously nieve!
How do you know that? Have you ever heard about setting an example? This could be a long-term solution that can influence and reform thousands of other would-be
terrorists."


LOL Poor twot! And you call ME the nieve (sic) one! That is truly rich, in view of what you wrote here. Your post does more than I could ever hope to, to pinpoint exactly what is so dangerously wrong-headed about those who share your views on these matters.

Your comments make it crystal clear how completely ignorant and unsuspecting you really are with regard to the end goal of these Islamo-Facists. And you call me naive?

I'm sorry I laughed at you, but if I didn't laugh, I think I'd probably cry, knowing what a daunting task it will be to bring liberals like yourself to some level of basic understanding of the formidable threat the world is facing.

And trust me, I know before you even tell me, people, how condescending you are going to find my words, but I'm sorry. I'm only expressing what I truly believe. You all say that you understand the threat, but in your hearts, or at least from what I read here, it appears that many of you think the president is just engaging in a bunch of fear-mongering for political reasons. I can't stress enough how wrong I think you are.

1:06 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"And plenty of intelligence officers agree with the likes of Col. John Rothrock, who said "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything."


THAT, my simple-minded friend, IS torture. You cannot put water-boarding in that category. Not if you are being honest, anyhow.

Our own CIA agents are subjected to water-boarding when they are being trained, so they can understand precisely what it does. If it's good enough for our own guys to endure, then it's good enough for terrorists in my view.

For anyone interested in reading this, here is the URL to an excellent and informative article on water-boarding. Read it, and you might actually learn something you did not know before.

The Case for Waterboarding
By Vasko Kohlmayer

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653

1:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David G. said...
"So your standard, essentially, is that we're better than Saddam. That's not much of a selling point for "America's values," when you're trying to use that as a point -- that we're better than one of the worst bastards in history. "America: We're Not as Bad as Saddam." Wow.


Awww come on, Dave G.! Ole Saddam wasn't all that bad! I mean, so what if he tried to wipe out the Kurds living in Iraq by genicide and killed millions of his people for no reason.

So what if he had imperialistic designs on Kuwait and other Middle Eastern states. He can't have been all that bad because you libs don't support the regime change we have undertaken there.

Well, I mean, your leaders did vote for the war in Iraq, before they voted against it, so I guess I can see how some of you might be a little bit confused. ;)

1:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Consider a fair analogy.
What is more effective treatment for a bully at school who constantly beats up on all the other kids.
Should the bully be beaten into submission by more powerful adults because "he will never apply humane treatment no matter what you do," as Trinity would suggest."


Twot, you people keep making my case for me. I need to point out to you that is NOT, I repeat, NOT, a "fair" analogy. That is what you call a "flawed" analogy. It's fallacious.

We are not dealing with schoolyard bullies here. Presumably, the schoolyard bullies we are talking about, are NOT Islamo-jihadists, right? I mean, they do not want to die, and to take these other kids out with them, correct?

Now, go meditate somewhere, and see if your brain can distinguish between a suicide bomber, and an overly aggressive and bullying school kid.

1:45 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Fair enough. I'm all good with that. Heck, I'm not nice to anonymous, so I shouldn't throw stones on that one.


Forget it! That was before you so stupidly asked me why I "hate" the troops. I even offered to ignore that asinine comment of yours, but you didn't accept my kind offer. Now, the gloves are off. I'll address you any friggin' way I want to, depending upon my mood and/or the content of your posts.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"The British didn't treat our soldiers humanely during the Revolutionary War. But George Washington refused to act the same way toward them. Our strength is that we are better than them."


Yeah? Throw up a flare, Dave G., when you think you have a point, okay?

Our strength most definitely IS that we are better then them. No country we have ever fought has abided by the humanitarian standards that we have set for ourselves. We ARE better than most, if not all.

BUT, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the evil that we are fighting now in the form of Islamo-Facists. We are already treating them a lot more kindly and humanely than they deserve, exactly because of who we are as a people.

But to hear your side tell it, we are "torturing" them. We treat them with kid gloves, yet your side is still demagoguing the issue and insisting that everything from loud music to bright lights and sleep deprivation is torture. Give me a freakin' break!

Do you consider these things to be torture? Please respond.

2:07 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said:
"We are not dealing with schoolyard bullies here. Presumably, the schoolyard bullies we are talking about, are NOT Islamo-jihadists, right? I mean, they do not want to die, and to take these other kids out with them, correct?"
What I clearly meant was that once captured there is no reason to torture these Islamo-jilhadists, just like there is no reason to beat and torture the schoolyard bully, as far as producing an end result of setting an example for an entire Jilhadist movement and our enemies everywhere.
So what you're recommending we torture these captured jilhadists, so that when they capture people from the U.S., whether military or otherwise, they merely torture us as well. Then when other enemies to the U.S. capture people from the U.S. they can torture us under the reasoning, well, we torture other people too.
Circular, defeatist, self-destructive argument that would only incite more terrorism.

I also like above how instead of addressing most of my arguments head on, you merely boil down your position to a simpleminded Rovian Bushie talking point how myself and other "liberals" "fail to understand the enemy" we are dealing with.
Naive. Pathetic. Sad. Hopeless.

2:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"My way is the very basis of laws governing humane treatment as outlined in the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, and the U.S. Constitution."


The Geneva Conventions have never before applied to terrorists, twot. The United States Supreme Court has always made that very clear.

It's only now that so many justices with a liberal bent to their worldview have tried to make the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists, which is one of the reasons conservatives are against having liberal activist justices appointed to the SCOTUS, or for that matter, to any court in America. They're dangerous, and they undermine our sovereignty and our way of life.

As far as our Constitution is concerned, it applies to us, as Americans, not to crazed religious zealots from around the world who are out to kill us.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said... "What I clearly meant was that once captured there is no reason to torture these Islamo-jilhadists

Point number one, we are NOT torturing them, and point number two, if some of these al Qaeda bigwigs that we've captured know something about an impending plot to blow up thousands more innocent Americans, or other innocent people anywhere, I have no problem with making them a little uncomfortable.

The use of water-boarding, as I've said before, is all right with me. Did you read that case FOR water-boarding that I referenced? Or would you prefer to remain stuck on stupid for life? Can't you even entertain for a minute an opinion different from what you're spoonfed on liberal websites?

Also, as a purely hypothetical case, if God forbid, a terrorist kidnapped one of your children or grandkids, (or several of them, in case one wouldn't matter all that much to you) and we had in our custody one of the terrorists who was privy to information leading to your loved one, would you get upset with the authorities if they kept the guy in stress positions, or used sleep deprivation and bright lights or played "Red Hot Chile Peppers" music a little bit too loud in his vicinity? Come on, twot. Let's see where you really stand on this issue.

2:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Widget said...
"Dave Grunion, Whoop-de-do and Twot, you are either the same person or separated at birth"


High five, Widget! That really made me laugh. ;)

2:49 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity conveniently misinterprets my entire argument, which cited the precedent established or attempted to be established under the U.S. Constitution and Geneva Conventions. I never suggested whether or not these particular rules applied to foreigners or terrorists.
This is much more significant issue here. There is no innocent until proven guilty in Trinity's warped worldview. So who is to say just who are the "terrorists."
On this subject, Trinity has been too brainwashed by the Levin-types to recognize what the new Bush detainee bill really means.
It allows president Bush, AND ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS, to detain ANY individual, which is loosely defined enough to encompass U.S. citizens as well as foreigners, INDEFINITELY and WITH NO HABEUS CORPUS RIGHTS simply by declaring them as enemy combatants or terrorists.
Yes, a court has to approve on the president's finding on all individuals detained. But the law does not provide any guidance on the length of time a president has to keep a prisoner in confinement prior to the court's order. So just like I said, a president can detain most anyone indefinitely, without the individual having any ability legal or otherwise to contest the confinement, merely by deciding they are an enemy combatant.
What's more, while the individual is in confinement, the president has the sole ability to subject the individual to "alternative interrogation procedures" or more drastic methods including torture of his or her own choosing.
This is exactly what the detainee bill allows.
I believe, people in the U.S. would be rioting in the streets if the mainstream press told them the truth about what the bill really means, instead of underreporting or misinterpreting the law's provisions while unjustifiably and inaccurately minimizing the entire issue into a political argument during an election season of which party can best protect America.
God help us all.

3:03 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:14 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I reposted to correct a typo.
As for Trinity's purely hypothetical case above, NO, I would not condone the above treatment even if the case involved a terrorist capturing my loved ones.
I prefer to accept the view of generals and intelligence experts that such methods prove ineffective at obtaining accurate info from suspects.
I also share the view the present Bush detainee law provides enough leeway for the executive branch to go beyond those types of "torture-lite" activities to universally-rejected worse treatments.

3:21 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Charles said: Dave Guillotine, you told Widget that you believed 'all Muslims are terrorists and we should kill them all.'
Jeez, you're dumb. That's what Widget is implying, if you're reading. I'm just shortening it to make it simpler for the hooples to understand.

TRinity said: You cannot put water-boarding in that category. Not if you are being honest, anyhow.
Well, yeah I can. The CIA and Army consider waterboarding torture. And whatever training exercises they're given to "see what it feels like," it's not because they're being trained to do it to other people. Waterboarding is torture. And we have absolute rules for these things - as in, not torturing - because once you start by making exceptions for the "really really bad people," then you slowly just trickle further down the line.
So what if he had imperialistic designs on Kuwait and other Middle Eastern states. He can't have been all that bad because you libs don't support the regime change we have undertaken there.
So, ok, I'm totally confused. So you think Saddam really isn't that bad? I mean, he was an awful person. but your standard for America seems to be that if we're not as awful as him, then everything we're doing is cool, right? I mean, you brought his methods up, not me. We were talking about torture here, not about going into Iraq -- can you try to stay on topic?

Now, the gloves are off. I'll address you any friggin' way I want to, depending upon my mood and/or the content of your posts.
Fine. I love you too. Maybe now, though, you'll understand what a stupid thing it is to suggest to anyone that they hate the troops.

No country we have ever fought has abided by the humanitarian standards that we have set for ourselves. We ARE better than most, if not all.
Yes. We are. And the way we stay that way is abiding by it, not by resting on our laurels. This is an enemy we face. They want to kill us. We should kill them. But we should not abandon our principles and the Constitution in order to do it.


But to hear your side tell it, we are "torturing" them. We treat them with kid gloves, yet your side is still demagoguing the issue and insisting that everything from loud music to bright lights and sleep deprivation is torture. Give me a freakin' break!
Do you consider these things to be torture? Please respond.

Trinity - we are using waterboarding. That's torture. We are using stress positions. That's torture. The CIA and Army field manuals consider that to be torture. If you can't accept basic facts I don't see how we're going to get anywhere at all. This isn't some random thing. This isn't some far-left voice just yelling about some guy being slapped around a couple of times. There's a multitude of photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib. There's documents from administration officials. Why was Bush rushing to pass this bill so quickly? Because he has to cover his ass and the ass of others who have already committed these acts.

3:30 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Widget and MellowMan --- you both agreed with me that the Germans and Japanese acted like the current "terrorist" in the way they treated our soldiers. You guys even painted a bleaker picture of their atrosities than what I had mentioned. Apparently you both understand that the exact thing that went on during WWII is going on now. The majority of Americans thought every German was like Hitler, every Japanese were like their ruthless leader and every Italian was like Musolini. You guys think that everbody that does not think you are like the worst of the worst "terrorist". To dismiss my arguement that Germany, Italy and Japan benefited from our humane treatment of their soldiers because you say those countries today do not measure up to your standard and that many German prisoners that were kept over here stayed here after being set free and thusly did not affect other Germans is crazy. The Germans that were kept in the U.S. were sent back to Germany then they realized how corrupt their Army had been and they wanted to come to America. Are you also saying that the captured Germans who after being released from America and wanting to come to the U.S. never talked to other Germans about their feelings about how bad German soldiers had treated their captives and how well they had been treated by the Americans.

There is a big difference when fighting a war about how agressive you fight to win and how agressive you treat war prisoners, at least we used to fight wars that way. I am surprised you guys are not complainning that our military doctors are providing medical aide to the wounded enemy, which is another way of winning hearts and minds. Where is your outrage about this humane treatment; not a good political subject matter???

What causes the imbalance in the peace in the world is usually an individual(and with the help of many sheep) that through their own selfish idelogy they want to rule the world or their own country. Examples are many so want list all of them: Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hitler, Musolini, OBL, Japanese Rulers of the past, Kim Jong Ill and the many others . Do you say that every individual that lives under their rule are ruthless just like their rulers( again I agree there are some sheep that will follow no matter what).

In your opinion, do the people in the rest of the world hate every American individually or do they hate our leaders that make the policies that affect them and thusly they then hate all of us by association. If we have a war (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea), then the enemies hate all of us during that war. Do you think that N.Koreans as a whole hate us or is it just the leaders and their sheep followers??

You guys must live a horrible life thinking that everybody that disagrees with your idealogy is a DEVIL!!

4:09 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Twot said 'should the bully instead be treated with kindness and dignity, while demonstrating to him why beating up on other kids is wrong....(This)treatment stands a much better chance of reforming the bully so he can become a peaceful and productive human being.'
Well Twot, you say your expertise lies in Human Psychology, and you ask us to 'consider a fair analogy', but the biggest bully on this playground appears to be you. Has your hypothesis actually been tried on humans? Case in point; you would make an excellent test specimen.

MellowMan then said, 'You say that if we treat with sweetness and negotiation the bullies at school they will stop being bullies, wife -beaters will love their wives, the Islamic Fascists will give up their religious hate of non-Moslems, and no doubt child rapists will rush to reform. This is out of which Grimms Fairy Tale?'
I agree with MellowMan that the wife-beaters become worse as the wife enables him and will often attempt to kill her, sometimes succeeding. You sided with the criminal and not the victim.

MellowMan referred to Adolf Hitler and asked, 'Did the 'benign treatment' you recomend work to rehabilitate that 'school-yard bully'?
You admitted your ignorance about Europe's appeasement attempt with Hitler and the Nazis, and I find your modesty admirable (see I am trying to sooth the savage beast)

However later you spoiled the moment of personal reflection by personally attacking me when I applied your own analogy to our present situation with the Islamic terrorists. Do you often turn and attack those that agree with you and call them names as you did to me? Your unwarranted behavior was not unlike the example of your school bully,

And you wonder why most Americans are wary of the intentions of the Islamic terrorists.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Dave Grapeshot said, 'All Muslims are terrorists and we should kill them all.'

Dave Grapeshot then insulted some guy named Charles,who was upset by such racial slurs and rightly called Dave Grapeshot, a 'racist and a religious bigot.'

Dave Grapeshot then excused his abominable verbal attacks by blaming me for his own narrow view.

Charles is correct, Dave Grapeshot is a racist and a religious bigot.

5:07 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Brain-dead. You guys can't even read. Here's my post:

"Shorter Widget: All Muslims are terrorists and we should kill them all."

It was provoked by this statement from Widget: "The Islamo-Nazis have nuclear weapons now, there are one billion Moslems in the world today, all reading the same Koran, with the same fifth pillar of faith which instructs them to rage Jihad ('holy' war) on non-Moslems, and their obsessive desire is to kill all 'infidels', and introduce Shiria law into the Wesern Hemisphere."

So I shortened Widget's views to make them reflect what he's really saying. Which is to say, you seem to think all Muslims are terrorists, and they're all coming to get us.

How is the reading comprehension going now?

5:58 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Widget:
The analogy between the wife beater and reforming a school bully does not work.
My point was if we can reform the school bully, synonomous with children taught to be terrorists, early-on, they have a good chance of not growing up to be wife beaters (or terrorists).
Under your alternative proposal, we would have have bullies grow up to be wife beaters necessitating more enablers.
I'm not advocating a way to completely eliminate humans with latent and demonstrated violent tendancies.
If anyone could do that, all the while eradicating crime and terrorism they would be Jesus Christ himself.
I am proposing a BETTER way to deal with human beings having violent tendancies to reform more of them.
Maybe I indeed went too far in referring to you as an "it."
For this I apologize.
I was sarcastically extenuating a point that anyone who openly endorses, as you did on this post, wiping out an entire race of citizens,* maybe that individual does not deserve to share the same air with rational, people-loving human beings.

* I did not at all interpret your comments as imposing my suggestions on the present situation with Islamic terrorists as you state above.

7:54 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Correction to my above post:
When I said: I'm not advocating a way to completely ELIMINATE humans with latent and demonstrated violent tendancies.
I meant to say: I'm not advocating a way to completely REFORM ALL humans with latent and demonstrated violent tendencies.
That's what I get for rushing off the post to answer a phone call.

8:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Fine. I love you too. Maybe now, though, you'll understand what a stupid thing it is to suggest to anyone that they hate the troops."


Which is exactly why I would like you to show me exactly where I have demonstrated such stupidity, Dave G. I'll await your response with bated breath.

Dave G. said...
"Why was Bush rushing to pass this bill so quickly?"


Frankly, because some misguided, unelected justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, forgot their place, overstepped their bounds, and decided to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions by bestowing rights reserved for prisoners of war upon vicious terrorists. Rights that were never afforded them in the past, ever.

Here we have the first president in sixteen years to be elected by a majority vote, and we are seeing his wartime decisions being second-guessed and disregarded by a few men in black robes who were never elected to do any such thing. It's a travesty.

As far as the detainees that are being held at Gitmo, they are not being "tortured". The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross who had used the term "tantamount to torture" has stated that the conditions in Guantanamo have improved considerably and that they are satisfied with their access to detainees.

According to the man in charge of Gitmo, the International Committee of the Red Cross gets complete and unfettered access and interact with the detainees on a regular basis.

You should read the interview he gave to ABC's "Nightline" so you can clear up some of the misconceptions you have about the way these guys are treated at Guantanamo.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2126364&page=1

6:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"There is no innocent until proven guilty in Trinity's warped worldview. So who is to say just who are the "terrorists." "


My "warped" worldview? Twot, "innocent until proven guilty" is a concept taken from criminal law. The detainees that have been picked up on the battlefield who are being held at Gitmo, are not criminals. Nor are they prisoners of war. They are detained enemy combatants. What are we supposed to do with these people? Let them go?

In fact, after several levels of evaluation, many of these detainees HAVE been released, depending upon the level of risk entailed in doing so. Others are waiting for their countries to accept them into custody. Still others, are too dangerous to do anything with but to detain them for as long as they are deemed to be a danger to our troops and to our civilians.

As far as what occurred at Abu Ghraib is concerned, none of that BS should ever have been allowed to happen. It was a case of inexperienced young troops with too little supervision, and unfortunately provided the critics of the Iraq war, especially the media, with an unending supply of propaganda for them to use against us. It was very unfortunate the way that whole mess was exploited and milked. The media just couldn't seem to get enough of those photos.

Ironically however, the last I heard, prisoners at Abu Ghraib were wishing that the Americans were back in control of the prison. I could have predicted that.

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Which is exactly why I would like you to show me exactly where I have demonstrated such stupidity, Dave G. I'll await your response with bated breath.
You've posted a number of comments about John Kerry's medals not being deserved, about wounds not happening, yada yada.

Here we have the first president in sixteen years to be elected by a majority vote, and we are seeing his wartime decisions being second-guessed and disregarded by a few men in black robes who were never elected to do any such thing. It's a travesty.
They're called judges. That's what they do. The President is not infallable, as you seem to believe. They're there to interpret the Constitution and the laws that are passed. These laws are not perfect, they have holes, and that's what judges do.

It was a case of inexperienced young troops with too little supervision
The guy running things at Abu Ghraib was the guy running things in Guantanamo. This wasn't just a few dummies on the lower levels. As for Guantanamo, yes, things are cleaned up, now, but that still doesn't excuse what happened there and at rendition sites around the world.

7:11 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"As for Trinity's purely hypothetical case above, NO, I would not condone the above treatment even if the case involved a terrorist capturing my loved ones."


Twot, if you are really claiming that you would not condone putting a terrorist through a few seconds of waterboarding if it meant he would most likely release information that would enable you to find your loved one, then you sir, are in all probability, full of shit!

Either that, or you are one sick bastard, but I think it's probably the former. You have just publicly demonstrated that you will lie through your teeth/keyboard in order to win a stupid debate point.

Guess what, twot? You didn't win that point. You're a great big LOSER, and I think everyone here knows it! :P

7:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"You've posted a number of comments about John Kerry's medals not being deserved, about wounds not happening, yada yada."


Cop out, Dave G. That is not what we are talking about, and you know it. You asked me why I hated the troops. I said I would pretend I didn't see that comment. You asked why? It's right there. Then you said this:

Dave G. said...
"Fine. I love you too. Maybe now, though, you'll understand what a stupid thing it is to suggest to anyone that they hate the troops."


So tell me, what does one thing have to do with another. Why don't you just be gracious, and say that you were an idiot to have said such a thing? It will be a lot easier than to try to make excuses for yourself for trying to put words in my mouth that I never said.

7:27 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"They're called judges. That's what they do. The President is not infallable, as you seem to believe."


They're mere mortals, like all the rest of us. None of us is infallible. Nor did I ever say or think that President Bush is infallible. I just object to the (unelected) Judicial Branch of our government sticking their noses in to areas where they do not have a say.

You mention the Constitution. Well, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that:

He (meaning the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Well, the way I read it, the Geneva Conventions is a treaty that we have signed with other nations. SCOTUS' Hamdan decision opens up a whole can of worms that should never have been let loose, and is going to make this entire war a lot more difficult to execute. No other President in the history of our nation has had his Commander-in-Chief powers so aggressively challenged. It just complicates things enormously.

8:03 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"So what you're recommending we torture these captured jilhadists, so that when they capture people from the U.S., whether military or otherwise, they merely torture us as well.


Merely torture us? You mean, as opposed to first torturing us and THEN decapitating us?

Tell me, twot. Why in God's name should you care if someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, al Qaeda mastermind of 9/11, is subjected to a couple of minutes of waterboarding?

If we can get useful information out of some inhuman piece of crap like him, why shouldn't we? I'm not suggesting that we pull out his fingernails, or anything like that, but waterboarding? Stress positions? Loud music and bright lights? I mean, what's wrong with you?

Did you forget what Khalid Sheikh Mohammad did to Daniel Pearl? Didn't you see him slit his throat? Besides cutting off his head, when his buried body was finally found, it was cut up in ten different pieces. And waterboarding is too drastic to use on this guy? (shaking head)

8:32 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Perhaps you missed the congressional hearings this week where General Batiste, the original lead commander on the grounds in Iraq, testified the U.S. has imprisoned some 13,000 Iraqis in Guantanamo, of whom by his accounts "99 percent are innocent," and many of whom are being subjected to torture and mistreatment by young female and male U.S. military personnel trained to do so under the frightening Bush/Rumsfeld torture policies."


I think you need to check your facts, twot. According to Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the man in charge of the prison, only around 800 enemy combatants have ever been brought to Gitmo, and about 300 of them have already been released.

HARRIS: I would like to see the need for this place to be ended. However, today, I believe that we have a need for facilities like Guantanamo. And I believe we have, out of the 450 or so detainees we have here, there are probably 300 of them that are serious Taliban and al Qaeda leadership people.

Again, twot, what are we supposed to do with these hard-core terrorists? Do you want them?

8:51 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I have one regret. I meant Gen. Batiste was talking about 13,000 Iraqis have been imprisoned in ABU GHRAID not in Guantanamo. That was a mistake on my part.
Other than that I stand by my arguments, including when Batiste said 99% of these prisoners were likely innocent, and still facing or had faced torture by U.S. troops.
You ignore the reports that the stuff going on at Abu Ghraib involved much more than the few young soldiers participating in mischief. You're just regurgitating Bushie spin.
Part of the problem is you only pick and choose parts of the arguments that you think you can defend, and just ignore all the rest.
What about the documented cases of innocents who had been thrown in CIA prisons?
What about all the fact-based commentary posted here on these method like waterboarding are actually forms of torture? And what about the authritative claims that such practices pave the way towards larger abuses and can lead to other countries conducting their own interpretations of the Geneva Convention.
Maybe later I will look for even more links of objective newsstories further cementing the above information.
Meanwhile, since you ignore much of the arguments presented, we find holes the size of Mack Truck tires through your own.

9:18 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I have to catch myself. I know you will respond with some dumb comment like, "Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists."
Here is a core fatal flaw with all your reasoning.
You assume all these people captured off the battlefield are automatically terrorists or enemy combatants WHILE CLEARLY FAILING TO UNDERSTAND these provisions for alternative interrogation methods, correctly defined as torture as noted by Dave G. above, apply to more than just people plucked off the battlefield. They can apply to ANYONE Bush or future presidents declares to be terrorists, with no ability of the prisoner to contest that finding. Kindly review my post above about what the new detainee provision actually entails.
This is part of the argument you largely chose to ignore.
And as it was also pointed out above, why does Bush need to rewrite the existing international laws if he does not intend to extend them to encompass torture and to have greater latitude in prosecuting people?

9:40 PM  
Anonymous whop4467 said...

Anybody that has not read the Geneva Convention rules need to read it. I found by typing "Geneva Convention" and reading that which pertained to prisoners of war. If we are fighting a "war on terrorism" then the captive combatants are defined as "prisoners of war" as I read the document. Calling them "Enemy Combatants" is a hokey method of trying to disobey the document!

COMBATANT--- a person who engages in combat; fighter.

Is there such a thing as a "friendly combatant" in a war, military conflict or a hostile action between two or more people.

From what I read of the Geneva Convention document we have to do everything we can to make the prisoner happy, except to wipe his behind after a crap.

2:56 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares