I have a problem. Yeah your immediate response will be... Only One?

[Immanuel]

In the Coulter Explains - It makes sense thread I wrote:


Hell, we've already had 16 straight years of liberal/Democrat control and now she wants to make it 4 more? WTF(udge)?

Immie

Well, forgive me for being slow, but it occured to me this morning that it doesn't matter which of the three front runners wins we will have at least four more years of liberal/Democrat rule in this country.

We're screwed! period!

Immie

[Black Lance]

Bush hasn't been a traditional conservative, but let's be fair, he isn't a liberal Democrat either.

[typomaniac]

Here's how to solve your problem, Immie: embrace liberalism.

Now, about my fee......

[Immanuel]

Bush hasn't been a traditional conservative, but let's be fair, he isn't a liberal Democrat either.

No, not a liberal Democrat... just a liberal. :D


Here's how to solve your problem, Immie: embrace liberalism.

Now, about my fee......

Didn't I see a thread yesterday where you offered your consulting services? It seems to me that an offer such as that comes free of charge.

Immie

[avatar4321]

Here's how to solve your problem, Immie: embrace liberalism.

Now, about my fee......

i dont see how any lover of freedom can embrace dependency, oppression, and irresponsibility.

[typomaniac]

i dont see how any lover of freedom can embrace dependency, oppression, and irresponsibility.

liberalism (n)...a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties....

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism)

I don't see anything in there about dependency, oppression, or irresponsibility. :poke:

[Hobbit]

liberalism (n)...a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties....

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism)

I don't see anything in there about dependency, oppression, or irresponsibility. :poke:

Once people who call themselves liberals start following the philosophy in that definition, then I'll support liberalism.

If I murder children and call it charity, it's a pretty invalid argument to ask why you're against "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity" when you tell me you oppose what I'm doing.

As it stands, the modern liberal movement supports suppression of the individual in favor of the collective, any system of government that agrees with them, and nonviolent...or violent, if you listen to what they often suggest, modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure absolute 100% equality, adjusted for past racial oppression, in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of everything you will ever need from womb to tomb, at the expense of the individual rights and civil liberties of those who actually earn it.

[typomaniac]

Once people who call themselves liberals start following the philosophy in that definition, then I'll support liberalism.

It's the philosophy I try to follow. If other people want to set themselves up as dictators and call themselves the People's Democratic Republic of Whatever, that's their business. :dunno:

[bullypulpit]

In the Coulter Explains - It makes sense thread I wrote:



Well, forgive me for being slow, but it occured to me this morning that it doesn't matter which of the three front runners wins we will have at least four more years of liberal/Democrat rule in this country.

We're screwed! period!

Immie

And where did she (he?) drawn that particular conclusion? From the deepest darkest nether regions of her (his?) arse? Republicans have held, for the most part, Congress from '94 to '06 and Chimpy McPresident and Co the White House since '01. But Coultergeist has never been one to let facts stand in the way of her (his?) way.

[Immanuel]

And where did she (he?) drawn that particular conclusion? From the deepest darkest nether regions of her (his?) arse? Republicans have held, for the most part, Congress from '94 to '06 and Chimpy McPresident and Co the White House since '01. But Coultergeist has never been one to let facts stand in the way of her (his?) way.

Are you talking about me with the "She/He"? I'm a he.

1) I never said that "Chimpy McPresident" was a Democrat. I said he is a liberal. More to the point, he acts like a liberal by the way he treats the Constitution. He's flushing constitutional rights down the toilet as if they were feces. He has systematically removed important rights from us and it appears that as long as he and his kind are in control this will continue to happen. This emulates the beliefs of the American Liberals, not the beliefs of American Conservatives.

2) Ann's point was that she would rather vote for Hillary than McCain because Hillary's presidency would destroy the Democratic Party. But, the way that I see it is that liberals have controlled the Oval Office for 16 years now. If those liberals in the White House for the last 16 years have not destroyed the Democratic Party four years of Hillary are not going to destroy the Democratic Party.

2b) Therefore, my point was that whether we elect Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain we are in the same boat as they appear to be very similar in their view of the Constitution.

2c) I don't like John McCain. I wouldn't vote for him if he ran against Satan.

3) I don't even want the Democratic Party destroyed. Albeit, I would like to see a change in our political system. I believe that both parties have too much control of our political system. It is time we change this. That doesn't mean destroy one or both parties. It means that we, the American people, need to wrest control out of the hands of those politicians that are controlling and destroying our nation.

4) Four more years of arresting human beings, locking them up because they happen to appear Islamic, or Mexican, or their name happens to appear on a "Terrorist Watch List" can only make things worse for America.

5) Of the three candidates that are "in the running", the only one that I am not sure would continue the actions of #4 is Obama and honestly, Obama is too much of an unknown quantity for me to support.

So, my problem is who do I support? John McCain because he's the Republican and not Hillary? Obama because he is the one that seems to be the most different from George? A third party candidate who says he/she is different but for whom my vote would be absolutely worthless?

I said it in the opening post, We're screwed. Maybe you took it as we're screwed because we have three liberals running. As I reread the statement, that IS how it sounds to me. However, given the right liberal, I'd vote for a liberal just as quickly as I would vote for a conservative today. My problem is with the individuals who are running themselves, not their political point of view.

And for the record, I am registered independent, not Republican, there is not a single Republican that ran in the primaries that I would have supported. At first, I thought about Fred Thompson, but looking into him, I wasn't thrilled with him either.

I guess, I am just cynical and sick of the whole damned bunch. They are destroying America not just the liberals but the whole damned bunch of them. Like I said, We're screwed.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Except for #4 I agree with you Immie. Doesn't matter which party gets the white house, we lose. I'm just going to sit back and watch the country fall apart. Nothing I can do about it. But when the feces hits the fan I will be the first to stand up and say I told you you so.

[Hagbard Celine]

i dont see how any lover of freedom can embrace dependency, oppression, and irresponsibility.

I don't see how any lover of freedom can embrace social conservatism. (shrug)

[manu1959]

I don't see how any lover of freedom can embrace social conservatism. (shrug)

how free were you when you lived with your parents.....

how free are you know that you live under your own roof....

[Immanuel]

Except for #4 I agree with you Immie. Doesn't matter which party gets the white house, we lose. I'm just going to sit back and watch the country fall apart. Nothing I can do about it.

Just curious, what part of #4 don't you agree with? You must think I am using hyperbole about their actions as I can't believe you think locking up human beings is a good thing for America.


But when the feces hits the fan I will be the first to stand up and say I told you you so.

It will be a race between you and I and those "Johnny-come-latelies". :)

Immie

[truthmatters]

Just like Fox they will just relabel their own failed people.

This is how they are going to explain all the failures of their own party on the democrats.

Sorry guys he is all yours and this aint going to work.

[Gaffer]

Just curious, what part of #4 don't you agree with? You must think I am using hyperbole about their actions as I can't believe you think locking up human beings is a good thing for America.



It will be a race between you and I and those "Johnny-come-latelies". :)

Immie

I'm all for locking up terror suspects. Also for wire tapping them and for execution of those that are no longer useful for information. The government is not just going out and picking people off the street and locking them up, at least not yet, the libs are still working on that part.

The pukes that have been locked up are not human beings. Even calling them animals is an insult to animals.

[Immanuel]

I'm all for locking up terror suspects. Also for wire tapping them and for execution of those that are no longer useful for information. The government is not just going out and picking people off the street and locking them up, at least not yet, the libs are still working on that part.

The pukes that have been locked up are not human beings. Even calling them animals is an insult to animals.

Except that I believe that everyone, including suspects are entitled to a fair trial and representation by counsel even if they are not citizens. It is wrong to lock up innocent people. Once someone has been proven to be a terrorist, I have no problem with locking them up, even locking them up until a fair trial can be arranged, but to lock people up without even the hope of a trial is in my opinion barbaric.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Just like Fox they will just relabel their own failed people.

This is how they are going to explain all the failures of their own party on the democrats.

Sorry guys he is all yours and this aint going to work.

Wanna bet? ;)

Immie

[Gaffer]

Except that I believe that everyone, including suspects are entitled to a fair trial and representation by counsel even if they are not citizens. It is wrong to lock up innocent people. Once someone has been proven to be a terrorist, I have no problem with locking them up, even locking them up until a fair trial can be arranged, but to lock people up without even the hope of a trial is in my opinion barbaric.

Immie

We are talking two different things here. There are the criminals that get arrested and locked up. They are considered suspects until proven guilty. They are given bail and if they can't make that bail they stay locked up. Enemy combatants are a different breed. They were captured in combat against US troops. A bail situation does not apply here as they are foreign and if released would go back to fighting our troops or trying to commit other attacks against the US citizens. They are not poor innocent people snatched off the streets. Some have had hearings and been released to their home countries. Most of those have returned to the battle field. Not to mention many of their home countries don't want them back. Short of executing them all, all we can do is keep them locked up indefinitely.

[Immanuel]

We are talking two different things here. There are the criminals that get arrested and locked up. They are considered suspects until proven guilty. They are given bail and if they can't make that bail they stay locked up. Enemy combatants are a different breed. They were captured in combat against US troops. A bail situation does not apply here as they are foreign and if released would go back to fighting our troops or trying to commit other attacks against the US citizens. They are not poor innocent people snatched off the streets. Some have had hearings and been released to their home countries. Most of those have returned to the battle field. Not to mention many of their home countries don't want them back. Short of executing them all, all we can do is keep them locked up indefinitely.

I've never been to the Middle East, but the impression that I get is that most everyone runs around with a weapon. Not only runs around with a weapon but displays it quite prominently just to stay alive. Having a weapon does not make one an enemy combatant.

I do not believe the Bush Admin when they claim that they only lock up "enemy combatants". It has something to do with that trust issue. It's been broken with me. I don't trust them anymore. I suppose it is like with your child, they can lie to you a few times and you attempt to teach them the difference between right an wrong and that lying is wrong... but after a while it gets to the point where you don't believe a single thing they say. They could tell you the house was on fire and you could smell smoke and still not believe them.

Therefore, I don't believe them when they say that only terrorists are being held or that they are not torturing people. Killing subdued prisoners... is that even out of the question with them? I'm not accusing, just asking.

As I have said before, prove to me that someone is a terrorist or enemy of the state and I support their incarceration, but until you have proven it, that human being deserves the respect and rights of any other human being.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Most of those in Gitmo were taken in Afghanistan at the height of the fighting there. Others were added who were known terrorists. Prisoners taken in iraq are kept there by the iraqis, unless they are known terrorist. Only the important ones make it to Gitmo now days.

As I said they are not just arbitrarily snatched off the street. These guys were captured when their position was over run. When you take a position in which you find a guy with a rifle that has been recently fired and a lot of shell casings around him it's reasonable to assume he was shooting at you. If it turns out he is a high ranking AQ type, he's Gitmo bound.

I don't like Bush's liberal leanings. He's pissed me off a number of times. But he hasn't consistently lied. He has been wrong. But wrong is not lying.

[Immanuel]

Most of those in Gitmo were taken in Afghanistan at the height of the fighting there. Others were added who were known terrorists. Prisoners taken in iraq are kept there by the iraqis, unless they are known terrorist. Only the important ones make it to Gitmo now days.

As I said they are not just arbitrarily snatched off the street. These guys were captured when their position was over run. When you take a position in which you find a guy with a rifle that has been recently fired and a lot of shell casings around him it's reasonable to assume he was shooting at you. If it turns out he is a high ranking AQ type, he's Gitmo bound.

I don't like Bush's liberal leanings. He's pissed me off a number of times. But he hasn't consistently lied. He has been wrong. But wrong is not lying.

I could forgive him for being wrong especially if he at least attempted to correct the wrongs but I don't believe he's been honest.

Not being honest, not telling the whole truth is as good as lying. I'm also not convinced he has not been flat out lying since 9/11. No, I don't believe he had anything to do with the attacks, but why we are in Iraq today... among other lies... well, I don't think he's been honest with us at all.

Immie

[Gaffer]

I could forgive him for being wrong especially if he at least attempted to correct the wrongs but I don't believe he's been honest.

Not being honest, not telling the whole truth is as good as lying. I'm also not convinced he has not been flat out lying since 9/11. No, I don't believe he had anything to do with the attacks, but why we are in Iraq today... among other lies... well, I don't think he's been honest with us at all.

Immie

Could you say exactly where Bush lied? Point out some real examples for me. iraq was to take out saddam. He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world. He was wrong. They weren't there or were removed. That's not a lie. We then had to occupy the country. We broke it, we had to fix it. Again his first attempt was wrong. He changed it and now things are turning around. He's been wrong plenty of times but I have yet to see where he has lied about anything.

As for torture. Here's a site to check out that shows REAL torture. You have to scroll way down to get to it. A lot of interesting articles along the way.

http://www.antimullah.com/

[typomaniac]

Could you say exactly where Bush lied? Point out some real examples for me. iraq was to take out saddam. He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world.

Iraq wasn't to take out Saddam, because the US didn't need to take out Saddam at that time. It was nothing more than shrub's efforts to resolve his daddy issues, and he exploited people like you in order to do it.

[Gaffer]

Iraq wasn't to take out Saddam, because the US didn't need to take out Saddam at that time. It was nothing more than shrub's efforts to resolve his daddy issues, and he exploited people like you in order to do it.

You have no clue what your talking about. Your BDS is showing again. Give me substantial proof he lied. Not soros talking points or twofer imaginings.

[Immanuel]

Could you say exactly where Bush lied? Point out some real examples for me. iraq was to take out saddam. He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world. He was wrong. They weren't there or were removed. That's not a lie. We then had to occupy the country. We broke it, we had to fix it. Again his first attempt was wrong. He changed it and now things are turning around. He's been wrong plenty of times but I have yet to see where he has lied about anything.



Well, Iraq is a prime example. You say, "He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world". Okay, IF you believe that he actually thought this then he was simply wrong. IF you believe that he knew the truth, and as the President of the United States of America, I fully believe that he knew what Saddam had and didn't have or at least had a very strong idea then the wrong becomes a flat out lie.

I specifically remember statements about us not going to get involved in "nation-building". In fact, I think they helped get him elected the first time around. Now if you believe that we are now in the process of nation-building, as we are, and that we fell into circumstances that have forced us into this position then you believe once again, that he was simply wrong AGAIN. Or if you are like me and have come to the conclusion that he had every intention of occupying Iraq for the remainder of our natural lives and beyond, you realize that this too was a lie.

Why are we in Iraq in the first place? Out of the goodness of President Bush's heart? I sincerely doubt it. Oil? He insists we are not there for control of the oil fields. Should we believe him? If so, why? Because no oil is coming out of Iraq today? That may be true, but we still have control of it.

Can either one of those lies be proven to have been lies or is there a possibility that he was just stupid? Sure there is a possibility slim as it may be.

I am certain that there are dozens of similar examples that people can come up with.

And as a final note, one need not be totally dishonest to lose the trust of those you lead, command or influence. One must only appear to be dishonest or hiding something. So, in effect, George W. Bush may only be the simpleton that didn't know what Saddam had, but the fact that he seems to be dishonest is enough to cost him the trust of many Americans.

{edit}


Most of those in Gitmo were taken in Afghanistan at the height of the fighting there. Others were added who were known terrorists. Prisoners taken in iraq are kept there by the iraqis, unless they are known terrorist. Only the important ones make it to Gitmo now days.

As I said they are not just arbitrarily snatched off the street. These guys were captured when their position was over run. When you take a position in which you find a guy with a rifle that has been recently fired and a lot of shell casings around him it's reasonable to assume he was shooting at you. If it turns out he is a high ranking AQ type, he's Gitmo bound.

I don't like Bush's liberal leanings. He's pissed me off a number of times. But he hasn't consistently lied. He has been wrong. But wrong is not lying.

I wanted to go back to this post and comment on it. You make good points about how these terrorists were captured. I'll give you that, but again, this goes to the trust issue. Do I really trust what the Administration is telling us about these people? I should... but then I don't. If these people are being held without a fair trial, then one must question if there is an ulterior motive behind their incarceration.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Well, Iraq is a prime example. You say, "He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world". Okay, IF you believe that he actually thought this then he was simply wrong. IF you believe that he knew the truth, and as the President of the United States of America, I fully believe that he knew what Saddam had and didn't have or at least had a very strong idea then the wrong becomes a flat out lie.

As I said, he acted on the intel info he was given. The same info the rest of the world had. That info was wrong, it appears. Must be nice to have the power to get into someones head and know what they are thinking. You so sure you know he knew saddam didn't have the weapons. We also went into iraq because they were not living up to the cease fire signed back in 91. Also because they were harboring and financing terrorists. Hezbo terrorists and hamas terrorists.

I specifically remember statements about us not going to get involved in "nation-building". In fact, I think they helped get him elected the first time around. Now if you believe that we are now in the process of nation-building, as we are, and that we fell into circumstances that have forced us into this position then you believe once again, that he was simply wrong AGAIN. Or if you are like me and have come to the conclusion that he had every intention of occupying Iraq for the remainder of our natural lives and beyond, you realize that this too was a lie.

He said he did not want to get into nation building. Again he was wrong. Once you invade a country you are going to have to nation build. We are also nation building in Afgan as well. We have been nation building in kosovo and bosnia as well. We still have troops there.

Why are we in Iraq in the first place? Out of the goodness of President Bush's heart? I sincerely doubt it. Oil? He insists we are not there for control of the oil fields. Should we believe him? If so, why? Because no oil is coming out of Iraq today? That may be true, but we still have control of it.

We are in iraq to try to turn it into a democracy and ally of ours. We are keep the islamists from taking control of the country and using it as a base of operations. We are also keeping iran from turning it into a puppet state as part of their caliphate. We don't control the oil. It goes on the world market and iraq gets the money. Eventually iraq can start paying us back, but they have to get established first.

Can either one of those lies be proven to have been lies or is there a possibility that he was just stupid? Sure there is a possibility slim as it may be.

Stupid or listening to bad advisors, I think it was the later. He has some really inept people working for him. A lot of them are hold overs from clinton, which was a stupid thing to do.

I am certain that there are dozens of similar examples that people can come up with.

I'll wait.

And as a final note, one need not be totally dishonest to lose the trust of those you lead, command or influence. One must only appear to be dishonest or hiding something. So, in effect, George W. Bush may only be the simpleton that didn't know what Saddam had, but the fact that he seems to be dishonest is enough to cost him the trust of many Americans.

He did a lot of mismanaging, and his administration kept quiet on things when they should have been speaking up. The people think of him now is irrelevant. He's got less than a year left as president. Don't tell our rabid libs here,but he not running this year.

{edit}



I wanted to go back to this post and comment on it. You make good points about how these terrorists were captured. I'll give you that, but again, this goes to the trust issue. Do I really trust what the Administration is telling us about these people? I should... but then I don't. If these people are being held without a fair trial, then one must question if there is an ulterior motive behind their incarceration.

Immie

Ask your self why would the US government lock up a couple of hundred guys from other countries? What purpose would this serve? The red cross tours the facility daily. Reporters are in there repeatedly. The place is under the microscope. The place is a political football, so why would they just lock up the average mohamod of the street. Those guys deserve to be there in spades.

[Immanuel]

I tried to post this around 9pm est, but my modem has been acting up. Not sure this is going to work, but here goes again.



As I said, he acted on the intel info he was given. The same info the rest of the world had. That info was wrong, it appears. Must be nice to have the power to get into someones head and know what they are thinking. You so sure you know he knew saddam didn't have the weapons. We also went into iraq because they were not living up to the cease fire signed back in 91. Also because they were harboring and financing terrorists. Hezbo terrorists and hamas terrorists.

I wish I had that power, which I never claimed to have. I said if he didn't know then he should have known. I believe he knew. He's not an idiot even if he wants people to think he is.

I'm sure that the fact that they were not living up to the '91 agreement required the deaths and maiming of thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings.

I supported our initial steps into Iraq. Removing Saddam from control was important, but from that point on, I do not believe we should be there as an occupying force. Now, I'm willing to admit that there are lots of things that I don't understand, but I do not trust the President. I see him as a conniving person. I'll also admit, I'm not as good at calling people liars as some as the liberals on this site. But the fact is that our President has broken my trust.


He said he did not want to get into nation building. Again he was wrong. Once you invade a country you are going to have to nation build. We are also nation building in Afgan as well. We have been nation building in kosovo and bosnia as well. We still have troops there.

Why is it our responsibility to rebuild Iraq? I'm sorry, but the terrorists in that region started this war not us. Let the terrorists rebuild that heap of sand. It is not our responsibility. We didn't ask for this war. We were defending ourselves. Weren't we?

Are we doing any good there whatsoever or are we simply making things a hell of a lot worse than they were to begin with? I'll go with worse as an answer.


We are in iraq to try to turn it into a democracy and ally of ours. We are keep the islamists from taking control of the country and using it as a base of operations. We are also keeping iran from turning it into a puppet state as part of their caliphate. We don't control the oil. It goes on the world market and iraq gets the money. Eventually iraq can start paying us back, but they have to get established first.

You don't honestly believe Iraq will pay back a dime do you?

Haven't we been in this same place with several other middle eastern countries before and suffered for our generosity? I'm speaking of our support for up and coming governments not the war itself. We'll get the shaft here as well.

I was under the impression that the Islamists were already in control of Iraq and will continue to be in control.

Is it our responsibility to make Iraq a democracy? Can't we have allies that have other forms of government?


He did a lot of mismanaging, and his administration kept quiet on things when they should have been speaking up. The people think of him now is irrelevant. He's got less than a year left as president. Don't tell our rabid libs here,but he not running this year.

You know something, if he were to run again this would be the first time I would vote against him. :(

Your first statement in this quote is where I was going. It is all a matter of trust. I don't trust him or Cheney or anyone in his administration. I may not be able to say he lied here, here, here and here, but I have lost the faith I had in him.


Ask your self why would the US government lock up a couple of hundred guys from other countries? What purpose would this serve? The red cross tours the facility daily. Reporters are in there repeatedly. The place is under the microscope. The place is a political football, so why would they just lock up the average mohamod of the street. Those guys deserve to be there in spades.

Well, I can tell that I am losing this argument and I should just back down like any lib would do and ignore the thread until it goes away. :laugh2: But, I'm not that smart! :laugh2:

I don't know why he would do it and I don't care.

What I want is for those people who are being held in captivity to be given human rights and dignity until they are proven to be terrorists. I'm sure there are terrorists being held. I'm also sure that there are people who are being held who were doing nothing more than I would if my country were invaded by Russia. I would defend my country from the invaders and I think most Americans would do the same thing.

Those people deserve human rights. They deserve counsel. They deserve to be allowed to make their cases before an impartial judge. They deserve the opportunity to see their wives and children again. I'm not speaking about any terrorists. I'm speaking about the man like myself who would take up arms to defend his home and his family from an invading army and we are that invading army.

Immie

[Gaffer]

I don't believe iraq wil pay us back, any more than anyone else has. Britain is the only country to repay its war debt to the US.

I can see what Bush is trying to do in iraq. It will eventually fail because iraq is muslim. A democracy can't exist in a muslim society. All he's doing is preventing the AQ from using iraq as a base country. It's a band aid on a large wound.

Almost all the Gitmo detainees came from Afgan. They are not Joe Niceguy fighting to defend his country. They are hardcore terrorists. They get put in Gitmo after the CIA has questioned them and got what they can from them. They are kept on ice there until it can be decided what to do with them. No torture is done there. The torture has already been done in another country before they are taken to Gitmo.

Another factor is these guys were mostly arabs captured in Afgan. Again its not Joe Niceguy defending his country. He doesn't belong there.

There are plenty of reasons not to trust the government, this isn't one of them. And I don't trust the government as a whole, not just the administration.

We have a big beaurocratic cancer in the government that gets bigger every year. Like any tumor it will eventually kill its host. And like any tumor it can't see thay it will die too.

[DragonStryk72]

Could you say exactly where Bush lied? Point out some real examples for me. iraq was to take out saddam. He thought saddam had WMD's as did the world. He was wrong. They weren't there or were removed. That's not a lie. We then had to occupy the country. We broke it, we had to fix it. Again his first attempt was wrong. He changed it and now things are turning around. He's been wrong plenty of times but I have yet to see where he has lied about anything.

As for torture. Here's a site to check out that shows REAL torture. You have to scroll way down to get to it. A lot of interesting articles along the way.

http://www.antimullah.com/

There are no black sites

there are WMDs in Iraq

Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda

We had no evidence of any planned attacks before 9-11

There was the fun with Katrina, wherein Bush was flatout told by Mike Brown, the man HE appointed to FEMA, that the levies wouldn't hold, then turned around and pretended that no such conversation took place, he's been at it for a long, long time.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't believe iraq wil pay us back, any more than anyone else has. Britain is the only country to repay its war debt to the US.

I can see what Bush is trying to do in iraq. It will eventually fail because iraq is muslim. A democracy can't exist in a muslim society. All he's doing is preventing the AQ from using iraq as a base country. It's a band aid on a large wound.

Almost all the Gitmo detainees came from Afgan. They are not Joe Niceguy fighting to defend his country. They are hardcore terrorists. They get put in Gitmo after the CIA has questioned them and got what they can from them. They are kept on ice there until it can be decided what to do with them. No torture is done there. The torture has already been done in another country before they are taken to Gitmo.

Another factor is these guys were mostly arabs captured in Afgan. Again its not Joe Niceguy defending his country. He doesn't belong there.

There are plenty of reasons not to trust the government, this isn't one of them. And I don't trust the government as a whole, not just the administration.

We have a big beaurocratic cancer in the government that gets bigger every year. Like any tumor it will eventually kill its host. And like any tumor it can't see thay it will die too.

Aside from the Afgans, though, we are still holding a huge number of Iraqi prisoners as well. This isn't a matter of just throwing the doors open and letting people go, what he is saying is that there is no process, we're just holding them forever. They cannot plead Not Guilty, they cannot present evidence of innocence, they can have no legal counsel (Even Japanese, Italians, and Germans were given this much in WWII) or even get what they are charged with, or the evidence pertaining to that, and there is no limit on how long they can be held.

"Innocent until proven guilty". now, were they proved guilty, I have no issue with dropping the guilty with the death penalty, none at all, but in no way are they being given fair trials. What Bush has done in this instance is create a mockery of justice. Holding them forever is both wrong, and simply impractical. We should be giving them fair trials, if for no other reason than to show that we were right in capturing them, that we are above these kinds of tactics, and to deprive AQ of the recruiting poster that Gitmo has become for them.

the whole maneuver is simply a way of trying to get around the rights guaranteed soldiers in time of war, which again, AQ must be loving right now. In seriousness, could you really think of a better recruiting campaign than to just go to these detainees' families, and use this to manipulate them? Because I know that if my brother were gone for six years, arrested, told he's not a soldier, stripped of anything that resembles the right to defend himself in court, and held for 6 years, I am damned sure not going to be favorably disposed toward the ones who did it to him.