5th Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Objects to Bush’s Plan To Authorize Torture
5th Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Objects to Bush’s Plan To Authorize Torture
Last Thursday, Gen. Colin Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) objecting to the President’s plan to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Powell said Bush’s plan would “put our troops at risk.”
He was joined by three other former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs — Gen. John Vessey, Gen. John Shalikashvili and Admiral William Crowe. Moments ago, McCain’s office announced that a fifth former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Hugh Shelton, has publically declared his objections. Shelton said Bush’s plan “would signal that the U.S. ‘is attempting to water down’ its obligations and would be an ‘egregious mistake.’” Watch CNN’s report:
Transcript:
One of the three leading Republicans who’s block being the President’s bill, Senator John McCain, told reporters in his words, the two sides were “making progress” and that “good faith efforts” were being made by both sides. But in an effort to keep up the pressure on the White House, Senator McCain’s office released yet another letter of support from a former military official, this one from the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton, saying, “General Shelton is the fifth former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who has expressed concern regarding a proposed change in Common Article 3, joining former Secretary of State General Colin Powell, General John Vessey, General John Shalikashvili, and Admiral William Crowe. Former Secretary of State George Schultz voiced his concern yesterday as well.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
102 Responses to “5th Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Objects to Bush’s Plan To Authorize Torture”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In other news, Fox News explodes ....
September 20th, 2006 at 5:21 pmHISTORICAL COLLOSSAL FAILURE
Historians are already writing it.
This has little to do with future interogations though it is a shameful intellectualy devoid position to argue a two track system in which DOD cannot torture but it is OK for CIA to do so.
This is about Chimpy and his ilk avoiding War Crime charges for the torture they have already conducted.
Bush IS a war Criminal. Spin away conturds, spin away.
All international bodies classify waterboarding as torture.
Why do you embrace failure?
Why do you hate America?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI thought they wanted TO define common article 3 because it was vague. Again, instead of "going at it alone" we should present our idea's of how to define it in front of the UN and have the world vote on it. Wouldn't that be a better idea?
Then again, if everyone has to complain about how we treat terrorists, I still say we should simply kill them in the field. If we can't get info out of them, there is no point to spend tax dollars feeding and putting shleter over there head. So, we either get this panned out or simply don't take prisoners anymore.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:22 pmGet rid of article 3 and there will be NO more coalition troops fighting along side you.
which is great by the way - go it alone - and your enemy will do the same
all out warfare down to no prisoners ever
September 20th, 2006 at 5:28 pmRoger_Roger why do you make so many idiotic posts? Don't you get any attention at home?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:32 pmRR have you read about how they want to "clarify" article 3? Sounds to me like they want to make it more vague. The president has made comments about how he would like flexibility for the CIA in interpreting article 3. Flexibility is not defining, it is making it more vague. On a positive note, it is nice to see that the white house is at least somewhat acknowledging that the US does have an international treaty obligation, even though they are trying to break that obligation. Remember way back when Iraq held some US soldiers prisoner? Remember how the president reacted to their photo's even being shown on TV? Remember how he promised to punish severely anyone involved in any treatment of those prisoners that was not in accordance with the Geneva convention? Remember how with the Jessica Lynch fiasco how the press howled (Fox News) when they described her torture etc… My how times have changed.
How is it that in the entire world only our administration has a problem with Article 3? How is it that only the current administration, the only one in the entire history of our country, has not got a grasp on separation of powers and that torture is not an American or Christian value? How is it that 35% of the people in our country accept these thing unquestioningly? You know until recently America was not the country that did as others do. America was supposed to be the country that did the right thing regardless of how others acted. How is it under this administration we even have a debate about torture? Don't we as a nation know what the right thing is anymore?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:33 pmPapa Bush knows best, not these silly joint chiefs guys.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pmAmerica's Least Wanted
Roger... Roger...
article 3 is only vague in Bush's simple mind.
and yours obviously.
Quit worshipping Bush and wake up from that koolaide induced stupor you are in.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:37 pmNo Quarter
Even in medieval No Quarter was adhered too
2006 and Bush wants to change this
September 20th, 2006 at 5:41 pm"Al-Quaida has terrified Americans but not achieved a political goal - beyond inducing America to make itself more unpopular." True, but, simply by playing on the insecurities and bravado of the White House cowboy, Al-Quaida is achieving a perhaps more significant goal - bleeding America's economy.
As to the fatalities caused by terrorism these past five years - apparently more Americans have died in their bathtubs over the same period.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:49 pmBush's proposed changes to article 3 effectively legalize torture. While his intention, I assume, is to get valuable information out of terrorists, such a move opens a pandora's box of unintended consequences. If Bush gets his way on this and we get some useful intelligence, who is to stop law enforcement in this country from adopting the same "alternative methods" of interrogation?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWho are 'They' and how exactly are 'they' trying to define it?
Are you actually advocating an idea of not 'going it alone'? If so, wow. Never expected that from you. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Killing suspected (notice that word 'suspected') Terrorists is the most sure-fire way to get the whole middle-east and a decent portion of the rest of the world angry at us. It would definitely increase the number of real terrorists out there. We'd be fighting them until we as a nation fall. But that's what your president wants.
"...putting shleter over there head..." I'll give 'shleter' as a case of typing faster than you think, but the other mistake I can't let slip. 'There' indicates location, as in 'Fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.' You're trying to use the word 'their', which is the possessive form of they, as in 'Wantonly killing Muslim men, women, and children make their friends and family more likely to become terrorists.' Be careful not to confuse these two words with a third word which sounds identical, 'they're'. This last word is used as a contraction of the words 'they are', as in 'Bush, Cheney, and the men who support them are getting rich off the war. They're getting no-bid contracts left and right!' Know the difference between your homophones and you will sound alot more intelligent than otherwise.
Terrorists are a problem, but the way we're handling them right now is not the solution. I hope the American People see through your party's bullshit in 2006 and send the Republicans a solid message that it's time to clean house for 2008 or be religated to Minority Status for a couple of election cycles.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:50 pmRoger_Roger,
Normally I prefer to ignore what you write because I have a hard time figuring out how it fits into this universe. Common Article 3 is not "vague"; it's only the Bush Administration who is trying to say it is. Can you cite a single source from before 2001 (when Bush took office) in which another country (or previous president) complained that it was "vague"? Please, do find one, and I'll reconsider my position on this.
Secondly, presenting our own interpretation to the rest of the world to have them "vote on it" amounts to re-writing a treaty, which then has to be ratified by our Senate before it becomes (in the words of the Constitution) "the supreme Law of the Land". Besides, if it gets voted down, do you honestly believe that President Bush will respect that international decision? I don't. And we can’t re-write it just for ourselves or else it wouldn’t be the Geneva Conventions we were following.
Finally, what you and your fellow Bush supporters fail to acknowledge is that mistakes do happen and innocent people do get arrested (detained, picked up, whatever you want to call it). You say we should just shoot them on the battlefield. That is ridiculous for several reasons. Ask anybody who has fought in a war and they’ll tell you that killing another human being is not something you do lightly. (Unless you, yourself, are inhuman.) Then there’s the matter of whether or not that person is actually guilty of doing anything wrong. Many people were released from GTMO who were caught up on the battlefield and who did nothing wrong. Eventually, after many months, they were released because they were completely innocent. Under your proposal they would be dead now.
Lastly, when will you ever figure out that how WE treat the prisoners we have has a great deal to do with how other nations will treat American soldiers when they are captured, and this doesn’t just apply to terrorist organizations. Any nation with whom we have a conflict in the future will look back at this president’s actions as justification for torturing our people. When David Gregory tried to ask the president if he was concerned that other nations might decide to go by their own interpretation of Common Article 3, his response showed just how much he isn’t listening to people. He said that as long as they interpreted it the way we did, it would be fine with him. Of course, that wasn’t the question that was asked him and he started getting nasty when this fact was pointed out to him. (President Bush reacts very negatively to the truth.) But to say what Bush did just shows that he isn’t interested in an honest discussion about the issues; he’s just interested in having his way. (“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, so long as I’m the dictator†– G.W. Bush.)
I’m going home now and I’m not all that interested in your response. I mean, you’re free to do it, just don’t expect me to read it. I’ll let everyone else continue telling you where you’re going wrong.
Have a nice day.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#7 Well said, Mark.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:53 pm#3 Roger_Roger
I thought they wanted TO define common article 3 because it was vague. Again, instead of “going at it alone†we should present our idea’s of how to define it in front of the UN and have the world vote on it. Wouldn’t that be a better idea?
Gee, usually vague language works in Bush's favor. It lets him apply the most technical definitions possible to get around compliance or to grant himself special privileges. For example, he tried to stretch the definition of the authorization for the use of force (AUF) to include warrantless wiretapping of domestic calls by U.S. citizens. Why doesn't he just use the same tactic he always goes to, changing the definitions of words? Couldn't he just change the definition of "humiliating" and "degrading" so that nothing that was ever done to detainees could be considered as such?
I think the world has already spoken on the Geneva Convention and nobody has had a problem understanding it for the past 57 years. The only thing that's changed is that we have a sociopathic moron in the White House with a penchant for torture and he's going to have another tantrum if people won't let him have his way.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:53 pmDoes anyone else find it strange that techniques used to torture prisoners include devices originally designed to either elicit religious conversion, or reveal religious "truths?"
I wonder how that aspect plays with the natives.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pmThis shouldn't just halt Bush's legislation. There ought to be a penality for even proposing it!
September 20th, 2006 at 5:59 pm#12 Roger_Roger
Why capture a terrorist if we can’t get info out of them? It would serve no good and cost us tax dollars and man hours.
Why do you assume that the information cannot be gotten without torture, or without violating Article 3? Why do you assume that the only people who have been or will be waterboarded are terrorists? Why do you assume that information gotten through torture is accurate or even the least bit factual?
I wish you guys would spend a little time breaking down your own arguments before you try them out here.
Here's another one. Peter King (R-NY): "If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it."
That's pretty specific. How about if it's not bin Laden, it's not to find out when the next attack is going to happen, and it's not just holding his head under water but taking him to the very brink of drowning? Try it sometime, Peter. In fact, maybe we could have a tough-talking Republican step forward to demonstrate for us how waterboarding isn't all that bad. Who's first?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:14 pmpost
September 20th, 2006 at 6:18 pmCan we start by torturing Bush?
He is a Christian (so he says), and the Bible says to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So, upon that premise, Bush clearly wants to be tortured. (How was that necon fallacious logic for turning the tables back on the Chimp and his own faulty logic? :D
September 20th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#23 - I nominate Ann Coulter
September 20th, 2006 at 6:25 pmWe just studied the French Renaissance style of Architecture in class this week.
I showed the students the Chateau du Chambord in the Loire Valley, which was used by the monarchy as a hunting lodge only 7 weeks out of the year because building Southern Italian styled buildings in France was not practical (they couldn't heat it).
Meanwhile, the French people starved to death.
I asked the students how this would make them feel. They said that it would make them angry. I then said "Good - now go vote, because the same thing is starting to happen in your own country."
September 20th, 2006 at 6:26 pmTP's opening paragraph includes, "....objecting to the President’s plan to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Powell said Bush’s plan would “put our troops at risk.â€"
********A liiiiittttle disingenuous, boys and girls at the OFFICIAL Prog Desk. The President has asked for, as Roger correctly noted, CLARIFICATION and refined DEFINITION of Article III. For those of you who have not had the opportunity to read Article III:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3
The vague language needs clarification in order to prevent individual interpretations from abridging the rights of our enemies AND to gain the most useful and important information necessary to thwart foreign and domestic cells.
Sadly, we must conclude that the MISSION of TP and many progs is the total opposition of EVERY conservative idea or proposal. (Even those ideas you might tend to agree with had a prog proposed such an idea.) Maybe the name of the site should be changed from TP to Think Cantankerous.....
September 20th, 2006 at 6:27 pmMaybe the name of the site should be changed from TP to Think Cantankerous…..
Comment by mighty+aphrodite — September 20, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Do you have anything else to say besides making up and posting incredibly juvenile (and not even remotely clever) names?
I mean, really, you don't ever answer any questions, say anything interesting or valid, or post anything that isn't pretentious third-grade smears. If you don't like TP, MA, then don't post here. It really was nice around here while you were gone. The maturity level of exchanges went up by about 75%.
You definitely should sign up for real Anger Management Therapy. And soon. This isn't it.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:33 pmAs we all know, this has zilch to do with further clarifying Article 3 and everything to do with exoneration of W's war crimes under the rules of the Geneva Conventions on torture. His butt will be on the grill in an international court soon and that's all he's concerned with. It's his primary motivation in all of this. Besides, the "timing" tells all - if the Dems take power they will call for his impeachment based on military crimes which will begin the domino effect for Bush.
For someone who continually purports to be so incredibly concerned about the troops and loss of lives, etc., it's now obvious that he is more concerned about his own butt frying in jail than what may happen to our troops if they are take prisoner and that country decides to "reinterpret" Article 3 as Bush is proposing to do.
This fraud is sacrificing all of the brave military personnel just to save his own skin. This is appalling, embarrassing, and insulting to our military. It definitely puts our military "at serious risk".
Fortunately, his twisted facade is cracking (when his own butt is on the line) and his "true colors" are waving for everyone to see......and, as they say, "it ain't pretty"!.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:34 pmMighty Aphrodite: What don't you "get" about the illegality of "waterboarding"?? Article 3 has been in existence since l947 and NO ONE has had any problem defining what is meant by it. Why now? Why now?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:35 pmP.S. (Mighty +Aphrodite (your moniker tells the story, BTW...I can see it now....Napoleon complex, eh?) If you don't like TP, I suggest that you spew your drivel elsewhere!
September 20th, 2006 at 6:37 pmPerhaps a better moniker for the not-so-mighty aphrodite would be "troll mentality", hmmm?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:39 pmmighty aphrodite,
Only dumb a$$es like you Roger_Roger and Bush don't understand what the hell this means.
I don't need clarification. This is quite clear.
The fact that you like to tell everybody that you are a lawyer and you think Article 3 needs clarification shows just how stupid you are and proves that you aren't a lawyer.
I find it quite clear and I haven't had any "lawyering" classes.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:44 pmThe reason even the GOP Senators on Intelligence and Armed Services are turning against BushCo....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
Here's a sample:
May 24 - It's not easy to get a member of Congress to stop talking. Much less a room full of them. But as a small group of legislators watched the images flash by in a small, darkened hearing room in the Rayburn Building last week, a sickened silence descended. There were 1,800 slides and several videos, and the show went on for three hours. The nightmarish images showed American soldiers at Abu Ghraib Prison forcing Iraqis to masturbate. American soldiers sexually assaulting Iraqis with chemical light sticks. American soldiers laughing over dead Iraqis whose bodies had been abused and mutilated. There was simply nothing to say. "It was a very subdued walk back to the House floor," said Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "People were ashen."
September 20th, 2006 at 6:48 pmmighty aphrodite,
Before I leave for the night, I just wanted to mention a couple of things to you. First, the things you write might be taken more seriously and be treated as worthy of discussion if you didn't start out virtually every post with a snarky, snotty comment about liberals in general. That, I believe, is the main reason that people come back at you with hostility - just doing unto you as you have done unto them.
Second, I did read Common Article III, and I have to ask you something: How could anyone who wasn't interested in hurting people as much as possible see anything vague about a ban on "(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "
You would have to be one sick bastard to think that something in that language needs "clarifications" in order to allow you to continue torturing people. Yes, I know, the president has said we don't torture, but the president is also a well-documented liar. And the fact that he claims that if the Congress does not interpret this Common Article to allow what we are doing to the prisoners, "the program will not go forward" (which I assume means they'll stop. Stop what? The torturing?)
No matter how much Bush denies it, he wants the legal protection of our Congress saying that what he has been doing does not violate this article. If he wasn't actually harming prisoners, then why all the fuss about the language of the article? Clearly there's something he wants to do to them that the international community would object to. If you're supporting the president on this, you're really backing the wrong horse.
Have a nice day.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:48 pmOk, mighty+aphrodite , lets take a closer look at Article 3. In Section 1a it prohibits:
Granted people's definition of torture will vary. I imagine it is similar to what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I know it when I see it." For 57 years that has been good enough for us.
So if Bush wants to clarify what is torture and what isn't, lets see the details of his proposal so we can debate it on its merits. The question is will the proposed changes be made public by the Bush administration. I have my doubts since there would likely be a huge public backlash if the proposal legalized activies like water boarding,
Mighty+aphrodite, what "alternative methods" of interrogation would you make legal?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:53 pmFor the last 50 years NO ONE has had a problem interpreting Article III, only liars say they don't know what it means.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:57 pmWhat the hell do these whinny ass generals know anyway.
Since when does being a combat veteran make you and expert on warfare?!
September 20th, 2006 at 6:59 pmRoger,
No one else has thought common article 3 was vague until now, gee is it a coinkydink all of the sudden, now its vague as GW and freinds want to torture? If GW was truly interested in following the Geneva Conventions, this would not be called into question. This is what I do if I don't agree with a policy or procedure at my work, I will find something wrong with it.
Isn't a yellow light vague Roger? Do we slow down, or speed up? But we all accept it. Now if I wanted to do away with yellow lights, I would find something wrong with it, like its too vague, or it causes people to speed up, and thats not safe. See how easy that was Roger?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:00 pmHow come Roger and Mighty didn't feel common article 3 was vague before the decider said so?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:01 pmBush, Cheney, et al know they're facing war Crimes trials unless they get retroactive permission to torture - running scared. And hopefully running to prison, don't take my word for it take Warner and Graham's words:
Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner declared the pictures were the worst "military misconduct" he'd seen in 60 years, and he planned more hearings. Republicans on Capitol Hill were notably reluctant to back Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And NEWSWEEK has learned that U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives could be accused of war crimes. Among the possible charges: homicide involving deaths during interrogations. "The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: "It seems to have been planned."
September 20th, 2006 at 7:01 pmIt's hard to think that any dedicated military leader would condone or approve of this change. It's nice to know General Shelton wants to perserve the America he grew up in and the America he served. Thanks General.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:02 pmAnd I always knew that our Army was the best..
RR - Why capture a terrorist if we can't get it out of him?
What exactly does that mean? Why should the enemy capture our troops if they can not get information out of them? Face it very few ground pounders have relevant information on our side or theirs. Sure they may have layouts of facilities, patrolling patterns etc... But the stuff Bush is talking about is strategic stuff, operational stuff. From my experience we only got our operational information when we were going out on a patrol and maybe a little earlier if we had a rehersal.
Your comment about needing to stand united on terrorism might make sense if we were doing the right thing and living up to the word of our law. However when the leadership fails there really is no reason to stand united behind them anymore. You also say over and over that you are no fan of Bush, but you defend him his adminsitraion and their actions tooth and nail. So your words do not match your actions at all.
Will one of you RR or MA please explain how what the president has proposed, read what he has asked for, how that clarifys Article three? The rest of the world seems clear on it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:03 pmWhat the hell do those whinny ass generals know anyway?
Since when does being a combat veteran make you an expert on warfare?!
September 20th, 2006 at 7:03 pmBush said he would listen to his generals - he didn't say joint chiefs.
He hears the comments from his generals as they appear before Senate committees, and within a few days, the generals are backtracking themselves more into line with Bush's desires.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:08 pmOnly the ones who tell the emperor what he wants to hear will end their careers with medals and promotions.
Are we forgetting that this is the same George Bush who liked to torture animals as a child, torture members of his fraternity as an adult, loved putting people to death as governor of Texas, and tormented Carla Faye Tucker? No wonder he needs clarification....torture has always been "fun" to him.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:08 pmIsn't it enough to recognize the Geneva conventions have served the world for more than 50 years and there has never been an attempt to rewrite them until GW approved torture as a method of interrogation, and he now finds himself in a precarious position legally.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pmMy point in this post is simple however. Why capture a terrorist if we can’t get info out of them? -Roger
Why do you think torture is the only way to get information out of a person?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pmMany Con men get information without torture, as do police detectives, right?
Many of these little tcp packets of "information" flying around the Internet are filtered for "information".
Hackers can steal your indentity and your information Roger and never torture you, [until you get your bank statement that is =]
What next? A military coup!
September 20th, 2006 at 7:15 pmIt's mind boggling that George Bush's strategy for his "War on Terror" is to get down in the mud and to emulate terrorist behavior (e.g. torture). In previous times the U.S would make every effort to take the high, moral road. But not George Bush, he'd rather be an immoral, murderous, torturing coward.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#40 Wayne
September 20th, 2006 at 7:23 pmGood post.
They've got one week left to finish their "national security agenda" before closing up shop and going home to campaign up until the election. And everything is grinding to a massive halt. Why? Because the Republicans are threatening to filibuster the bill put together by members of their own party.
Maybe we can get the Iraqis to come over and help the Republicans with their own civil war?
Not to mention, it's more than a bit funny that Senator "Nuclear Option" Frist is suddenly such a fan of filibusters. But then again, this time the filibuster isn't to protect the constitution from an insane far-right judge, it's to promote torture. And to today's Republican party, nothing is as important as protecting the right to torture.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:33 pm#55, Marie--he went home, but I'll tell him you said so. :-)
September 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pmWay to go Roger! According to reports 70 - 90% of the detainees in Abu Gharib were innocent. If we follow the Roger Doctrine, we would be murdering innocent civilians. Care to stand trial for conspiracy to commit murder, Roger?
September 20th, 2006 at 8:40 pmI see our resident fraud lawyer Mighty aFraudite is back posting again!
So tell us, O Mighty One, using you best legal skills, exactly how does Bush's Military Commission Proposal clarify the Geneva Convention?
I've read it, by the way. So be prepared to cite the relevant clauses which clarify the Geneva Convention's definition of torture. Surely such a great defense lawyer as you can find and interpret Bush's proposal for us non-lawyers.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:46 pmI don't know if you knew this, but now they're backing Bush:
From TPM
BREAKING: House Judiciary Reconsiders, Backs Bush Torture Bill
By Justin Rood - September 20, 2006, 5:28 PM
The House Judiciary Committee just reversed itself, calling a re-vote and passing a controversial detainee treatment bill that has White House backing, according to House sources.
Earlier today, the panel had voted down the measure, 18-17, with three members not voting. The re-vote swung the tally to 20-18 in favor of the bill.
Update: WSJ's Washington Wire has more details (and a better vote tally -- we'd originally reported 17-20). "The amendment might have passed had two Democrats not missed the vote; the two were at a news conference on the Medicare drug benefit."
September 20th, 2006 at 8:56 pmYeah, trueblue, I saw it. The Republicans want to try to ram it through before the midterm elections. And what is their support base? "Conservative Christians."
Christians put us through the Dark Ages once before, where they tortured people in the name of Christ. Looks like they're doing their damnedest to go back to "the good ol' days."
What new sadistic devices do they have dreamed up to comport with easing the proscription against torture? Waterboarding...the fear of death without causing bodily injury. Microwaves, intense pain, without causing bodily injury. Plasma, same thing. And once you go down this road, you can't turn back. You can't let the victim go, for he will tell others of his treatment, increasing the hatred and desire for revenge against his captors.
Pass this bill, and we announce to the world: WE ARE THE TERRORISTS.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:15 pmYou could have time machine bring back every former military commander from every great war ever faught, and tell George he is wrong, and that won't change it.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:36 pmForTruth, you are so wrong!! Custer would be with Bush all the way!!!
September 20th, 2006 at 9:46 pmWhere is General Eric Shinseki? He's being rather quiet when we all know he has a lot to say. Cheney probably has a gun to his head.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:53 pmThis was prior to the invasion of Iraq. "It has been reported that when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs in one of the prewar planning meetings, Gen. Eric Shinseki voiced his concerns on force size and the need to secure the borders as well as other tasks, such as maintaining order in the streets. We can hope the other chiefs voiced similar concerns, but it is unclear whether or not they did." - Lyons, Washington Times
Published today, and it can be added that it is painfully obvious this administration doesn't listen to it's generals. Even when several retired generals call for the removal of Rummy, they are only a whisper in the wind. And as they did with Colin Powell, they order them to do their dirty work, and play the game for their own political ends. Twist, distort, destroy!
September 20th, 2006 at 10:18 pmHere's the link: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060919-091306-7371r.htm
September 20th, 2006 at 10:20 pmSo, we either get this panned out or simply don’t take prisoners anymore.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I have to ask this again: Does your wife fall too often from the stairs?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:09 pmIf we follow the Roger Doctrine, we would be murdering innocent civilians.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
mmm...you already are. Just wanted to clarify that.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:12 pmThe Taliban/Hammas/Al Qida have it right. Just cut off the heads or slit the throats of their enemies..
You whack jobs want to give our enemies lawyers. Sounds fair to me...D'OH!!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:30 pmJuan, you are right, of course. The Roger Doctrine would have us murder even more innocent civilians in cold blood.
And, by some unfathomable logic, that makes us better than the "terrorists."
September 20th, 2006 at 11:37 pm#39 - "First, the things you write might be taken more seriously and be treated as worthy of discussion if you didn’t start out virtually every post with a snarky, snotty comment about liberals in general."
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
*******Dear Wayne, My first sentence in post #28: " A liiiiittttle disingenuous, boys and girls at the OFFICIAL Prog Desk," was neither snarky OR snotty. The first paragraph of this piece blatantly mis-represented the facts. Period. Since none of the usual suspects - Judd, Nico, Faiz, Payson et al. took "credit" for the copy, I addressed the collective at the Prog Desk. I'm sorry if my "style" offends you - I always knew you were a very sweet man - I just didn't realize you were sooooo sensitive. Lucky Jane!
To answer your question regarding torture: "How could anyone who wasn’t interested in hurting people as much as possible see anything vague about a ban on “(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court". NO ONE wants prisoners mutilated, murdered, sexually abused, tortured, maimed, etc.
What IS vague is the directive in c.): "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" I am ALL for a little humiliation if I can get one of these SOBs to give up a plot or cell. Personal dignity???? Give me a break!!!! They deserve the personal dignity of a toilet and sink, a bright light shining on their sorry selves and sleep deprivation. I would pipe in some gang-bang hippity-hop bass-laden "music" until they begged to talk so as to enjoy some peace and QUIET. If my methods appear harsh to you, remember your methods seem impotent to me.
"If he wasn’t actually harming prisoners, then why all the fuss about the language of the article? Clearly there’s something he wants to do to them that the international community would object to."
**********Wayne, Please tell me you have EVIDENCE of Bush's intent to harm and not just your biased speculations?? The "fuss" centers around "c.)" as I have duly noted - and progressives have routinely ignored. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans who place a high degree of importance on national security DO NOT believe Dems are a viable alternative?
That said, thank you for your constructive criticism. I have RARELY seen anyone with an alternative view treated respectfully here. This HAS happened on RARE occasions; which says something positive of the personal honesty of those high-minded individuals.
In closing, I have no desire for my postings to be "taken seriously". The courtroom is the only arena in which I seriously seek to persuade "the audience". Most of us come to this playground with a personal world-view, which help shape our opinions and more than a few axes to grind. This forum is great little playground, nothing more, nothing less.
Good night - I mean it........
September 20th, 2006 at 11:57 pmGreat comments everyone -- except Mighty Hag, of course, who gets the Mr/Miss Condescending Award for the evening, as usual.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:04 amWhat keeps the Mighty Colostomy Bag coming back, I almost have compassion for her, It's almost sorry. I would forgive the Mighty asscannon if she wanted to change.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:22 am#71 MA
What IS vague is the directive in c.): “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;†I am ALL for a little humiliation if I can get one of these SOBs to give up a plot or cell. Personal dignity???? Give me a break!!!! They deserve the personal dignity of a toilet and sink, a bright light shining on their sorry selves and sleep deprivation. I would pipe in some gang-bang hippity-hop bass-laden “music†until they begged to talk so as to enjoy some peace and QUIET. If my methods appear harsh to you, remember your methods seem impotent to me.
A little humiliation. Do you suppose that's what it would take to get someone to give up a plot or a cell? Would it work on you? Would humiliation make you tell something that you really didn't want to? Probably not, especially since you think it's a trivial thing. So, why would humiliation work to get a terrorist, someone who was probably already prepared to be killed for what he was plotting, to spill his guts? The same goes for sleep deprivation and loud music. If it's no big deal, how's it supposed to work? Could you take the sleep deprivation and loud music? Could you handle hanging by your wrists for 18 hours or so?
I'm guessing that it would take more to get a real terrorist to crack than it would take to get you to say or do something you really didn't want to. So, your flippant dismissal of these interrogation tactics as being nothing to get upset about really doesn't have a lot of meaning.
MA, I wish we could have a little contest to see just what it would take to get you to do something you didn't want to do. What if we said we could make you scream like an 8-year-old girl? What do you think it would take to make you do that? I'll bet we could do it without breaking the skin or leaving a bruise. How long can you hold your breath?
YOU seem impotent to me.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:33 amI would forgive the Mighty asscannon if she wanted to change.
Comment by ForTruth
That's mighty thoughty of you, Truth. I'm sure Mighty Hag will come around now.
No matter what it says, that Hag is no lawyer.
Bitter? Yes. Lawyer? No.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:57 amWhy not use truth serums and LSD?
I believe you need to have reliable methods of getting information out of potential terrorists and criminals. What if one day someone has enough poison or weaponry to wipe out the world? That would be an emergency that requires drastic solutions.
However, you don't need torture to get info out of people. You can use psychoactive chemicals like truth serums and LSD to get info out of people.
But even then, I would only accept it with following 3 conditions:
1. The government was demonstrating moral authority and trustworthiness.
2. The emergency is real.
3. There was no workable alternative.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:39 amMarie,
Thank you. I apologize for not mentioning this sooner, but you've had some good stuff in here yourself. I always enjoy reading your posts. Keep it up.
Sadly I don't think she (MA) got the point. When I wrote about her opening remarks, I was reading her drivel on another thread. I wasn't referring specifically to this one, and I'm sure she knew that. But, as she said, she doesn't want to be "taken seriously", so I will do my best to not address her remarks directly. If she was in the least bit interested in having a serious discussion and trying to learn something, even if it's just how we think, i would gladly talk to her.
As for her views on the subject of this thread, I can only conclude that she needs help. Apparently she believes that cruel treatment toward another human being is acceptable behavior for a civilized person. Of course, she'll claim they deserve it because a few of them have committed atrocities in the name of their religion. But that does not mean that they all have, nor should they all be treated as though they have. And she doesn't seem to care that some of the people who were mistreated were innocent. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing to that alleged lawyer.
So, the only commenting I will do about anything she writes is to try to set the record straight on some of her misleading, strawman arguments for which she is so infamous here. But I wouldn't do it to try to change her mind, as she appears not to have a mind worth changing. Instead, because we do have a few honest conservatives who come here to try to learn how their opposition thinks, I would try to help them understand why we think some of the arguments we hear from them are invalid. It's why I come here, to learn. It's too bad she just wants to be a disruptive influence. I will no longer feel badly about how she is treated by the others. I'll stick to talking to the more mature ones from the other side.
Thanks again for your kind words. And you keep on doing what you're doing, kid. I like your style, too. Have a good one, today and every day. :)
September 21st, 2006 at 7:50 amHere is the problem with what happens on this blog... You have a person like Mighty Aphrodite who has a feeling on a particular subject, in this case torture, more specifically, the humiliation of prisoners of war. Then, realizing that her viewpoint differs from yours, you call her names instead of attempting to enlighten her. Then, in return, she calls you a name and then you go back and fourth for hours and everyone ends up a little bit dumber from the discourse.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:53 amI believe that MA knows she's not going to change minds by posting here, I think she's here to have her mind changed. She may be in denial about it, but I'm sure it's true none the less.
In response to MA's posts recently... The answer is pretty simple really. We (the United States) are above torture and humiliation. Saying that "we'll it's okay to torture a little bit", reduces us to their (the terrorists) level. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers have died in the past upholding the standards we Americans live by, not harming in any way a POW, is one of those standards. This president is very wrong on this issue on many fronts. After the 9/11 comission scolded him (and Clinton) for not thinking creatively in response to terrorism, Mr. Bush has decided to try different avenues. He's started wars, blown up cities, killed thousands of people, and now wants to use torture as a weapon. I submit to you that torture represents another LACK of thinking creatively, and is actually thinking regressively. My assessment of Mr. Bush is he has a little man complex. When a little man with a big mouth gets control of a military, it spells doom for people. I presume he may be pro torture because he's never had to deal with the other horrors of war... you know, death, mutilation, dismemberment. Or it's possibly because he was born with the pleasure of always being in control and never before having to think creatively. Either way, it makes no difference. He's dead wrong, and will cost the lives of many men in using such methods. MA, I supported this little weasel in the last election, for more personal reasons, and I too have been proven to be DEAD WRONG. Don't stay in the same trap as I was once in. you'll regret it later...
coachjason,
Have you read John W. Dean's two recent books "Worse Than Watergate" and "Conservatives Without Conscience"? I have nearly finished the second and I have found them very informative and very enlightening to one who wants to understand, for lack of a better term, "what went wrong" with the so-called "conservatives". (Spolier hint: they're not really conservatives). I also recommend "Bush on the Couch" if you would like some insight into what makes a person become so cruel inside. (Another spolier hint: Losing a sister that you love a lot to cancer and not being told by your parents that she was ever sick until after she died without a funeral could do it.)
Do keep coming back. Most of us welcome honest debate and discussion (which MA, by her own admission, had no interest in doing), and the majority of us prefer to avoid name-calling when possible, but like every rule there are exceptions. Gotta go. Talk to you later.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:33 amThanks Coach, for the pep talk!! I appreciate your input and insight.
I came from the other side of the political fence - perhaps we passed each other on the way. As a wide eyed idealist, I loved the caring theory of the liberal political side (we weren't called the euphimistically correct term "progressives"). I came to realize the movement was a slow, steady plodding toward Leftist radicalism. It was a "power grab" like most political or social movements. There were few if any problems the liberals could not fix - if only they had more government money for: education, housing, etc. etc. That sounded good to me!! Then I looked at education and realized two large components from the solution were missing and both were shored up by the Left.
The teachers unions protect their dues payers - NOT children. Talk about a "Through the Looking Glass" scenario. They wield power and shield the inept. The curriculum has been watered down to play to the lowest common denominator and adminstrative costs are top-heavy. Much more could be added, but I am pressed for time.
Booker T. Washington once lambasted what I refer to as the poverty peddlers. Funny thing is - if poverty wonderfylly, magically disappeared in one fell swoop, a whole bunch of people would be out of a non-profit organization paycheck. (Substibtute any offended group and you'd find the same thing.) Do I approve of cruel or mean behaviour - not at all. But in the Victim Industry, the goal is not eradication - it's perpetuation.
But the icing on the cake for me was the death of right and wrong. Illegitimacy is a prime example of WHAT today's children must suffer through.
One World sounds great - and abridges individuality. Tolerance is wonderful - until we are tempered to tolerate the intolerable.
I don't believe conservatives have all the answers or, more specifically that all conservative answers are correct. But the incrementalism toward the Left is like boiling a frog......Given the choice between "two evils", I choose the least evil.....
Sorry to hit and run - - BUSY day!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 21st, 2006 at 10:45 amSorry, Aphrodite, looks like you chose the dark side. BTW, it also looks like you can put together coherent sentences when you really want to, why don't you try it more often if you plan to continue posting here?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:41 amSORRY I MEANT RE:82
September 21st, 2006 at 12:09 pmRe:81
September 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pmWayne, I apologize but I try to stay away from political books. Ann Coulter can say her book is based on as much fact as Al Franken can. It gets into that hatred and name calling thing. Besides I can see for myself what went wrong with both parties and MA is right, they've been hijacked in a power struggle by extremists. It's truely sad where it leaves middle Americans. Both sides promise us the world, and neither has the nads to deliver.
coachjason,
I understand what you mean about political books like Franken's or Coulter's (although, personally, I would not classify them as the same in any way shape or form, but I won;t go into why). But John W. Dean is not like them. He considers himself a true Goldwater Conservative, and his latest book was supposed to be a collaboration with the late Senator. But in it he talks about how the current administration is not made up of conservatives but, rather, authoritarians who do not respect either conservative or liberal principles. It is also a warning about where this country could end up if people like that continue to be in power. And, if this helps persuade you at all, I consider myself a liberal liberatrian humanist, and I respect what he has to say, and not simply because it makes Bush and Cheney look bad. I highly recommend those two to everyone.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pmHey, Coach ...
I certainly sympathize with your point of view regarding engaging in respectful discussion. I can only tell you, though, that MA seems to come in with guns blazing every time. The very first time she responded to one of my posts, she attacked my character, my abilities as a lawyer (as if I actually cared!) and my knowledge of the law, despite the fact that I provided detailed citations to controlling legal precedents. Then, when confronted with the fact that I backed up my arguments with legal authority, she said I was "arrogant" and so forth. Her approach is to attack, insult, demean, etc. So, I have little sympathy for her ... though I do find her "smack downs" to be kinda funny now and then.
But more to the point: She says we need to "define" the requirements of Common Article III, but then says the requirements themselves are ridiculous. See her post No. 71. Far from supporting her view that "outrages upon personal dignity" is a vague phrase in need of "clarification," MA simply rejects that concept altogether. In her view, we should be able to commit "outrages upon personal dignity." The problem is, the U.S. signed off on Common Article III - which was nothing new, really, but a codification of long-standing rules of warfare that we had adhered to since at least the Civil War - so, we're bound by it. We don't get to pick and choose which provisions we like and which we don't.
And, her comments in No. 71 show that the whole point of "defining" or "clarifying" Common Article III is to define out of existence those provisions that the current administration doesn't like.
Finally, I object to her apparent embrace of moral relativity ... that is, if the bad guys are bad enough (e.g., al Qaeda), we don't have to live up to our own moral standards (e.g., Common Article III). Whatever happened to moral absolutes?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pmDear Coach - You are certainly correct in noting the power grab from both sides. Unfortunately for the ideologues in BOTH camps, issues are ALWAYS either/or.
Heartfelt progressives ARE here - the fact I can count them reiterates this point. I believe these people have genuine concern and compassion for the less fortunate. They care about helping disadvantaged people, animals and places.
The term "Caring Conservatives" is NOT an oxymoron. Many people and the institutions with which they are affiliated do alot to help others and the community. I can't for the life of me pretend that the huge monetary and material donations after our terror and natural disasters are supplied solely from the pockets and warehouses of progressives.
Sadly, a succinct and cursory way to sum up the differences between the competing ideologies might be:
**progressives seek more government involvement with an expansion of social welfare programs and relaxed social mores in regard to personal behaviour. This is due to honest compassion by progressive adherents. (This is NOT to suggest that progressives have cornered the wholesale immorality market. Quite the opposite is true.) Progressives relish their "tolerance".
**conservatives seek less sustained government programs of social welfare, not to punish people, but to help people realize their full potential. Many conservatives believe that time-tested social mores concerning family and children ought to be sustained.
Coming from a family where political argument is considered a sport, I have often enjoyed the forum here. As my dear mother used to say, "If I wanted to hear only MY ideas, I'd get a talking parrot."
To your suggestion that discomfort and physical torture are the same, I respectfully disagree. I do wish we could obtain information from our enemy simply by asking. I agree that torture produces answers designed to halt suffering, and for that reason is unreliable. I agree that we are better than enemies. But I believe minor discomfort such as sleep deprivation or loud music is acceptable. (Would that our enemies thought the same!?!)
It is interesting to note, as you do, the desire for many in the world to partake of the wonderful opportunities here. A delightful oxymoron for those who relish the fact the American government is hated. That is why the patient slide of progressivism seeks the same ultimate goals as radicalism - the same end - just a slower pace.
I'm off to the airport......have a great day!
September 21st, 2006 at 2:17 pmM.A. and Dave von Ebers,
September 21st, 2006 at 3:07 pmI think a part of the problem is that when a conservative happens on this site, the first thing we see is this outright seething hatred for anyone calling themselves a Christian or a conservative. Like backing a dog into a corner, our first instinct is to bite. So we get a little emotional and defensive. I don't know for sure, bet I'd bet my life savings that the same can be said for a liberal who goes to a conservative blog. If you read her last 2 posts, MA is thoughtful, sensitive, and cognitive remarks. Her feelings towards her fellow man (woman) basically mirror that of many liberals who post on this site. She does get defensive when someone attacks her religion, as I know I tend to do the same... This desparity unfortunately does not stop here on this blog, it goes all the way to the congress and white house. an intolerable hatred by the same people who daily tell us not to hate others. all because I believe the teachings of Jesus. I don't need anyone else to believe them, I would just like... no I expect a little bit more respect than I'm (we're) usually shown. I don't mean you Dave, I just mean progressives in general. We've engaged in good conversations despite our differences because of our respect for one another. If others, from both parties, would just try to do the same... much more could be accomplished.
Funny thing; I recently typed "American political parties" into wikipaedia and I saw that there was a "liberal republican party" back in the 1800's (around Lincoln's time). It didn't last long, but wouldn't it be great if people could work together like that just one more time. Republicans and Democrats working hand in hand not behind each others backs...
File that under "pipe-dream". I guess I'll just have to get that satisfaction here, conversing with the intellectual liberal progressives, who share some of the same visions I have of America...
Sorry again for hijacking another thread!
P.S.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:07 pmM.A. have a safe flight.
[...] He was joined by three other former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs — Gen. John Vessey, Gen. John Shalikashvili and Admiral William Crowe. Moments ago, McCain’s office announced that a fifth former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Hugh Shelton, has publically declared his objections. Shelton said Bush’s plan “would signal that the U.S. ‘is attempting to water down’ its obligations and would be an ‘egregious mistake.’†Watch CNN’s report: [...]
September 21st, 2006 at 3:16 pmRE: 92
Here's conclusion most without military service won't draw... The sargeants and majors, any officer for that matter, want to make a name for themselves... most do so by winning on the battlefield. You will NEVER hear from someone in command that a battle cannot be won. EVER
Which leaves what these generals say open to 2 possibilities.
1. They have a political agenda against the president and his minions and have been enlisted by the opposing party to say as much.
2. They are right and their warnings need to be heeded.
I would prefer that the former is the truth, I submit that it is most likely the latter.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pmMA, in No. 71, you state:
"What IS vague is the directive in c.): “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;†I am ALL for a little humiliation if I can get one of these SOBs to give up a plot or cell. Personal dignity???? Give me a break!!!! They deserve the personal dignity of a toilet and sink, a bright light shining on their sorry selves and sleep deprivation. I would pipe in some gang-bang hippity-hop bass-laden “music†until they begged to talk so as to enjoy some peace and QUIET. If my methods appear harsh to you, remember your methods seem impotent to me.
Oddly, though, you don't tell us why you think the quoted language is vague. Instead, you say that you are "ALL for a little humiliation" ... which is directly contrary to the language of Common Article III. Then you say "Personal dignity???? Give me a break!!!! They deserve the personal dignity of a toilet and sink ..." which, again, is a rejection of the requirements of Common Article III.
In other words, under the guise of claiming that Common Article III is vague, you are actually arguing that those aspects you disagree with - i.e., the provisions of Common Article III that prohibit humiliation and outrages upon personal dignity - should not apply to captives in GWOT. So, my comment that you are, in effect, definging those provisions out of existence is, um, right on point.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:53 pmCoach (re No. 90), I agree that civility is sometimes in short supply around here. Which is precisely why I've come to your defense on occasion. That, and the fact that I am interested in what you have to say.
But the very first time I engaged in any sort of back-and-forth dialouge with the Mighty One (on a thread dealing with whether the federal judge in Michigan should have recused herself from hearing the case against the Bush administration over the NSA warrantless wiretapping program), she responded to a lengthy post of mine as follows: "Dear Dave, Esq, You Insufferable Prig/Prog - I suppose you were the same kind of weasel who did other students’ briefs - for a fee…"
And, of course, she utterly failed to respond to the substance of my arguments.
This is a trend that has gone on, over and over and over again, every time I try to engage her in rational debate. Now, you may be right - she may have been treated rudely from day one, and so she expects us all to be jerks - but I find her attacks to be, well, rather humorous.
You, on the other hand, are always respectful and I appreciate that.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:11 pmDave,
September 21st, 2006 at 6:29 pmI can't thank you enough for the hospitality you have shown me here. I was giving MA the benefit of the doubt... maybe I spoke too soon. I'll let the jury decide (lol)...
Again, on her behalf, sometimes the substance of a post is overlooked if insults are included... not that you insulted her... just that maybe she got short-sighted. Like you, I do see the humor in her from time to time... sometimes she even makes sense (at least to me).
Maybe an offer to wipe the slate clean and start over with no insults would interest her... like Kurt Russell said in "Big Trouble in Little China", Hey, you never know til you try...
If it helps, I don't think you are ALL jerks, just the ones who don't agree with me (hehe).
Coach, I've got to tell you, that's the first "Big Trouble in Little China" reference I've seen on this or any other blog.
Outstanding!
September 21st, 2006 at 6:41 pmIf it helps, I don’t think you are ALL jerks, just the ones who don’t agree with me (hehe).
Comment by coachjason
Now that's the kind of sense of humor some of us enjoy. Civility will get you a long way with many of us, coachjason. I hope you'll find that many liberals can explain themselves quite well and will not sound as insane as some would have you believe. I invite you to challenge us on our facts and demand we explain our opinions. The intellectual exercise is quite fun for many of us, and it helps someone to re-examine his or her beliefs from time to time. That's when one learns that some of the bases for one's opinion no longer apply today.
There is nothing wrong with being conservative, as long as there's open-mindedness. What many of us see in the Republicans in Congress, and especially in the White House, is a total unwillingness to even briefly entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, they might not be right. And that's not being "resolute" or "strong-willed" or "determined", that's just being stubborn.
Keep on visiting us, coachjason. Stick around long enough, debate fairly and squarely (no making up bullshit facts like some do), and you'll earn the respect you deserve. But lapse into mindless unnecessary personal attacks (as opposed to merely attacking an idea, which is fine) and you'll quickly get the same treatment you've seen others get. Looking forward to hearing what you have to say in the future. Don't be a stranger.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:57 pmDave and Wayne,
September 21st, 2006 at 7:19 pmIt is pretty much an assumption that you are a republican if you are on the transport to Iraq... It's not much talked about, but you support your commander in chief no matter who it is. After I returned I fell into the Rush and Hannity trap of believing liberals are ruining the country. When in fact, from my observations, it's the extremists on both sides keeping the rest of us at war with one another that is costing us this war and this country.
I noticed something funny today. Nancy Piolosi called Hugo Chavez a "thug" and ridiculed his entire speech yesterday from the U.N. What got me about that is she really doesn't like Bush at all, yet she defended him in a way. Kind of like you can say or do whatever you want to your brothers and sisters... but nobody else is allowed to. Kudos to Nancy...
Dave, May the wings of liberty never lose a feather...
MA uses a broom! She only has to go to the airport because all fluids are banned on flights originating from or entering US airspace can not carry fluids. The next graduating class from the Air Force Academy will be mummified. This will also apply to all passengers in Cabin Class as well as those without a return ticket in First Class.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pmErase " can not carry fluids" from the prior post, bitte.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:01 pmThis is why we don't take MA seriously. He's a liar:
I’m off to the airport……have a great day!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 21, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Comment by mighty+aphrodite — September 21, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 10:16 pm#103 - unbelievable,
September 21st, 2006 at 10:35 pmMTAP could still be on the tarmac... Three hours through check-in, three hours waiting for W's AF1 to get far enough away to escape hostal fire from a civilian Airliner and then two hours on the taxiway. When JFK was president, I was twice able to wave to him as AF1 got priority, but we took off about two or three minutes later.
Coach - right back atcha.
And, regarding the Pelosi comment (Hugo Chavez is a thug) - I would use a different analogy. To me, her defending Bush is like the way a Bears fan (that'd be me) feels about the Green Bay Packers. I hate 'em ... until their in the playoffs against (take your pick) the 49ers, the Giants, the Eagles, the Rams ... Hey, the Packers may be jerks, but they're OUR jerks! (And I'd take Brett Favre over Joe Montana any day of the week ... even if he doesn't know how to pronounce his own name ...)
(Though as a Big 10 fan, I'm not so sure I can be that generous when it comes to Michigan. But hey, that's Michigan. I mean, c'mon ... they have the most obnoxious fans in the world. They make Notre Dame fans look good. Why, Michigan football fans are worse than Duke basketball fans, fer Chrissakes. .... Okay, have I offended nearly everyone by now?)
September 21st, 2006 at 10:36 pm#101 - - "MA uses a broom! She only has to go to the airport because all fluids are banned on flights..." Walt the Man
That Walt!!! Letting the secret of my broom out!!! You're going to spoil a good thing - Mr. Aphrodite thinks I've been racking up frequent flyer miles....
#103 - "This is why we don’t take MA seriously. He’s a liar:
I’m off to the airport……have a great day!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — September 21, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Comment by mighty+aphrodite — September 21, 2006 @ 3:25 pm"
Comment by unbelievable
*********I suppose when they get laptops and wi-fi in Podunk, GA you'll get up to speed.....FYI - You shouldn't eat your Blackberry.....
September 21st, 2006 at 11:23 pmLAW OF KARMA SAYS GUILTY
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:37 amLIARS/LAWYERS CAN'T CHANGE UNIVERSAL LAWS
KARMA IS INEVITABLE
Re: 105
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 amDave,
Great analogy bro...
I live in Ohio, so that automatically makes me an Ohio State fan (Go Bucks...currently #1in bcs). I agree Michigan SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you're aboslutely right about Brett Favvvvrrreee/Farrrvvveee (you know, Cameron diaz's old boyfriend in Something About Mary) Geez I'm on a roll with obscure movie references lately!!!
My point about Nancy Piloisi (sp) is right, Bush may be a little bitch... but he's our bitch and we'll handle it thanks. No you kids go back to the clubhouse and spew your hatred there, we adults will clean up our own messes here. Adios!
RE:107
DOYOUSEE,
I thought KARMA was a chamelion?
108
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 amThat was supposed to say NOW you kids... obviously not a good typer am I?
[...] This is an easy issue for Democrats to filibuster. The military is overwhelmingly against this and 63% of Americans think we should follow the Geneva Convetion when it comes to torture. [...]
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmI suppose when they get laptops and wi-fi in Podunk, GA you’ll get up to speed…..FYI - You shouldn’t eat your Blackberry…..
Comment by mighty+aphrodite — September 21, 2006 @
You probably haven't noticed that you get exceptionally bitchy when you've been caught in a lie. Just like you keep failing to notice that you really are a man.
Once again, you validate the fact that you are a liar. And are immature.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmblack ops a must watch latest
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:22 pmhttp://www.uruknet.org.uk/?p=m26886&hd=0&size=1&l=e
Hey, Coach - I'm okay with Ohio State (in fact, I LOVED the way they kicked Texas a couple of weeks ago!), but I'm still a wee bit upset that they ruined my Illini's perfect basketball season in 2004-05. Course, I'm more upset about how the Tar Heels handed my Illini their second loss that season, so I can forgive the Buckeyes.
(By the way, through no fault of her own, my ex was - and, I presume, still is - a big time Wolverine fan ... so, you see, it's a little personal with me.)
September 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pm160 democrats voted against a bill that not only provides a clear and concise method of detaining and interrogating terrorists, but gives the terrorists more legal options than German POWs had in america during WWII. This just proves that the democrats do not want to protect us from these monsters. They are more concerned with giving terrorists protections under the geneva convention, even though they never signed it and aren't entitled to their protections. They voted against this because they don't want to give a victory to Bush and they know that their kook base would leave them high and dry in november if they voted for it.
Apparently the demos want Miranda rights read on the battlefields. And they think we'll believe them when they say they will be tough on terrorists? Please
September 28th, 2006 at 6:27 pm