A.G. Nominee Mukasey tries to sidestep torture...

[bullypulpit]

In his confirmation hearings Michael Mukasey stepped on a land-mine. When asked by Dick Durbin (D-IL) if water-boarding was torture, Mukasey waffled, stating,

<blockquote>I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that." - <a href=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1677612,00.html>TIME</a></blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture. With the first documented use of this technique originated with the Inquisition, known for its creativity in methods of torture. Since then it has been used repeatedly throughout the world as a means of torture. Japanese German interrogators who engaged in the practice in WW II were prosecuted as war criminals. More recently, it was used by the Khmer Rouge durring their reign of terror in Cambodia as a form of torture. John McCain, who was tortured at the hands of the NVA, has stated that water-boarding is torture and is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" (<a href=http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200>Newsweek, 11/21/2005</a>)

And then there is the little issue of international law and US treaty obligations. All signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed to the explicit prohibition against torture under ANY circumstances. There is NO legal exception to this, whether it be war, the threat of war or insurrection, or any other emergency. The US is signatory to that treaty, and under the Constitution, it is the law of the land. If Mr. Mukasey is unwilling to enforce the law, he has no business as Attorney General of the US.

[diuretic]

Too late, we know you're okay with torture under the Bush regime. In the meantime I hope you don't take offence when I say my next North America visit is going to be via Canada and I'll be staying north of the 49th Parallel when I fly across the Atlantic to Europe and then back the same way. I don't want to be an innocent caught up with your authoritarian regime.

[avatar4321]

maybe one of these days youll actually provide evidence that someone has been tortured rather than trying to create straw men so ridiculous that you have to think everyone who is Republican is pure evil to believe them.

[glockmail]

.....
The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture. With the first documented use of this technique originated with the Inquisition, known for its creativity in methods of torture. Since then it has been used repeatedly throughout the world as a means of torture. Japanese German interrogators who engaged in the practice in WW II were prosecuted as war criminals. More recently, it was used by the Khmer Rouge durring their reign of terror in Cambodia as a form of torture. John McCain, who was tortured at the hands of the NVA, has stated that water-boarding is torture and is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" ......

It ain't torture. Its a great technique, quickly bringing the fear of God to a victim without causing permanent physical damage. I support its use 100% for interogation of those who have defied international rules of conduct.

[diuretic]

maybe one of these days youll actually provide evidence that someone has been tortured rather than trying to create straw men so ridiculous that you have to think everyone who is Republican is pure evil to believe them.

Is that for me?

[diuretic]

It ain't torture. Its a great technique, quickly bringing the fear of God to a victim without causing permanent physical damage. I support its use 100% for interogation of those who have defied international rules of conduct.

So the Japanese who used it on American personnel during WWII shouldn't have been prosecuted for using the technique?


Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, presidential candidate and former prisoner of war in Vietnam, has called waterboarding ''very exquisite torture.'' American military officers have made similar statements. The State Department has criticized countries for using the technique. During World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding captive Americans.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/10881251.html

[retiredman]

precisely diuretic! I love it when all these chickenhawk republicans who have actively avoided any military service try to tell John S. McCain that waterboarding is not torture.

Like sitting in the recliner and telling Josh Beckett how to throw a fastball.

[glockmail]

So the Japanese who used it on American personnel during WWII shouldn't have been prosecuted for using the technique?



http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/10881251.html Wrong-o. The Americans did not defy international rules of conduct.

[glockmail]

precisely diuretic! I love it when all these chickenhawk republicans who have actively avoided any military service try to tell John S. McCain that waterboarding is not torture.

Like sitting in the recliner and telling Josh Beckett how to throw a fastball.:lame2: Prove that I "actively avoided any military service". :pee:

[retiredman]

:lame2: Prove that I "actively avoided any military service". :pee:

prove that I was specifically referring to YOU.:lol:

but, by this post, are you admitting that you think you know more about torture than McCain does?

[glockmail]

....

but, by this post, are you admitting that you think you know more about torture than McCain does? I don't pretend to be a expert. But McCain is too close to the issue. The poor man belongs on a golf course relaxing, not stumping to be the next POTUS.

[retiredman]

I don't pretend to be a expert. But McCain is too close to the issue. The poor man belongs on a golf course relaxing, not stumping to be the next POTUS.


whether or not McCain is presidential timber in your opinion is of zero importance to this discussion. DO you think that he is more of an expert on torture than you are? or than Mukasey is? yes or no will suffice.

p.s. the .... as an avoidance of the question was.... cute.

[theHawk]

In his confirmation hearings Michael Mukasey stepped on a land-mine. When asked by Dick Durbin (D-IL) if water-boarding was torture, Mukasey waffled, stating,

<blockquote>I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that." - <a href=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1677612,00.html>TIME</a></blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture. With the first documented use of this technique originated with the Inquisition, known for its creativity in methods of torture. Since then it has been used repeatedly throughout the world as a means of torture. Japanese German interrogators who engaged in the practice in WW II were prosecuted as war criminals. More recently, it was used by the Khmer Rouge durring their reign of terror in Cambodia as a form of torture. John McCain, who was tortured at the hands of the NVA, has stated that water-boarding is torture and is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" (<a href=http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200>Newsweek, 11/21/2005</a>)

And then there is the little issue of international law and US treaty obligations. All signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed to the explicit prohibition against torture under ANY circumstances. There is NO legal exception to this, whether it be war, the threat of war or insurrection, or any other emergency. The US is signatory to that treaty, and under the Constitution, it is the law of the land. If Mr. Mukasey is unwilling to enforce the law, he has no business as Attorney General of the US.


The UN Conventions Against Torure is a joke. All its meant to do is bind the hands of the civilized nations against terrorists and rogue states.


However the worst sanction which can be applied to a powerful country is the publishing of the information that they have broken their treaty obligations. In certain exceptional cases the authorities in those countries may consider that with plausible deniability that this is an acceptable risk to take as the definition of severe is open to flexible interpretation.

We should not let the UN dictate how we fight our own wars.

[retiredman]

so Hawk...do you ALSO think that YOU know more than John McCain does about torture?

[glockmail]

whether or not McCain is presidential timber in your opinion is of zero importance to this discussion. DO you think that he is more of an expert on torture than you are? or than Mukasey is? yes or no will suffice.

p.s. the .... as an avoidance of the question was.... cute. I avoided nothing, dipshit. I have no idea who is more "expert". It's a fucking moot point and a bullshit question. Do you have to be an expert to voice your opinion? :lame2:

Perhaps you can explain to me how waterboarding a terrorist IS torture under Geneva rules.

[PostmodernProphet]

The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture.

actually, I would appreciate it if you could show me a legitimate definition of torture......you know, one that is mutally agreed upon by a large segment of society?.....

as I understand waterboarding, while it scares the hell out of people, it causes no physical injury....am I correct?

[retiredman]

perhaps you can explain to me why you have this mistaken idea that the geneva convention is the only international law, of which we are a signatory, that deals with torture?

and of course you avoided something. You asked me to prove that actively avoided military service. I answered by asking you to prove that I was referring to you...and you avoided providing that proof.

[glockmail]

perhaps you can explain to me why you have this mistaken idea that the geneva convention is the only international law, of which we are a signatory, that deals with torture?

and of course you avoided something. You asked me to prove that actively avoided military service. I answered by asking you to prove that I was referring to you...and you avoided providing that proof.


Are you referring to me now as you were referring to me earlier? :pee:

[darin]

Glock removed from thread. Nobody on staff will allow folks who seem to hate each other to piss every thread or even other threads down the drain.

[bullypulpit]

actually, I would appreciate it if you could show me a legitimate definition of torture......you know, one that is mutally agreed upon by a large segment of society?.....

as I understand waterboarding, while it scares the hell out of people, it causes no physical injury....am I correct?

For you edification...From Part 1, Article 1 of the <a href=http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html>UN Convention Against Torture</a>

<blockquote>...torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.</blockquote>

And under US law, from <a href=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html>US Code TITLE 18; PART I; CHAPTER 113C; § 2340</a>


<blockquote>1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; </blockquote>

These definitions of torture were accepted by Congress, and most of the world in general.

Now, while I've never witnessed waterboarding, I have observed and treated people with COPD exacerbation, flash pulmonary edema and other respiratory ailments which cause a sudden inability to properly breath. The panic and fear these individuals experience turns even the most rational a reasonable person into a sobbing clawing wretch trying to do anything to breath, even to the point where they have to be sedated for our interventions to work.

I can only imagine then, what it must be like to be tied, head down on an incline board...Then have a wet cloth slapped across ones face. At which point the terror begins, made all the worse because it is a willing and malicious hand causing the process...And knowing that they won't stop until you tell them what they want to here, even if you have to make it up.

Tell you what, let's get a volunteer from one of those pundits advocating the use of water-boarding, strap them head down on an incline board and wrap a wet rag around their faces. Then let's do it for hours a day over several days, or even one of you who mindlessly parrots the White House propaganda in this matter. Let me come to your home, and we'll try this little experiment. I have absolutely no doubt that minds will change, and quickly at that.

[diuretic]

Wrong-o. The Americans did not defy international rules of conduct.

No I asked if the Japanese who tortured American prisoners using this technique should have been prosecuted? It appears some believe they shouldn't have been prosecuted.

[diuretic]

The UN Conventions Against Torure is a joke. All its meant to do is bind the hands of the civilized nations against terrorists and rogue states.



We should not let the UN dictate how we fight our own wars.

Your own wars? Like Grenada? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

so Hawk...do you ALSO think that YOU know more than John McCain does about torture?

So JM is the ultimate say on "torture?" What a ridiculous stance for a worthless attempt at an argument. Have you ever been waterboarded? What exactly makes JM an "expert" and the final say? Finally, your argument is a false appeal to authority.

[Hagbard Celine]

maybe one of these days youll actually provide evidence that someone has been tortured rather than trying to create straw men so ridiculous that you have to think everyone who is Republican is pure evil to believe them.

I guess all the terrorists we've captured and interrogated have willingly given away all their secrets like a perp in an episode of Law & Order. That's only after interrogators have sprayed them with water guns and tickled them with feathers. :poke:

[retiredman]

So JM is the ultimate say on "torture?" What a ridiculous stance for a worthless attempt at an argument. Have you ever been waterboarded? What exactly makes JM an "expert" and the final say? Finally, your argument is a false appeal to authority.

I never said he was the ultimate say on torture. I only suggested that he was much more of an authority on torture than ANYONE here.

I would suggest that a former POW who was himself extensively tortured by the North Vietnamese IS a TRUE authority on torture. I would suggest that his position regarding America torturing detainees today and how that guarantees that, no matter WHO our future enemies may be, our soldiers captured on the battlefields of those future wars will be treated no better by those enemies is lent validity from his personal experience.

[bullypulpit]

I am truly disappointed. Not a single one of those folks who speak so blithely about how water-boarding "isn't torture", have taken me up on my offer. Nor, do we see any of the FOXperts (FOX Noise experts :laugh:) on the matter leaping at the chance to put their money where their mouths are, and submit to water-boarding.

But, such a lack of intestinal fortitude is to be expected, especially when such techniques are being used against the "enemy". As history shows us, however, once a nation starts down the path that torture and secret detention facilities leads, the "enemy" all too soon becomes the people the government was nominally seeking to protect...Its own citizens.

[theHawk]

so Hawk...do you ALSO think that YOU know more than John McCain does about torture?

John McCain is wrong on PLENTY of subjects. :finger3:

[theHawk]

I am truly disappointed. Not a single one of those folks who speak so blithely about how water-boarding "isn't torture", have taken me up on my offer. Nor, do we see any of the FOXperts (FOX Noise experts :laugh:) on the matter leaping at the chance to put their money where their mouths are, and submit to water-boarding.

But, such a lack of intestinal fortitude is to be expected, especially when such techniques are being used against the "enemy". As history shows us, however, once a nation starts down the path that torture and secret detention facilities leads, the "enemy" all too soon becomes the people the government was nominally seeking to protect...Its own citizens.

Water-boarding is torture, and it can be effective and should be allowed against foreign born terrorists. If we want any chance at winning the war against Islamist extremists the gloves need to come off. I know liberals like yourself lose sleep when foreign terrorists are not treated with 5-star hotel standards during their captivity, but most other people know whats at stake here. Your phony outrage is completely transparent, with your idiotic assumptions that soon Bush is going to be water-boarding any U.S. citizen he personally wants.

[retiredman]

Water-boarding is torture, and it can be effective and should be allowed against foreign born terrorists. If we want any chance at winning the war against Islamist extremists the gloves need to come off. I know liberals like yourself lose sleep when foreign terrorists are not treated with 5-star hotel standards during their captivity, but most other people know whats at stake here. Your phony outrage is completely transparent, with your idiotic assumptions that soon Bush is going to be water-boarding any U.S. citizen he personally wants.


that is just bullshit.

My concern is exactly the same as John McCain's concern:

we cannot know who our future enemies might be, but however we treat our detainees in THIS conflict, we send the message to any and all future enemies that it is perfectly acceptable to us if THEY treat our soldiers that THEY capture on some future battlefield in exactly the same manner.

[retiredman]

John McCain is wrong on PLENTY of subjects. :finger3:

so...you ARE saying that you know more about torture that he does?

[theHawk]

so...you ARE saying that you know more about torture that he does?

so....are YOU saying that you know more about the war against Islamists than people in the military?

[retiredman]

so....are YOU saying that you know more about the war against Islamists than people in the military?

No. I am not.

I am saying, however, that most military personnel that I know are against torture for exactly the same reasons that McCain is.

so why don't YOU answer MY question?

[bullypulpit]

Water-boarding is torture, and it can be effective and should be allowed against foreign born terrorists. If we want any chance at winning the war against Islamist extremists the gloves need to come off. I know liberals like yourself lose sleep when foreign terrorists are not treated with 5-star hotel standards during their captivity, but most other people know whats at stake here. Your phony outrage is completely transparent, with your idiotic assumptions that soon Bush is going to be water-boarding any U.S. citizen he personally wants.

The use of torture has been historically justified by insisting that it will only be used against the enemies of the state. But, as history has also shown us, the definition of "enemies of the state" ALWAYS broadens to include the citizens of the state.

As for what's at stake, you've utterly forgotten, if you ever knew. The Republic is at stake, and its very base is being undermined by those who would use torture a a means to protect it.

[theHawk]

No. I am not.

I am saying, however, that most military personnel that I know are against torture for exactly the same reasons that McCain is.

so why don't YOU answer MY question?

Because I already did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. Most military folks that I know are for using water-boarding, because it can and does work. Just because we disagree with McCain about it doesn't mean "we know more than him about torture." No one is saying it should be used often, but it should always be there as an option if it becomes absolutely necessary to extract information from terrorists.

[Classact]

In his confirmation hearings Michael Mukasey stepped on a land-mine. When asked by Dick Durbin (D-IL) if water-boarding was torture, Mukasey waffled, stating,

<blockquote>I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that." - <a href=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1677612,00.html>TIME</a></blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture. With the first documented use of this technique originated with the Inquisition, known for its creativity in methods of torture. Since then it has been used repeatedly throughout the world as a means of torture. Japanese German interrogators who engaged in the practice in WW II were prosecuted as war criminals. More recently, it was used by the Khmer Rouge durring their reign of terror in Cambodia as a form of torture. John McCain, who was tortured at the hands of the NVA, has stated that water-boarding is torture and is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" (<a href=http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200>Newsweek, 11/21/2005</a>)

And then there is the little issue of international law and US treaty obligations. All signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed to the explicit prohibition against torture under ANY circumstances. There is NO legal exception to this, whether it be war, the threat of war or insurrection, or any other emergency. The US is signatory to that treaty, and under the Constitution, it is the law of the land. If Mr. Mukasey is unwilling to enforce the law, he has no business as Attorney General of the US.The judge was correct to answer the way he answered because he must be neutral on issues of law. To determine the spirit and intent of law one must review the law and the procedure being applied under that law.

As for the Geneva Convention, the US did not ratify the GC protocols of the 1970's that included Unlawful Combatants. That treaty protocols included fighters in civilian clothes (or freedom fighters as lawful combatants), it included no land mines and no saturation or incendiary bombing of cities as ended WWII. We retain the right to treat Unlawful combatants under the Law of War treaty that allows a military hearing and a firing squad. We retain the right to have land mines on the DMZ of Korea and we reserve the right to fire or nuke bomb what ever enemy we so choose.

As for the Executive Power issues in question... this is not a job for congress or the Justice Department to sort out... it is a job for the Supreme Court to referee.

[theHawk]

The use of torture has been historically justified by insisting that it will only be used against the enemies of the state. But, as history has also shown us, the definition of "enemies of the state" ALWAYS broadens to include the citizens of the state.

As for what's at stake, you've utterly forgotten, if you ever knew. The Republic is at stake, and its very base is being undermined by those who would use torture a a means to protect it.

You may be right Bully, but thats why we have to elect someone into office we can trust. So far Bush has never tortured U.S. citizens, he's done all he can to empower our agencies fighting against terrorists though, all without taking away any rights of citizens. If a commu-socialist like Hillary is put in that position then I'd start to worry. We've seen the flagrant disregard for law and ethics by the former Clinton administration, so there is no reason to believe they wouldn't continue down that path if they get back into office. Coupled with a Democratic Congress that blantantly pisses on the Constitution and Federal law, a new Clinton regime could easily take away our freedoms. Don't be surprised if you start seeing more "University of Delaware" programs to re-educate those that don't fit with the state ideaology.

[Gaffer]

that is just bullshit.

My concern is exactly the same as John McCain's concern:

we cannot know who our future enemies might be, but however we treat our detainees in THIS conflict, we send the message to any and all future enemies that it is perfectly acceptable to us if THEY treat our soldiers that THEY capture on some future battlefield in exactly the same manner.

When we go to war it is against vicious, malevolent dictators. Not legitimate, elected governments. Please name one war where American prisoners were treated humanely.

Our future enemies will be malicious, evil people out to destroy us. And they will treat our prisoners poorly like they have all done in the past. A little harsh treatment that doesn't maim or kill them that gets information is fine with me. McCain and most of the others would have welcomed waterboarding compared to what they got.

Worrying about what future enemies might think of us is silly. I'm more concerned with what our present enemies are doing and plan to do.

[Roadhouse158]

I will not answer the question of would I want our troops water boarded if captured by enemies. I will only say this. If I had in my possession, the person responsible for kidnapping, killing, or knowing anything about my wifes whereabouts, (hypothetical situation here), I would water board them in an instant. I would use a lot of different actions to find out where she was. I am sorry...But treating someone the way we want to be treated, when we weren't the ones that did what they did is too unrealistic. Life is not as simple when it's personal. The ones that are against water boarding wouldn't be if the the outcome would bring home a loved one, and the ones for it wouldn't like it if it happened to them, or to a loved one. This argument really has no validity...It's just an emotional tool that is used for political gain. I am sure torture has been used under a Democratic president....It will so in the future also...By both parties.

[manu1959]

precisely diuretic! I love it when all these chickenhawk republicans who have actively avoided any military service try to tell John S. McCain that waterboarding is not torture.

Like sitting in the recliner and telling Josh Beckett how to throw a fastball.

military service is a choice....certainly you are pro choice....

of course it is torture.....it is effective....i think terrorist should be tortured....

wouldn't tell josh how to throw one....but i know a bad one when i see it....

[manu1959]

that is just bullshit.

My concern is exactly the same as John McCain's concern:

we cannot know who our future enemies might be, but however we treat our detainees in THIS conflict, we send the message to any and all future enemies that it is perfectly acceptable to us if THEY treat our soldiers that THEY capture on some future battlefield in exactly the same manner.

hate to tell you but they are goining to torture and kill us soilders no matter how you treat the opposistion.....history proves me right....

[red states rule]

hate to tell you but they are goining to torture and kill us soilders no matter how you treat the opposistion.....history proves me right....

You have a firm grasp on the obvious

If the left wants to see torture - watch the beheading of Daniel Pearl

[LuvRPgrl]

In his confirmation hearings Michael Mukasey stepped on a land-mine. When asked by Dick Durbin (D-IL) if water-boarding was torture, Mukasey waffled, stating,

<blockquote>I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques. And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that." - <a href=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1677612,00.html>TIME</a></blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that, by any definition, water-boarding IS torture. With the first documented use of this technique originated with the Inquisition, known for its creativity in methods of torture. Since then it has been used repeatedly throughout the world as a means of torture. Japanese German interrogators who engaged in the practice in WW II were prosecuted as war criminals. More recently, it was used by the Khmer Rouge durring their reign of terror in Cambodia as a form of torture. John McCain, who was tortured at the hands of the NVA, has stated that water-boarding is torture and is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" (<a href=http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200>Newsweek, 11/21/2005</a>)

And then there is the little issue of international law and US treaty obligations. All signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture have agreed to the explicit prohibition against torture under ANY circumstances. There is NO legal exception to this, whether it be war, the threat of war or insurrection, or any other emergency. The US is signatory to that treaty, and under the Constitution, it is the law of the land. If Mr. Mukasey is unwilling to enforce the law, he has no business as Attorney General of the US.

Hey, if you dont like the guy, dont vote for him.

If you dont like water boarding, dont join the CIA.

I think you would probably prefer some peanut head like Carter run the CIA, yea,,,,that would be great, see what kind of shape our spy information links would be in.

I hate to inform you of this Bullyshithead, but there is a very real, dark world of very mean and evil people out there, and they would love nothing better than to invade your home, and inflicting water boarding on you and your family and even little babies would be the least of your worries.
Thank God there are men and women in our country who are willing to take the risk of having it done to them, and willing to do it to others, to maintain a spy network and information network that allows us to stop terrorists BEFORE they kill here. Of course if they got away with any terrorist acts, YOU would be the first CRYING AND WHINING how bad the Bush Administrations spy network is, how inept and bad they are.

Now, put down your little building blocks and come join us in the real world, torture has been going on from day one, and will never go away

Oh, and nice try to take a dig at religion claiming waterboarding was first used during the inquisition, and their creativity of torturing. Fact is, it predates the inquisition and fact also is, those in the inquisition were doing something that was pretty much done world wide and in fact, they at least had a doctor on hand to make sure the person didnt die or suffer permanent injury.

hmmm, 0 for 2 in one post, BADDDDDDD batting average dude. hahhahahahahha

[LuvRPgrl]

You have a firm grasp on the obvious

If the left wants to see torture - watch the beheading of Daniel Pearl


Oh, cmon now, since it was filmed, it wasnt torture, it was artistic freedom of expression. :)

[retiredman]

the fact remains: the ONLY guy on the national stage with any significant standing on this issue is John McCain: naval academy grad, former POW who was himself tortured, and now a republican senator - and candidate for president.

Yet...oddly enough, all the pom pom waving neocons on here stick their fingers in their ears when McCain explains his well reasoned position AGAINST torture.

pretty pathetic.

[manu1959]

the fact remains: the ONLY guy on the national stage with any significant standing on this issue is John McCain: naval academy grad, former POW who was himself tortured, and now a republican senator - and candidate for president.

Yet...oddly enough, all the pom pom waving neocons on here stick their fingers in their ears when McCain explains his well reasoned position AGAINST torture.

pretty pathetic.

that is because.....history has proven that even if we treat POWs well....and prosecute and jail our own that do not follow the rules or boys still get tortured or worse......so for mccain to say if we treat their guys well they will treat our guys well is naive .... hell they cut the heads off reporters ..... an murder nuns.....and chop the arms off civilians....

[retiredman]

that is because.....history has proven that even if we treat POWs well....and prosecute and jail our own that do not follow the rules or boys still get tortured or worse......so for mccain to say if we treat their guys well they will treat our guys well is naive .... hell they cut the heads off reporters ..... an murder nuns.....and chop the arms off civilians....

and you have a big fucking crystal ball so that you can look into the future ad see who THEY are that will be our enemies in the next century?

[Kathianne]

and you have a big fucking crystal ball so that you can look into the future ad see who THEY are that will be our enemies in the next century?

I'm unsure of what you are referring to, but will say I want to deal with our enemies today, which are enough on our plate.

[Gaffer]

and you have a big fucking crystal ball so that you can look into the future ad see who THEY are that will be our enemies in the next century?

Whoever our enemies are they will not be nice. They will not follow rules of war. They will torture and murder our people.

We don't go to war with reasonable nations.

[manu1959]

and you have a big fucking crystal ball so that you can look into the future ad see who THEY are that will be our enemies in the next century?

i guess the same fucking crystal ball you have.....

[retiredman]

i guess the same fucking crystal ball you have.....

I DON'T have one. I have no idea who our enemies will be twenty years from now. But I do know, that if we waterboard our detainees today, those enemies, whoever they may be, will view that as our tacit agreement for them to treat captured american GI's just the same way.

But clearly, you could give a shit about that.

pom pom waving chickenhawk.

[retiredman]

Whoever our enemies are they will not be nice. They will not follow rules of war. They will torture and murder our people.

We don't go to war with reasonable nations.

you do not know who we might be at war with a quarter of a century from now.

[theHawk]

Funny that since now that Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support Mukasey, Bully is off his pulpit. I guess the Dems aren't that concerned with the whole 'torture' thing now eh? I'm guessing we won't hear from Bully until he gets his next Dem talking points memo, explaining why they now support this guy who supports torture.

[JohnDoe]

Funny that since now that Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support Mukasey, Bully is off his pulpit. I guess the Dems aren't that concerned with the whole 'torture' thing now eh? I'm guessing we won't hear from Bully until he gets his next Dem talking points memo, explaining why they now support this guy who supports torture.


Water Boarding IS TORTURE, and illegal, PERIOD.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."


In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

[retiredman]

Funny that since now that Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support Mukasey, Bully is off his pulpit. I guess the Dems aren't that concerned with the whole 'torture' thing now eh? I'm guessing we won't hear from Bully until he gets his next Dem talking points memo, explaining why they now support this guy who supports torture.

If I were to say that I found the New York Yankees to be a "repugnant" baseball team, would you then suggest that, because I didn't call them all criminals, that I was actually supporting the Yankees?
:lol:

[theHawk]

If I were to say that I found the New York Yankees to be a "repugnant" baseball team, would you then suggest that, because I didn't call them all criminals, that I was actually supporting the Yankees?
:lol:

If you vote 'Yes' in a confirmation hearing, that is supporting the nominee is it not? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

If you vote 'Yes' in a confirmation hearing, that is supporting the nominee is it not? :laugh2:

if the nominee calls waterboarding "repugnant", that is not "supporting" its use, is it?:lol:

[bullypulpit]

Funny that since now that Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support Mukasey, Bully is off his pulpit. I guess the Dems aren't that concerned with the whole 'torture' thing now eh? I'm guessing we won't hear from Bully until he gets his next Dem talking points memo, explaining why they now support this guy who supports torture.

Their act is one of political expediency as well as profound moral cowardice. They have long since forgotten their first loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law...not to party...not to the president.

[theHawk]

if the nominee calls waterboarding "repugnant", that is not "supporting" its use, is it?:lol:

If thats what he said then whats all the hoopla about? You're the ones crying about the Bush nominee, not me. :finger3:

[theHawk]

Their act is one of political expediency as well as profound moral cowardice. They have long since forgotten their first loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law...not to party...not to the president.

Well I'm glad to see you're starting to see the Democratic Party for what it really is. :clap:

[Gaffer]

you do not know who we might be at war with a quarter of a century from now.

Like I said. They won't be friendly.

[retiredman]

Like I said. They won't be friendly.

no shit.

will they be civilized?

Do you want to go ahead and tell them today that in that war of the future that you are perfectly fine with them waterboarding captured Americans?

[bullypulpit]

Well I'm glad to see you're starting to see the Democratic Party for what it really is. :clap:

No, I have long seen Republicans AND Democrats for the craven, morally bankrupt cowards that they are. If the Republicans had ANY moral backbone, they would have long since supported Articles of Impeachment against this President and his administration. As it is, a flatworm has more spine than most members of either party serving in Washington.

[theHawk]

No, I have long seen Republicans AND Democrats for the craven, morally bankrupt cowards that they are. If the Republicans had ANY moral backbone, they would have long since supported Articles of Impeachment against this President and his administration. As it is, a flatworm has more spine than most members of either party serving in Washington.

The Republicans did have the nuts to impeach the President for lying and obstruction of justice. But oh wait, they are only supposed to impeach Republican Presidents, even if there is zero evidence of wrongdoing. :poke:

[red states rule]

No, I have long seen Republicans AND Democrats for the craven, morally bankrupt cowards that they are. If the Republicans had ANY moral backbone, they would have long since supported Articles of Impeachment against this President and his administration. As it is, a flatworm has more spine than most members of either party serving in Washington.

Since you libs could not beat Pres Bush at the ballot box (twice) you have to find a way to overturn the election via made up impeachment charges

[retiredman]

Since you libs could not beat Pres Bush at the ballot box (twice) you have to find a way to overturn the election via made up impeachment charges


well actually, we DID beat him at the Ballot box the first time. We just lost to him in the supreme court.:lol:

[red states rule]

well actually, we DID beat him at the Ballot box the first time. We just lost to him in the supreme court.:lol:

As usuak yiou are full of it. The President is NOT decidied by the popular vote

Al Gore lost the Electoral College - and thus the election

[retiredman]

Since you libs could not beat Pres Bush at the ballot box (twice) you have to find a way to overturn the election via made up impeachment charges

your words. not mine.:lol:

[red states rule]

your words. not mine.:lol:

and when you vote you are voting for the Electoral college - not the candidate

Of course what you know about the US Constitution - you listen only to what your party leaders, and the liberal media, tell you

[retiredman]

and when you vote you are voting for the Electoral college - not the candidate

Of course what you know about the US Constitution - you listen only to what your party leaders, and the liberal media, tell you

the fact of the matter is: a half a million more americans wanted Al Gore to be president than George Bush. At the ballot box, Gore prevailed. In the electoral college, he didn't. It has happened before and no doubt will happen again.... but Gore won the popular vote.
:lol:

[red states rule]

the fact of the matter is: a half a million more americans wanted Al Gore to be president than George Bush. At the ballot box, Gore prevailed. In the electoral college, he didn't. It has happened before and no doubt will happen again.... but Gore won the popular vote.
:lol:

Well, if Al would have spent more time in his home state, he would be spending less time there now

Maybe that is why libs want to get rid of the Electoral College. Let the big liberal states run the country and the hell with the rest of the 35 states

[retiredman]

Well, if Al would have spent more time in his home state, he would be spending less time there now


no doubt.

that does not change the fact that he "won" at the "ballot box"... and you won't admit you misspoke.

why am I not surprised?:lol:

[red states rule]

no doubt.

that does not change the fact that he "won" at the "ballot box"... and you won't admit you misspoke.

why am I not surprised?:lol:

Al lost where it counts

Looking at the map, most of the country did NOT want him as President

http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml

[retiredman]

Al lost where it counts

Looking at the map, most of the country did NOT want him as President

http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml

most of the people did. last I knew, acres can't vote!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

most of the people did. last I knew, acres can't vote!:laugh2:

Libs died when they saw the map. They could not acept how so much of the country voted against them

and it happened again in 04

[retiredman]

Libs died when they saw the map. They could not acept how so much of the country voted against them

and it happened again in 04like I said, acres can't vote. people can.

[red states rule]

like I said, acres can't vote. people can.

and the people who live in those "acres" vote against the Dems everytime

[retiredman]

and the people who live in those "acres" vote against the Dems everytime

but the point is: all those red acres don't have many people living in them. the blue acres are filled with folks!:lol:

[red states rule]

but the point is: all those red acres don't have many people living in them. the blue acres are filled with folks!:lol:

The population of some of those bluie states are dropping - they are sick of the ever increasing taxes

and that is what Dems want. Get rid of the Electoral College and let a hand full of states run the country and screw the rest of the states

[theHawk]

no doubt.

that does not change the fact that he "won" at the "ballot box"... and you won't admit you misspoke.

why am I not surprised?:lol:

Bush did win at the ballot box you idiot. No matter how many recounts were done, Bush won Florida fair and square. Was the Supreme Court supposed to name Gore the winner of Florida even though he had less votes?
And popular vote doesn't mean jack for Presidential elections, any third grader knows that. But since your obsessed with the popular vote, can you give us the percentage B.J. Clinton won the Presidency with? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the majority of the nation! And somehow I doubt you'd complain about the outcome of that election.

[red states rule]

Bush did win at the ballot box you idiot. No matter how many recounts were done, Bush won Florida fair and square. Was the Supreme Court supposed to name Gore the winner of Florida even though he had less votes?
And popular vote doesn't mean jack for Presidential elections, any third grader knows that. But since your obsessed with the popular vote, can you give us the percentage B.J. Clinton won the Presidency with? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the majority of the nation! And somehow I doubt you'd complain about the outcome of that election.

I think Bill won with 46% in 1992, and 43% in 1996

[retiredman]

I think Bill won with 46% in 1992, and 43% in 1996

in both cases, Bill got more votes than his opponents.

In 2000 Gore got more votes than his opponent.

I understand how the electoral college works. I took civics before most of you were born and it hasn't changed much since then. In all but four elections in American history, the popular vote winner was elected by that college. 2000 was one of those times. That does not change the fact that more americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush.

[red states rule]

in both cases, Bill got more votes than his opponents.

In 2000 Gore got more votes than his opponent.

I understand how the electoral college works. I took civics before most of you were born and it hasn't changed much since then. In all but four elections in American history, the popular vote winner was elected by that college. 2000 was one of those times. That does not change the fact that more americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush.

It does not change the fact, the popular vote does not elect the US President

Get over it MM

[theHawk]

in both cases, Bill got more votes than his opponents.

In 2000 Gore got more votes than his opponent.

I understand how the electoral college works. I took civics before most of you were born and it hasn't changed much since then. In all but four elections in American history, the popular vote winner was elected by that college. 2000 was one of those times. That does not change the fact that more americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush.

Hey, if you don't like the system, feel free to move up to Canada.

[retiredman]

Hey, if you don't like the system, feel free to move up to Canada.


who said I didn't like the system? I merely pointed out that 2000 was one of only four times in our history when the electoral college put someone in office who did not win the most popular votes.

a strange and terrible fluke that brought us the war in Iraq.

[red states rule]

who said I didn't like the system? I merely pointed out that 2000 was one of only four times in our history when the electoral college put someone in office who did not win the most popular votes.

a strange and terrible fluke that brought us the war in Iraq.

Yea, Al would have wanted to find a controlling legal authority to tell him how to repsond to 9-11

Or he would have filed a lawsuit with the World Court

[retiredman]

Yea, Al would have wanted to find a controlling legal authority to tell him how to repsond to 9-11

Or he would have filed a lawsuit with the World Court


I disagree.

I think that Gore would have kept his attention on the people that attacked us and put his entire focus into defeating them....

but alas, we'll never know.

We DO know that George Bush did NOT do that.

[red states rule]

I disagree.

I think that Gore would have kept his attention on the people that attacked us and put his entire focus into defeating them....

but alas, we'll never know.

We DO know that George Bush did NOT do that.



Al would have called for a summit to try and work out our differences. Like most Dems he would have rolled over and tried to appease

Pres Bush went after the terrorists - and damn - the US miliray is inning in Iraq.

Much to the dismay of the left

[retiredman]

Al would have called for a summit to try and work out our differences. Like most Dems he would have rolled over and tried to appease

Pres Bush went after the terrorists - and damn - the US miliray is inning in Iraq.

Much to the dismay of the left

you are incorrect. we will never know what Al would have done.

We DO know that Bush started to go after the terrorists that attacked us, and then, for some reason, he got bored and went after Saddam instead.

[Gaffer]

you are incorrect. we will never know what Al would have done.

We DO know that Bush started to go after the terrorists that attacked us, and then, for some reason, he got bored and went after Saddam instead.

He went after both.

[retiredman]

He went after both.

given the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, it would seem as if the priority he gave to Saddam and Iraq over AQ in Afghanistan was a tad skewed, doncha think?:lol:

[JohnDoe]

You have a firm grasp on the obvious

If the left wants to see torture - watch the beheading of Daniel Pearl

Good Morning RSR!

Daniel Pearle was slaughtered/MURDERED.....via beheading. I am not certain if they tortured him first for information, but they probably did!


jd

[red states rule]

Good Morning RSR!

Daniel Pearle was slaughtered/MURDERED.....via beheading. I am not certain if they tortured him first for information, but they probably did!


jd

Good morning JD

I would say beheading someone with a hacksaw is torture

Libs go out of their way to defend the "rights" of terrorists - while smearing and insulting the troops

The left is a strange breed

[Roadhouse158]

given the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, it would seem as if the priority he gave to Saddam and Iraq over AQ in Afghanistan was a tad skewed, doncha think?:lol:


I would say that we are fighting AQ in Iraq. Not just in Afghanistan. Who's idea was it to have a regime change in Iraq anyway? Was it George W. Bush???


The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

This goes on, but I will stop there. War with Iraq has been brewing for a long, long time. This wasn't Bush's war. This is America's war..The strategy has changed since this was signed into law, but then again, 9/11 changed a lot of things.

[Yurt]

you are incorrect. we will never know what Al would have done.

We DO know that Bush started to go after the terrorists that attacked us, and then, for some reason, he got bored and went after Saddam instead.

He would have invaded Iraq because Saddam is against global warming. Either that, or simply meet with Saddam, and gore him to death

[Yurt]

in both cases, Bill got more votes than his opponents.

In 2000 Gore got more votes than his opponent.

I understand how the electoral college works. I took civics before most of you were born and it hasn't changed much since then. In all but four elections in American history, the popular vote winner was elected by that college. 2000 was one of those times. That does not change the fact that more americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/al-gore-genius.jpg

[retiredman]

This goes on, but I will stop there.

good idea to stop there before you got to the part where it says that we would do all we could to support indigenous Iraqis in their struggle but that US military assets would not be used.:laugh2:

I hardly see how being attacked by islamic wahabbist fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia would cause us to change our strategy about helping Iraqis rid themselves of a sunni baathist secular dictator!

[retiredman]

He would have invaded Iraq because Saddam is against global warming. Either that, or simply meet with Saddam, and gore him to death

trying out new material for open mike night at the local geek comedy club?

I'd work on that one some more if I were you.

[Yurt]

trying out new material for open mike night at the local geek comedy club?

I'd work on that one some more if I were you.

we are all thankful you are not me :poke:

[retiredman]

we are all thankful you are not me :poke:

but none more than me!:cheers2:

[Roadhouse158]

good idea to stop there before you got to the part where it says that we would do all we could to support indigenous Iraqis in their struggle but that US military assets would not be used.:laugh2:

I hardly see how being attacked by islamic wahabbist fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia would cause us to change our strategy about helping Iraqis rid themselves of a sunni baathist secular dictator!

Apparently you didn't continue reading my post...I said the strategy had changed. The philosophy hadn't changed. After 9/11 America learned it could not be a reactive country. Of course you don't see it...I didn't expect to change your mind. We live in a country today where people aren't going to change their minds. They stand with with their party. People stop trying to think about the issues because it makes it easier to just let the party decide for us.

BTW for anyone not knowing what I quoted from. I quoted from the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. I bet that act is commone knowledge though. Yeah....GWB just pulled Iraq from his rear end.

[diuretic]

I would say that we are fighting AQ in Iraq. Not just in Afghanistan. Who's idea was it to have a regime change in Iraq anyway? Was it George W. Bush???



This goes on, but I will stop there. War with Iraq has been brewing for a long, long time. This wasn't Bush's war. This is America's war..The strategy has changed since this was signed into law, but then again, 9/11 changed a lot of things.

Sorry, Bush and Cheney drove this one. They had the drums beating so hard that half of Congress was doing the limbo, the other half were just shitting their pants. Don't try to reinvent history, your country plunged headlong into this disaster, led, pushed and kicked by Bush and Cheney. It was the most ill-advised foreign policy move in US history. Bush and Cheney did it. The rest of them were too gutless to object.

[red states rule]

I would say that we are fighting AQ in Iraq. Not just in Afghanistan. Who's idea was it to have a regime change in Iraq anyway? Was it George W. Bush???



This goes on, but I will stop there. War with Iraq has been brewing for a long, long time. This wasn't Bush's war. This is America's war..The strategy has changed since this was signed into law, but then again, 9/11 changed a lot of things.

Now MM will be sharpening up his blade and go into full attack mode. Clinton wanted to take Saddam out, but he had to cower to his base - the appeasers

[retiredman]

Apparently you didn't continue reading my post...I said the strategy had changed. The philosophy hadn't changed. After 9/11 America learned it could not be a reactive country. Of course you don't see it...I didn't expect to change your mind. We live in a country today where people aren't going to change their minds. They stand with with their party. People stop trying to think about the issues because it makes it easier to just let the party decide for us.

BTW for anyone not knowing what I quoted from. I quoted from the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. I bet that act is commone knowledge though. Yeah....GWB just pulled Iraq from his rear end.

I read your post.... hence my second sentence. What does freeing Iraqis from a secular sunni baathist dictator really have to do with fighting the war against primarily saudi wahabbist extremists who attacked us? And why would their attack on us cause us to change our "strategy" about regime change there?

[retiredman]

Now MM will be sharpening up his blade and go into full attack mode. Clinton wanted to take Saddam out, but he had to cower to his base - the appeasers


it must be tough for you to "sharpen" your cudgel!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I read your post.... hence my second sentence. What does freeing Iraqis from a secular sunni baathist dictator really have to do with fighting the war against primarily saudi wahabbist extremists who attacked us? And why would their attack on us cause us to change our "strategy" about regime change there?

While the US military is defeating the terrorists, Dems are still screaming for surrender.

Go figure

[LuvRPgrl]

the fact remains: the ONLY guy on the national stage with any significant standing on this issue is John McCain: naval academy grad, former POW who was himself tortured, and now a republican senator - and candidate for president.

Yet...oddly enough, all the pom pom waving neocons on here stick their fingers in their ears when McCain explains his well reasoned position AGAINST torture.

pretty pathetic.

McCain is only saying what he thinks he needs to , to get votes. Thats why he isnt doing so well, the voters see through him. If he was just genuine, he might even win.

I seriously doubt that those who have used torture in the past wouldnt be using it now if it never worked.

[red states rule]

McCain is only saying what he thinks he needs to , to get votes. Thats why he isnt doing so well, the voters see through him. If he was just genuine, he might even win.

I seriously doubt that those who have used torture in the past wouldnt be using it now if it never worked.

Don't forget he blew it on immigration, and opposing the tax cuts

[retiredman]

McCain is only saying what he thinks he needs to , to get votes. Thats why he isnt doing so well, the voters see through him. If he was just genuine, he might even win.

I seriously doubt that those who have used torture in the past wouldnt be using it now if it never worked.

I think it is really incredible that you somehow know WHY McCain opposes torture.

those pompoms must be getting pretty shopworn by now.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I think it is really incredible that you somehow know WHY McCain opposes torture.

those pompoms must be getting pretty shopworn by now.:laugh2:

This is why libs love McDone

He wants to coddle terrorists as much as they do

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, Bush and Cheney drove this one. They had the drums beating so hard that half of Congress was doing the limbo, the other half were just shitting their pants. Don't try to reinvent history, your country plunged headlong into this disaster, led, pushed and kicked by Bush and Cheney. It was the most ill-advised foreign policy move in US history. Bush and Cheney did it. The rest of them were too gutless to object.

This is typical lib/dem myoptic thinking. You TOTALLY IGNORE what was said against you, and go on to tell us something we all already knew. That view is the only one you will look at, even though many other views are available and shed much more light on the reality of the situation. But your bitterness drives you so much, you refuse to look at those views cuz you know it would be impossible to argue against them, without sound psycho, like psycho blues.

Or R U holding the viewpoint that if one admin goes into war, it is entirely their doing, 100%, regardless of what the previous admin, did regarding that issue? If so, then you are really stupid.

SO, are you myoptic or stupid? or both?

[retiredman]

This is why libs love McDone

He wants to coddle terrorists as much as they do

"coddle terrorists". that is a hackneyed phrase as shopworn as LurRPgrl's pompoms! Nobody wants to coddle any enemy. Your refusal to address McCain's reasoning for opposing torture and, instead, relying on crap like this is typical of how you approach any and every issue.
You don't DARE engage in actual debate where you have to use YOUR words to go against someone else's words. You are, at least, aware of your own totaly inability to do so which is why your posts are nothing more than a collection of the writings of others, salted with an occasional insulting one liner.

[retiredman]

Or R U holding the viewpoint that if one admin goes into war, it is entirely their doing, 100%, regardless of what the previous admin, did regarding that issue?

Bush invading, conquering and occupying Iraq WAS entirely his administration's doing.


The 1996 ILA specifically forbade the use of US military assets

[red states rule]

"coddle terrorists". that is a hackneyed phrase as shopworn as LurRPgrl's pompoms! Nobody wants to coddle any enemy. Your refusal to address McCain's reasoning for opposing torture and, instead, relying on crap like this is typical of how you approach any and every issue.
You don't DARE engage in actual debate where you have to use YOUR words to go against someone else's words. You are, at least, aware of your own totaly inability to do so which is why your posts are nothing more than a collection of the writings of others, salted with an occasional insulting one liner.

You dipshit libs oppose any methods used on the terrorists. You had a cow when the NY leaked how the government was listening to thier phone calls and tracking their money

Libs have done their best to undermine the war - all for political gain

[retiredman]

You dipshit libs oppose any methods used on the terrorists. You had a cow when the NY leaked how the government was listening to thier phone calls and tracking their money

Libs have done their best to undermine the war - all for political gain

why would you think that anyone in America would find the ascendance of islamic extremism to be a matter of political gain?

[red states rule]

why would you think that anyone in America would find the ascendance of islamic extremism to be a matter of political gain?

you and your party have invested your political future in the US losing in Iraq. You have done everything possible to ensure that defeat

Once Iraq fell apart and was overrun by terrorist - Dems would blame Bush and say how you did your best to "support" the troops

All that matters to you and your ilk is power. Nothing else

[retiredman]

you and your party have invested your political future in the US losing in Iraq. You have done everything possible to ensure that defeat

Once Iraq fell apart and was overrun by terrorist - Dems would blame Bush and say how you did your best to "support" the troops

All that matters to you and your ilk is power. Nothing else

all you do is bloviate. How would an Iraq overrun by terrorists be good for anyone? You should stop once in a while and read the crap you write. It makes no sense.

[red states rule]

all you do is bloviate. How would an Iraq overrun by terrorists be good for anyone? You should stop once in a while and read the crap you write. It makes no sense.

As I said, you clowns will blame Bush and the liberal media will back you up

Why are your party leaders screwing the troops over inserting a surrender date in the war funding bill?

[retiredman]

As I said, you clowns will blame Bush and the liberal media will back you up

Why are your party leaders screwing the troops over inserting a surrender date in the war funding bill?

there is nothing about any surrender date in the legislation.

[red states rule]

there is nothing about any surrender date in the legislation.

Lier


snip

The outlook is fueling Democrats' push for legislation that mandates a U.S. pullout from Iraq starting immediately with a goal of a near-complete withdrawal by December 2008.

Republicans and supporters of the war effort said the Democrats were in "deep denial."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish Connecticut independent, said the war critics "remain emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat, even as facts on the ground show that we are advancing and winning."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/NATION/111160096/1001

[retiredman]

no. I am not a liar. (spelled with an "A", not an "E", idiot)

Withdrawing our troops from the sovereign nation of Iraq at some point in time in the future is not surrendering anything to anybody.

you love to use the word "surrender".... it was inaccurate the first time you used it and using it a thousand more times does not make it any less so.

[Kathianne]

there is nothing about any surrender date in the legislation.

So why include it, when the troop reductions have already begun? Why put the Defense Department in the position of hunting funds rather than concentrating on what is going on stategically? Notice this was published before the vote? Do you really think Reid and Durbin didn't know? Sorry, it's about harassing the president at the expense of the troops. For political reasons only.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SECURITY_GAINS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-11-12-13-53-27&reload=true

Nov 13, 11:28 AM EST

US Troop Cuts to Test Iraqi Security

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The first big test of security gains linked to the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq is at hand. The military has started to reverse the 30,000-strong troop increase and commanders are hoping the drop in insurgent and sectarian violence in recent months - achieved at the cost of hundreds of lives - won't prove fleeting.

The current total of 20 combat brigades is shrinking to 19 as the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, operating in volatile Diyala province, leaves. The U.S. command in Baghdad announced on Saturday that the brigade had begun heading home to Fort Hood, Texas, and that its battle space will be taken by another brigade already operating in Iraq.

Between January and July - on a schedule not yet made public - the force is to shrink further to 15 brigades. The total number of U.S. troops will likely go from 167,000 now to 140,000-145,000 by July, six months before President Bush leaves office and a new commander in chief enters the White House.

As the U.S. troop reductions proceed, it should become clear whether the so-called "surge" strategy that increased the U.S. troop presence in and around Baghdad resulted in any lasting gains against sectarianism. Critics note that the divided government in Baghdad has made few, if any, strides toward political reconciliation that the Americans have said is crucial to stabilizing the country...

[red states rule]

no. I am not a liar. (spelled with an "A", not an "E", idiot)

Withdrawing our troops from the sovereign nation of Iraq at some point in time in the future is not surrendering anything to anybody.

you love to use the word "surrender".... it was inaccurate the first time you used it and using it a thousand more times does not make it any less so.

It is surrender when you pull thre troops out while they are winning

It is surrender when the terrorists will then take over and have oil revenue to finance their operations

It is surrender when you send a message to terrorists to hang in there and let the appeasing Dems win your fight for you

[retiredman]

So why include it, when the troop reductions have already begun? Why put the Defense Department in the position of hunting funds rather than concentrating on what is going on stategically? Notice this was published before the vote? Do you really think Reid and Durbin didn't know? Sorry, it's about harassing the president at the expense of the troops. For political reasons only.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SECURITY_GAINS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-11-12-13-53-27&reload=true


I will be very disappointed if you jump on the rhetoric bandwagon along with RSR.

"Surrender" has a definition. Use it correctly for crissakes! You're a teacher!

[red states rule]

I will be very disappointed if you jump on the rhetoric bandwagon along with RSR.

"Surrender" has a definition. Use it correctly for crissakes! You're a teacher!

It defines what the Dems are trying to do. Using the troops as pawns in their war on reality

[Kathianne]

I will be very disappointed if you jump on the rhetoric bandwagon along with RSR.

"Surrender" has a definition. Use it correctly for crissakes! You're a teacher!

Nope, his choice of the wrong words or spin will not make me lose what ultimately is the gist of the argument. Sorry, my teachers taught me about that too! :laugh2: BTW, if I used 'surrender' let me know, it would have been a mistake.

[retiredman]

It is surrender when you pull thre troops out while they are winning

It is surrender when the terrorists will then take over and have oil revenue to finance their operations

It is surrender when you send a message to terrorists to hang in there and let the appeasing Dems win your fight for you


NO... it is not.

Learn to use words correctly. Surrender has a meaning..

tell me again...who are these "terrorists" that will take over?

are you talking about AQ? Are you talking about sunni insurgents, shiite militia? who ARE these "terrorists that will then take over and have oil revenue to finance their operations"?

[retiredman]

Nope, his choice of the wrong words or spin will not make me lose what ultimately is the gist of the argument. Sorry, my teachers taught me about that too! :laugh2: BTW, if I used 'surrender' let me know, it would have been a mistake.


I said: "there is nothing about any surrender date in the legislation".

YOU replied: "So why include it"

Maybe I am confused...could you explain what the pronoun "it" in your sentence referred to, if NOT "surrender date"???

[red states rule]

NO... it is not.

Learn to use words correctly. Surrender has a meaning..

tell me again...who are these "terrorists" that will take over?

are you talking about AQ? Are you talking about sunni insurgents, shiite militia? who ARE these "terrorists that will then take over and have oil revenue to finance their operations"?

More Clinton like excuses

Your party wants to hand Iraq over to the terrorists because they are seeing how the troops are winning this war

Victory is something the Dems don;t want. They have told us for years the war is lost. They can't face the voters and explain how they were so wrong on their BS talking points

Surrender is all they have left. So what if they screw the troops out of what they need - when they need it

To the Dems the troops are an acceptable loss in their war on Bush and reality

[Kathianne]

I said: "there is nothing about any surrender date in the legislation".

YOU replied: "So why include it"

Maybe I am confused...could you explain what the pronoun "it" in your sentence referred to, if NOT "surrender date"???

Ok, I'll give you that. But YOU and I know what the topic really was. I don't think either should be going down that road.

The issue was troop reductions, right? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Ok, I'll give you that. But YOU and I know what the topic really was. I don't think either should be going down that road.

The issue was troop reductions, right? :laugh2:


the issue is the democrats in the house wanting to continue to make their opposition to our continued presence known to the president and to their constituents.

I HATE it when anyone calls leaving Iraq to the Iraqis "surrender".

[red states rule]

the issue is the democrats in the house wanting to continue to make their opposition to our continued presence known to the president and to their constituents.

I HATE it when anyone calls leaving Iraq to the Iraqis "surrender".

I HATE it when Dems screw the troops to appease their base

[retiredman]

I HATE it when Dems screw the troops to appease their base

if I thought that any legislative action on the part of democrats was "screwing the troops", I would oppose it.

[red states rule]

if I thought that any legislative action on the part of democrats was "screwing the troops", I would oppose it.

No you would not. You do as your party leaders do

Dems are screwing the troops with their surrender date. they know the bill will be vetoed, and the troops will not get the equipement they need

That is screwing them

[Kathianne]

the issue is the democrats in the house wanting to continue to make their opposition to our continued presence known to the president and to their constituents.

I HATE it when anyone calls leaving Iraq to the Iraqis "surrender".

You mean they were using this funding bill for political reasons? Just what I said. They used the needed funds to 'make their opposition to the troops continued presence known to their constituents. The president already knows that the next president, Republican or Democrat is going to keep troops there and will expect funding.

Reid and Durbin are pandering to their base, at the expense of DOD. Furthermore, Reid could get an approved bill out before recess, he chooses not to, again more pandering.

[Kathianne]

No you would not. You do as your party leaders do

Dems are screwing the troops with their surrender date. they know the bill will be vetoed, and the troops will not get the equipement they need

That is screwing them

It didn't pass so it's not going to get vetoed. It's the way the system works.

How are you feeling, btw?

[retiredman]

No you would not. You do as your party leaders do

Dems are screwing the troops with their surrender date. they know the bill will be vetoed, and the troops will not get the equipement they need

That is screwing them

and please....do not tell me what I would do. I do not do as my party leaders do. I have explained to you over and over again that I keep my own counsel and make up my own mind independently from anyone else in my party.

and the troops will most certainly get the equipment they need. YOU have zero idea how military procurement works.

[red states rule]

and please....do not tell me what I would do. I do not do as my party leaders do. I have explained to you over and over again that I keep my own counsel and make up my own mind independently from anyone else in my party.

and the troops will most certainly get the equipment they need. YOU have zero idea how military procurement works.

Yet not a single word of prtest form you as your party screws the troops

from my link

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the money is needed to tide troops over while lawmakers debate the rest of the $196.4 billion war-funds request for 2008. Otherwise, money will run out for Iraq and Afghanistan operation and force military spending cuts elsewhere as soon as next month.


Dems do not give a damn about the troops - unless they are dead - then they make a great press conference to bash Bush

[retiredman]

key word: "elsewhere".

you have no idea what fat is contained in the DoD budget....

you have no idea how many "elsewhere's" there are to find money that has ZERO impact on troops.

[red states rule]

key word: "elsewhere".

you have no idea what fat is contained in the DoD budget....

you have no idea how many "elsewhere's" there are to find money that has ZERO impact on troops.

As usual, you bow before Reid and Pelosi as they piss on the troops. Keep being a good little lib and do as you are told

The Dems poll numbers are sinking, and this should be good for another 5 to 6 points off the record low poll numbers

So much for supporting the troops MM - your party shows hiow they really feel abount them. Just pieces on the Chess board to moved around and removed at will

[Kathianne]

http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1853



Sen. Reid Vows Defeat In Iraq

Posted by MichaelW on 16 Nov 2007 at 8:06 pm

The war funding bill passed by the House was shot down by the Senate, but Sen. Reid promised to win the Democrats’ war against the White House through attrition (my emphasis):


Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq.

Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush’s $196 billion request for war spending until next year — pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.

“We’re going to continue to do the right thing for the American people by having limited accountability for the president and not a blank check,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

As the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to brighten, and a light begins to appear at the end of the war tunnel, is it the brightest thing in the world to starve the military at this juncture? Anti-war Democrats constantly harp on how Pres. Bush has “broken” the military. Do they feel any responsibility when they pull purely political stunts like this? I’m guessing not.


Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days.My comment: No timetable? The measure, narrowly passed this week by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

These sorts of games hurt not just the war effort, but also the ever-shrinking confidence in our federal legislators. The entire funding process is nothing more than gamesmanship and pocket-lining. Meanwhile, our folks in uniform and the common Iraqi citizen are being made to suffer, all so some incumbents can strengthen their grips on power, which is then used to enrich themselves and their friends.

What’s worse is the persistent efforts being made by the likes of Reid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A year ago, well prior to Petraeus’ confirmation and the beginning of the surge, Reid’s crusade to indirectly hamstring our military and the Bush Administration (because he doesn’t have the fortitude to do anything as direct as floating a bill to cut off funds altogether) might have made sense. Certainly the voters would have been more sympathetic.

Now that violence has dropped precipitously, former insurgency and al Qaeda supporters are working with the MNF and Iraqi forces, and the Iraqi army has taken the security lead in most of the country (including in Baghdad), the Reid Democrats appear to be interested in one thing and one thing only — a U.S. defeat. Perhaps that can be successfully rephrased as simply wanting failure for Bush’s Iraq policies, but the reality is that Reid’s means of accomplishing the task is to cause the U.S. to leave Iraq in a shambles, thus allowing a safer place for Islamic terrorists and Iranian militants to operate.

How does that help America? How does that make us safer? How on earth can anything about Reid’s plan be considered honorable?

It doesn’t, we’re not, and it can’t.

[retiredman]

As usual, you bow before Reid and Pelosi as they piss on the troops. Keep being a good little lib and do as you are told

The Dems poll numbers are sinking, and this should be good for another 5 to 6 points off the record low poll numbers

So much for supporting the troops MM - your party shows hiow they really feel abount them. Just pieces on the Chess board to moved around and removed at will

quit spitting back pat Rush oneliners and address my point about DoD spending and how this impasse will not effect the troops, but will result in curtailing spending "elsewhere".

[red states rule]

quit spitting back pat Rush oneliners and address my point about DoD spending and how this impasse will not effect the troops, but will result in curtailing spending "elsewhere".

You dismiss facts about your party of surrender and appeasement as Rush one liners. I love how one man has exposed the truth about you party and drives you liberal moonbats up the wall

In this bill, your fiscally responsible Dems added alot of pork. $3 million to teach kids how to play golf for example (yet they say they have to raise taxes to fund vital government services)

Before you demand the DoD work on their books, why not demand your Dems honor one of their campaign pledges to get rid of the pork?

[retiredman]

You dismiss facts about your party of surrender and appeasement as Rush one liners. I love how one man has exposed the truth about you party and drives you liberal moonbats up the wall

In this bill, your fiscally responsible Dems added alot of pork. $3 million to teach kids how to play golf for example (yet they say they have to raise taxes to fund vital government services)

Before you demand the DoD work on their books, why not demand your Dems honor one of their campaign pledges to get rid of the pork?


still waiting for your response about "elsewhere"

[red states rule]

still waiting for your response about "elsewhere"

Like you would actually admit how your party is now screwing the troops over with surrender demands and increased pork

You want to hold the DoD accountable for pork but not your Dems

Typical. Party before country and the troops

[Kathianne]

You dismiss facts about your party of surrender and appeasement as Rush one liners. I love how one man has exposed the truth about you party and drives you liberal moonbats up the wall

In this bill, your fiscally responsible Dems added alot of pork. $3 million to teach kids how to play golf for example (yet they say they have to raise taxes to fund vital government services)

Before you demand the DoD work on their books, why not demand your Dems honor one of their campaign pledges to get rid of the pork?

You actually have a point here. Many of the Democrats ran against the pork laden republicans, for good cause. Have they cleaned things up? No. In fact they are working very diligently to make sure we, the voters cannot see what they are doing. There are links.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/11/democrats_look_to_close_govern_1.asp


Dems: No More Transparency

For those wondering why Democrats in Congress get such terrible grades in Gallup's latest polling, it might be because of moves like this one:


House and Senate Democrats have inserted at least 18 previously undisclosed earmarks into the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies spending bill totaling more than $24 million, while taking steps to limit access to key budget documents prepared for appropriators by federal agencies.

Republicans wasted little time in attacking the new spending and accusing Democrats of hypocrisy. “The new majority just doesn’t seem to get it. They came to power by criticizing Republican abuses, and were justified in doing so. But now they are committing the same abuses,” Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), said in a statement...

But in addition to new earmarks, Democrats again appear to be targeting reforms to the appropriations process backed by Senate conservatives that passed earlier this year. The bill includes language prohibiting federal agencies from providing their “budget justifications” to any committees in Congress other than the appropriations committees. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a longtime critic of the appropriations process, earlier had cut a deal with the Office of Management and Budget to begin providing those budget justification documents to the public since, unlike the president’s yearly budget submission, the justifications provide a detailed breakdown of the specific projects that will receive federal funding.

It's stunning that Congressional leaders would propose a new law to block Congress and the public from simply reviewing the details of the federal budget. The Appropriations Committee rewrites the president's proposed budget as a matter of course, but now they are attempting to head off questions about their spending decision by ensuring that only appropriators know the details of the president's proposal. The arrogance of the move is mind-blowing.

So much for transparency and openness in government.

[retiredman]

Like you would actually admit how your party is now screwing the troops over with surrender demands and increased pork

You want to hold the DoD accountable for pork but not your Dems

Typical. Party before country and the troops

still waiting.

I have not called for any increased DoD accountability. I simply know that there are a lot of "elsewhere's" within their budget where they will find the funds to keep the war going and not impact the troops in any way.

[red states rule]

You actually have a point here. Many of the Democrats ran against the pork laden republicans, for good cause. Have they cleaned things up? No. In fact they are working very diligently to make sure we, the voters cannot see what they are doing. There are links.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/11/democrats_look_to_close_govern_1.asp

Dems have increased the pork. Murtha and Hillary and the King and Queen of pork

But DoD has to count pennies, while Dems do as they damn well please

[Kathianne]

Dems have increased the pork. Murtha and Hillary and the King and Queen of pork

But DoD has to count pennies, while Dems do as they damn well please

In all seriousness, as did the Republicans before. Question is, have any of them learned? I see no signs of such.

[red states rule]

In all seriousness, as did the Republicans before. Question is, have any of them learned? I see no signs of such.

I admit, Republicans were bad

Dems are on track to break their pork spending records. They have a $1 trillion plus tax increase to cover it

[bullypulpit]

The Republicans did have the nuts to impeach the President for lying and obstruction of justice. But oh wait, they are only supposed to impeach Republican Presidents, even if there is zero evidence of wrongdoing. :poke:

...But they don't have the stones to impeach a President who misled the nation into a war of aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to anyone outside its own borders on the basis of cherry-picked, spun and fabricated-from-whole-cloth intel. Lying a nation into a war is simply not equivalent, moral or otherwise, with lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office.

[red states rule]

...But they don't have the stones to impeach a President who misled the nation into a war of aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to anyone outside its own borders on the basis of cherry-picked, spun and fabricated-from-whole-cloth intel. Lying a nation into a war is simply not equivalent, moral or otherwise, with lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office.

HEy BP, you are ignoring the fact Dems said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's as Pres Bush

Only the kook left thinks impeachment is an option.

The Dems are at record low approval numbers, and impeachment would drive them even lower

Meanwhile, Dems use our troops as poker chips in a game of chicken over war funding

What a sad fucking political party the Democrat party has become

[bullypulpit]

Since you libs could not beat Pres Bush at the ballot box (twice) you have to find a way to overturn the election via made up impeachment charges

<blockquote>Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:

1. Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
2. Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
3. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
4. Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
5. Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment. - <a href=http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html>Articles of Impeachment</a></blockquote>

This is but the first of three proposed Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Had the House any backbone at all, they would AT LEAST begin a Resolution of Inquiry into the conduct of this administration in run up to and after the invasion of Iraq. As it is, the Republicans in the House put their loyalty to party and President ahead of their constitutional duties to the detriment of us all.

[red states rule]

<blockquote>Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:

1. Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
2. Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
3. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
4. Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
5. Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment. - <a href=http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html>Articles of Impeachment</a></blockquote>

This is but the first of three proposed Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Had the House any backbone at all, they would AT LEAST begin a Resolution of Inquiry into the conduct of this administration in run up to and after the invasion of Iraq. As it is, the Republicans in the House put their loyalty to party and President ahead of their constitutional duties to the detriment of us all.

Go ahead and try it BP

The Reid and Pelosi Congress are in the teens right now as far as approval ratings

Trying impeachment will drive you into the single digits

[bullypulpit]

HEy BP, you are ignoring the fact Dems said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's as Pres Bush

Only the kook left thinks impeachment is an option.

The Dems are at record low approval numbers, and impeachment would drive them even lower

Meanwhile, Dems use our troops as poker chips in a game of chicken over war funding

What a sad fucking political party the Democrat party has become

The fact of the matter is that Congress didn't have access to the same intel that the Bush administration did. The Bush administration WITHHELD intelligence and sources which contradicted their policy of war with Iraq from Congress. And Congress shamefully abdicated their sole constitutional authority to declare war to an administration whose intent was war, regardless of the consequences.

You really are a sad little man to keep spewing this discredited right-wing propaganda day in and day out.

[bullypulpit]

Go ahead and try it BP

The Reid and Pelosi Congress are in the teens right now as far as approval ratings

Trying impeachment will drive you into the single digits

Only because the Republicans in Congress continue to ignore their duties in supporting this Administration beyond all reason and actively obstruct any legislation which runs contrary to the wishes Bush and Cheney.

[red states rule]

The fact of the matter is that Congress didn't have access to the same intel that the Bush administration did. The Bush administration WITHHELD intelligence and sources which contradicted their policy of war with Iraq from Congress. And Congress shamefully abdicated their sole constitutional authority to declare war to an administration whose intent was war, regardless of the consequences.

You really are a sad little man to keep spewing this discredited right-wing propaganda day in and day out.

Oh they did BP. In fact most of the Dems did not bother to read the intewl report

We had an election of this very issue in 04 - why not give it up?

And tell the ems to stop screwing the troops bu onserting a surrende rdate ion the war funding bill - or is this how Dems support the trroops?

[red states rule]

Oh BP, before you demand proof the Dems did not read the intel reports.......


Did Senators Read Pre-War Iraq Intel Report?
Human Events, Jul 26, 2004
In September 2002, four Democratic senators-Richard Durbin (111.), Bob Graham (Fia.), Diane Feinstein (Calif.) and Carl Levin (Mich.)-asked the CIA to produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) detailing what was known about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and their threat to the United States.

"I deeply believe that such an estimate is vital to congressional decision-making, and most specifically, any resolution which may come before the Senate," Feinstein wrote President Bush.

The CIA published the report on Oct. 1, 2002. The Senate voted to authorize war on Oct. 11, 2002.

Last week, a Kerry campaign release challenged the Bush Administration: "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?" A Reuters reporter challenged the campaign to reveal whether Kerry had read it. The answer: No.

Did other senators fail to study the definitive intelligence report on Iraq-created specifically for their benefit-before voting on war? HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso visited Capital Hill to find out.

Do you believe members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before taking the vote to authorize war in Iraq?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200407/ai_n9457968

[red states rule]

Only because the Republicans in Congress continue to ignore their duties in supporting this Administration beyond all reason and actively obstruct any legislation which runs contrary to the wishes Bush and Cheney.

So Republicans should roll over and let the Dems do as they please?

Yes, I rememebr how the Dems never said a word while Republicans were in charge, and never opposed the bills they brought to the floor

[No1tovote4]

<blockquote>Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:

1. Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
2. Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
3. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
4. Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
5. Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment. - <a href=http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html>Articles of Impeachment</a></blockquote>

This is but the first of three proposed Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Had the House any backbone at all, they would AT LEAST begin a Resolution of Inquiry into the conduct of this administration in run up to and after the invasion of Iraq. As it is, the Republicans in the House put their loyalty to party and President ahead of their constitutional duties to the detriment of us all.
You do know that the Ds killed the Kucinich impeachment of Cheney after the Rs voted to allow a vote on it, right?

They have no plan on impeaching him because they believe it will help them in their elections to have such an unpopular figure continue right where he is.

[red states rule]

You do know that the Ds killed the Kucinich impeachment of Cheney after the Rs voted to allow a vote on it, right?

They have no plan on impeaching him because they believe it will help them in their elections to have such an unpopular figure continue right where he is.

IF Pres Bush and VP Cheney are so unpopular, it would help the Dems to move on with impeachment

Perhaps the Dems are watching there own poll numbers tanking, and they are running scared

[bullypulpit]

You do know that the Ds killed the Kucinich impeachment of Cheney after the Rs voted to allow a vote on it, right?

They have no plan on impeaching him because they believe it will help them in their elections to have such an unpopular figure continue right where he is.

Yep, and they're as bad as the Republicans in putting political expediency ahead of their sworn duties.

[retiredman]

You do know that the Ds killed the Kucinich impeachment of Cheney after the Rs voted to allow a vote on it, right?

They have no plan on impeaching him because they believe it will help them in their elections to have such an unpopular figure continue right where he is.


I agree wholeheartedly. I think that we are better off if Dubya stays right where he is... a poster child for republican incompetence!

[Yurt]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that we are better off if Dubya stays right where he is... a poster child for republican incompetence!

go home, your game is over

[retiredman]

go home, your game is over

I already AM home... and I am excited about a democratic sweep in '08!

[Yurt]

I already AM home... and I am excited about a democratic sweep in '08!

well that explains alot......

[retiredman]

well that explains alot......

are you really only going to take words I post out of context and make jokes, or are you going to debate issues. MY son, who is your age, is seemingly much more capable of intelligent conversation that you are.... which is probably just a matter of good breeding.:laugh2:

[Yurt]

are you really only going to take words I post out of context and make jokes, or are you going to debate issues. MY son, who is your age, is seemingly much more capable of intelligent conversation that you are.... which is probably just a matter of good breeding.:laugh2:

well that explains alot......

[retiredman]

well that explains alot......


it certainly does.

[Yurt]

it certainly does.

I know, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[retiredman]

I know, the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


why would you say something so disrespectful of me and my son?

[Yurt]

why would you say something so disrespectful of me and my son?

uh...



is seemingly much more capable of intelligent conversation that you are.... which is probably just a matter of good breeding


disrespectful? LOOOOOOL. You are small minded, no worries, I accept you for who you are.

[red states rule]

well that explains alot......

A liberal drone who does what he is told by his leaders and the NY Times

[red states rule]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that we are better off if Dubya stays right where he is... a poster child for republican incompetence!

Bush is not running in 08

Your shitty Dems are - and their poll numbers continue to sink

[bullypulpit]

Bush is not running in 08

Your shitty Dems are - and their poll numbers continue to sink

No, but Republicans in Congress continue to kiss his ass shamelessly, and the Republican presidentially front-runners are his ideological clones. Giulliani's campaign may get shut down by the indictment of his butt-buddy Bernie Karick though.

[red states rule]

No, but Republicans in Congress continue to kiss his ass shamelessly, and the Republican presidentially front-runners are his ideological clones. Giulliani's campaign may get shut down by the indictment of his butt-buddy Bernie Karick though.

Why not address your shitty Dems and their positions?

Perhaps the voters are against handouts to illegals, higher taxes, increased spending and pork, using the troops as political pawns, and surrender in Iraq

Oh shit! I just tossed out the entire Dem platform for 2008

[LuvRPgrl]

why would you say something so disrespectful of me and my son?

I think he is saying your son is a retard, just like you.

Oh, by the way, thats not dis respectful

[Psychoblues]

Disrespect noted.



I think he is saying your son is a retard, just like you.

Oh, by the way, thats not dis respectful

Come back when you sob er up.

[LuvRPgrl]

Disrespect noted.




Come back when you sob er up.

what is sob er?

Ohhh, you mean sober,,,sorry, I dont drink.

[Psychoblues]

I was just kidding you, Lrpg.



what is sob er?

Ohhh, you mean sober,,,sorry, I dont drink.

I was only reflecting your statement:

"Oh, by the way, thats not dis respectful "

As you might know, I DO drink and I DO like to have some fun while posting on this board as well as others. I apologize if you took my remark as anything other than the fun as I intended.

[LuvRPgrl]

I was just kidding you, Lrpg.




I was only reflecting your statement:

"Oh, by the way, thats not dis respectful "

As you might know, I DO drink and I DO like to have some fun while posting on this board as well as others. I apologize if you took my remark as anything other than the fun as I intended.

Uh, if you are worried about insulting me, dont, I cant be insulted. Either what is said is not true, which case why should I care? And if it is true, then rather be insulted, I should look at myself and see what I can do about it.

Talk about having fun, why do you think I spelled Disrespectful that way ? :)