Graham ‘Heartened’ By Mukasey’s Waterboarding Dodge: ‘He Did Himself Some Good’
Graham ‘Heartened’ By Mukasey’s Waterboarding Dodge: ‘He Did Himself Some Good’
On CBS’ Face The Nation this past Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) commented on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s refusal to classify waterboarding as torture, saying that he is “convinced” the technique “is clearly illegal under domestic and international law.”
“I hope he will give a direct answer to that question” and “embrace” the view that it is torture, said Graham:
I am urging him that he needs to come forward. … I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention common article three, the War Crimes statutes, and many other statutes that are in place. So I do hope that he will embrace that.
Watch it:
Graham changed his tune yesterday, however, after Mukasey again refused to explicitly say whether he believed the interrogation technique was torture, instead calling it a “hypothetical.” Graham said in interviews that he was “heartened” by Mukasey’s letter and that it “helped his cause“:
I think Judge Mukasey did himself some good with this letter. He helped his cause with me.
As CNN’s Ed Henry pointed out yesterday, with the careful wording of his letter, Mukasey “essentially” dodged “the question of whether legally waterboarding is torture.” Instead, his letter said only that it was “over the line” and “repugnant” on “a personal basis.”
Watch an example of Mukasey’s “hypothetical” technique here.
UPDATE: During a hearing on FISA today, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) indicated he was satisfied with Mukasey’s response as well:
I think we need extensive assurances. But as I carefully read Judge Mukasey’s letter, I don’t know how much more he could say than what he has said, considering the exposure to people in collateral circumstances and considering the impossibility of predicting what may be faced with respect to a future potential danger, if the so-called ticking bomb hypothetical were to reach fruition.
UPDATE II: Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced today that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its vote on Mukasey on Tuesday, Nov. 6.
UPDATE III: “A senior Senate Democrat” told the Hill that “Mukasey’s nomination had no chance of passing the Judiciary Committee” if he doesn’t classify waterboarding as torture.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
In his written responses to questions from Senate Democrats regarding waterboarding and other issues, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey almost exactlty regurgitated Alberto Gonzales’ 2005 assertion to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) that “what we’re really discussing is a hypothetical situation.”
For the details, see:
October 31st, 2007 at 11:52 am“Mukasey Now and Gonzales Then: Discussions of Torture ‘Hypothetical.’”
Jesus H. Christ - this man is nothing more than another bootlicking Bushtoady.
TORTURE IS WRONG. Period.
I’m so sick of these malignant idiots who want to bring the Inquisition to America!!!
October 31st, 2007 at 11:56 amThis guy is another radical in moderates clothing. He is parsing his words like Alberto Gonzales and the last thing we need is another Bush loyalist as Attorney General.
If he does not understand waterboarding, I would be happy to demonstrate it on him and let him as a fully informed individual make the decision as to its definition as torture.
Enough of these cronies and enough of this criminal bunch in the White House, impeachment is the solution.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:56 amCrap. They ought to waterboard Lindsay Graham.
Perhaps it would do him some good.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:57 amWhat a surprise. Graham towing the party line.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:57 amFor a dope gitmo waterboarding t-shirt, and info on waterboarding hit up http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
October 31st, 2007 at 11:58 amIs anyone surprised by Sen Lindsay “five rugs for five bucks” Graham pulling a Specter? Someone in the WH got to him, obviously.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:00 pmThis country is governed by weak, spineless people. If we get the government we deserve, do we deserve to be seen as a nation without laws? Do we deserve to be reviled around the world? Do we deserve to have our brave soldiers subjected to the same torture techniques we are presently debating. Think about those words: The USA is debating whether or not a technique - which has been illegal for decades - is actually torture. The Geneva Convention says its torture. We prosecuted Americans for this technique in the past - but now we are debating whether it is ok to subject an innocent person to cruel and inhuman punishment.
Mr Bush has truly transformed this once proud country into a planetary laughing stock. And where are the Dems on all this? ……..That’s what I thought.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pmHere is what Mukasy has said about waterboarding:
“It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else.â€
As TIME magazine reports, “That is about as strong a statement as one is likely to get from a nominee under the circumstances and should have been enough to satisfy Democrats. But their goal is not simply to get Mukasey on the record with regard to waterboarding but publicly to corner Bush and the Administration…’
As the article indicates, Mukasey has given an answer that satisfies the Democrats’ alleged concerns. But the Democrats are ignoring that in order to try and score political points. The Democrats couldn’t care less about waterboarding.
What is particularly comical is the fact that Congress (which the Democrats control) can simply pass legislation that define waterboarding as torture and which prohibits any U.S. agency (military, intelligence, or civilian) from engaging in the practice.
They have chosen not to do so because they don’t want to stop alleged acts of waterboarding. They want the issue.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pmGraham and Specter jump across the fence so often that they finally just installed a gate.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pmTo anyone with a lung embolysm, waterboarding is a death sentence.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pmIst Lindsay a good little Nazi? Jawohl!
List Lindsay a good little Brownshirt? Jawohl!
Do we want Lindsay to be waterboarded? Jawohl!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pmIn the spirit of the Holiday…
‘Fie Fi Fo Fum, I smell the fear of Repuliscum’
October 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pmExley, can you answer the question? Is waterboarding torture?
No weasel words, no “If I could save the planet, I would waterboard a raghead”, just a simple yes or no.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pmThey are war criminals.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pmI mean, if Junior killed his uncle dick,
would there have to be impeachment before arrest for murder ?
Good Gawd, stop them now.
As the article indicates, Mukasey has given an answer that satisfies the Democrats’ alleged concerns.
Not this Democrat, Exley. Why don’t you stick to telling us what YOU think and let us express what WE think ourselves? Waterboarding is torture, period. It has been and should be treated as immoral and illegal, period. Mukasey should say that explicitly if he is to be supported as AG, period. If asked if killing someone to take his money was murder, would it be acceptable for Mukasey to give the same kind of “hypothetical” dodge answer?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pmWhat is particularly comical is the fact that Congress (which the Democrats control) can simply pass legislation that define waterboarding as torture and which prohibits any U.S. agency (military, intelligence, or civilian) from engaging in the practice.
They have chosen not to do so because they don’t want to stop alleged acts of waterboarding. They want the issue.”
Comment by Exley
No, they know Bush can just nullify it with a signing statement. Haven’t you been paying attention?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:14 pmWhat is particularly comical is the fact that Congress (which the Democrats control) can simply pass legislation that define waterboarding as torture and which prohibits any U.S. agency (military, intelligence, or civilian) from engaging in the practice.
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
And I’m sure Bush will sign that legislation into law without a blink. Or a signing statement.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pmNanlichi,
My honest answer is, “I don’t know.” It is certainly unpleasant. I have seen it demonstrated on a reporter doing a story on it. He described it as frightening and unnerving, but just moments after it was over, he was physically fine. So, at first glance it doesn’t appear to be torture as I have understood it in the past….
However, having said that, McCain’s POW experience and Graham’s experience as a military lawyer lends great credence to their assertion that it is a form of torture and is very persuasive to me.
Legally, it does not appear (to my knowledge) to be specifically barred as an interrogation techique under U.S. law. That is why I said, if Congress wants to legally define waterboarding as torture, they are free to do so.
At this point, it seems the public relations hit we take to our status in the world for not coming right out and saying waterboarding is torture and we do not engage in it is not worth whatever information we may get from a terrorist who may have been waterboarded.
So, that is a very long-winded way of saying, “I’m not sure.” As I said, it is undoubtedly frightening, unnerving and unpleasant. Does it cross the line, however, into torture. I am really not sure (But that admittedly appears to be a minority opinion under some international (and U.S. Army) guidelines).
October 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pmExley, if he said it elsewhere, why won’t he repeat it before Congress?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pmComment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
That t-shirt has already been worn Ex.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:19 pmSo, that is a very long-winded way of saying, “I’m not sure.†-EX
This man would be in a position to decide that very question and to say he is ‘not sure’ means he is not competent, I say, for the job he would be required to do. He may as well have said “I dont recall” and get it over with now.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:24 pm#21 pbg,
It is my understanding he did say:
“It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else.â€
before Congress.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm“He described it as frightening and unnerving, but just moments after it was over, he was physically fine.”
how often are you willfully naive?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pmLet’s waterboard Mukasey and then ask him about it.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pmI’m for Water boarding all Republicans. Maybe, then, just maybe, they will do what is right and start telling the truth. I think it could be a useful tool in politics.
Since it’s not torture, I guess they won’t object to being water boarded. It is a character building experience and they deserve it.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pmMike has been told by Cheney to cover his butt and not answer the question. Graham knows that and is
October 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pmfollowing the orders of Dick. Graham will soon have his
secrets come out and that wont be pretty. Some wont be surprised but the people of his State will know what kind of man is representing them. Graham never served in the Military you have to wonder why.
Now he’s all Military with the answers but when the
US called for men to serve Graham wasn’t a man or at lease didn’t act like one.
Mike will have bigger problems then not answering the question of waterboarding. When the UN bring charges against the Bush Administration for War Crimes the answer to waterboarding will come up. Yes
as the victims of torture done by the United States are
heard with their medical records as proof we will see
the Bush Administration will be found guilty.
Also - Diane Rehm’s show today is all about the definition of torture.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pmThe recalcitrance to admit it is torture is an implicit admission that he foresees the reasonable possibility, if not the likelihood, that he is going to be called upon to defend it. It seems to me the discussion should all be framed somewhat differently:
“It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else.â€
“Are there any circumstances in which you, as attorney general, would attempt to defend its usage?”
And: “Are there any circumstances under which you would attempt to defend the usage of waterboarding?”
And: “Are you saying that ‘context’ is an issue in the sense of exactly how the waterboarding is performed, or in the sense of what circumstances exist external to the act of waterboarding?”
October 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pm…ho hummm… whodduthunkit…
…
HEY! SHUT THAT CLOSET DOOR!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pm.
For a dope gitmo waterboarding t-shirt, and info on waterboarding hit up http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
Comment by desaparecido — October 31, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Dude, you are shameless!!!
:)
October 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pmWaterboarding is defined as torture in U.S. and international law. People have been tried, convicted and executed for using it as an “interrogation technique”. The question, as it applies to Mukasey, is actually rhetorical.
The real question, the one between the lines, is; “Mr. Mukasey. Will you continue your predecessor’s policy of placing party loyalty above the U.S. constitution”?
I think that Mr. Mukasey’s response can be considered a resounding “Yes! Absolutely! Party trumps patriotism!”
Unfortunately, I don’t believe our esteemed legislators will view it as such and we will end up with another rubber stamp for Bushco.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pmSo, that is a very long-winded way of saying, “I’m not sure.†As I said, it is undoubtedly frightening, unnerving and unpleasant. Does it cross the line, however, into torture. I am really not sure (But that admittedly appears to be a minority opinion under some international (and U.S. Army) guidelines).
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
We went all over and over this. Water boarding or the water cure has been acknowledged as a form of torture since the Inquisition and has been condemned as such repeatedly. An American major was court martialed for using it in the Philippines in 1902 and it was explicitly defined as torture during the war crimes trials of Japanese military leaders after WWII.
Under what possible scenario is it not torture, Exley? And none of this “we were training” or “we were pretending to experience” waterboarding as evidence that it isn’t torture. People held in prison or camps being waterboarded by the CIA, US military or Al Qaeda have no expectation that it’s just a game.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pmIt ain’t hypothetical when you’re choking and sucking water into your lungs!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pmExley,
To me, this is not a fuzzy “us vs them” issue, waterboarding is torture. Case closed. We have convicted and executed war criminals for waterboarding, we have court martialed our own officers for waterboarding. If Irananians were waterboarding our soldiers there would no question as to whether it was torture now would it?
What’s going on here is that this administration has been condoning waterboarding (and what else we may never know), and the guilt runs to the top.
If Mukasey says it is illegal, he would be agreeing that past acts of waterboarding were illegal, and expose Bush, Gonzo and Dick and the whole mess to criminal proceedings. Mukasey can’t do that. So instead of a clear answer, we get the tautology that “America doesn’t torture, therefore America doesn’t tortureâ€.
I am frankly surprised that this issue is not one that unites us but one that continues to divide us along partisan lines.
Has Bush really done that great of a job of dividing us into separate tribes?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pmLet’s waterboard the punk Graham and then ask hin about it. The USA used to be the good guys.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmHas Bush really done that great of a job of dividing us into separate tribes?
Comment by nanlichi — October 31, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Yes and no. Yes, we are that divided. No, Bush is as much a symptom as a cause.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pmArlen Specter - comes out tough, gets the headlines, then always caves in. The man has no scruples whatsoever.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pmDamn those Irananians!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pmWater-board, water-bored whats the big freekin deal? Bunch of city slicker panty waste sissys. The US special forces water-board each other just to see what its like and I don’t think it rises to the level of “destruction of government property†Hell, I water-boarded myself the other day just to see what the big deal was, I told myself everything I wanted to know in about 30 seconds.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
That’s because everything you know fits into 30 seconds.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pmi just read a very good example of transferance, i think, @ 12:01…
here… i’ll FIX it:
But the REPUGS are ignoring that in order to try and score political points. The REPUGS couldn’t care less about ABORTION ET AL.
What is particularly comical is the fact that Congress (WHEN the REPUGS controlED IT) can simply pass legislation that define ABORTION ET AL as ILLEGAL and which prohibits any ONE from engaging in the practice.
They have chosen not to do so because they don’t want to stop ABORTION ET AL. They want the issue.
.
eh? … sorry for the OT… just wanted to point that out…
the exley is a most insidious of plants…
October 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pmbut you know that…
…
Comment by nanlichi — October 31, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Well said
October 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pmThat our America - our beautiful America - should actually fall so low that we have to have a national argument over whether or not to torture people is simply heartbreaking.
* America *
October 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm1776-2001
Instead of an Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week we need to send all these torture doubters off to a water boarding, stress position… Awareness Week.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pmHell, I water-boarded myself the other day just to see what the big deal was, I told myself everything I wanted to know in about 30 seconds.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
So, you lied to yourself. We’ve been trying to tell you that waterboarding is ineffective in obtaining truth as well as immoral and illegal.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pmCrap. They ought to waterboard Lindsay Graham.
Comment by Leftside Annie
Uh, I think they did.
Graham changed his tune yesterday, however…
October 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pmWRONG! Because if I had lied to myself I would have found out about it and came back and beat the crap out of myself therefor telling the truth kept me from a ass-beating.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
uhm, I hate to be the one to tell you but brain damage due to a beating can result in loss of memory and judgment.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pmI was involved in a pretty detailed discussion of this yesterday, and found the arguments against this practice pretty persuasive. I have a question and a comment:
1. JMOHR said he had this done to him in SERE training, and while he emphatically stated it was a horrible experience I didn’t get an answer from him about whether he - having undergone it - would never advocate using it on AQ. Did I miss his answer, or is he around? Since he has firsthand knowledge his view counts for more than others.
2. According to the Geneva convention, non-uniformed, non-state combatants such as AQ do not enjoy the protections the Treaty offers regular soldiers. AQ is not a signatory to the treaty, and the treaty itself specifies that terrorists posing as civilians aren’t covered by it.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pmwhat is “heartbreaking†is that there are any number of Islamofacists that spend all of their waking hrs trying to figure out a way to kill you and me…
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
So are you regularly heartbroken by mythical creatures? How about leprechauns or pegasuses?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:18 pmIt seems odd that a gay homophobe would make such a comment. More to the point, it is odd that the GOP would offer a gay homophobe the opportunity to display his love of both torture, and obstruction of justice?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pmAre Linda and Larry the only kind of GOP representatives? And perhaps someone can answer this one; are closeted gay men that are homophobic more likely to also be masochistic physically as well as mentally? It would be the indication of serious psychological problems that would seem to preclude them from being an objective voice on torture.
Yeah, how dare the Iraqis fight to get an occupying force out of their country.
Your statement is unbelievably ignorant. Have you been to Iraq? Have you walked a day in their shoes? I didn’t think so. The majority that have been killed have been minding their own business. Guess who is doing the “killing for ideology”. If they don’t want us there, why are we there? How do you give freedom to someone if you ignore their wishes?
Glad you talk so tough and are really doing so much to help our great country be a leader again.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pmBy the way, you should see the unbelievable sunrises in Iraq.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:25 pmAnyone that would name themselves “toasterhead†has issues….and they could include the make believe world of…well their own making…..what color are the bunny rabbits there in you head toast?
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
True. I have a lot of issues I care about, including my country’s slow creep towards a fascist dictatorship, and the use of made-up threats like “Islamofascism” to justify and enable it.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pmTrue. I have a lot of issues I care about, including my country’s slow creep towards a fascist dictatorship, and the use of made-up threats like “Islamofascism†to justify and enable it.
Comment by toasterhead — October 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Ssssh. Billy’s been smoking them alder leaves again.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pmWRONG! Because if I had lied to myself I would have found out about it and came back and beat the crap out of myself therefor telling the truth kept me from a ass-beating.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
uhm, I hate to be the one to tell you but brain damage due to a beating can result in loss of memory and judgment.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Then HillBilly must have been beaten regularly as a child, by his alcoholic father. That would also explain his debilitating fear, which his cynical leaders use to manipulate him so easily.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pmI told myself everything I wanted to know in about 30 seconds.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Well since you don’t know anything about anything what took you so long?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pm“I chose to spend all my time around what I have built for myself.”
translation: ‘i have chosen to be sheltered’
October 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pmI would not wish to waste one minute of my life in that filthy country. I chose to spend all my time around what I have built for myself. Your emotional outbursts causes you to lose cognitive thought. If your Iraqis were to stop shooting and killing the shooting and killing would stop. Period! The message has been sent but not received. That is their problem as long as they wish it to be.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
No you cowards always prefer to have real men do your dirty work for you. Again, you know nothing about anything, right after I said that you gave us another demonstration. Thanks for providing proof. I think you have a fresh bowl of lead paint chips to munch on, better get it while it’s cold.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pmWhy would you chose to disparage a great man you have never known and have no clue about just to try to cause me hurt….what kind of a person are you?
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Another falacy, no great man would give birth to selfish, cowardly scum like you. My guess is you never met your father and you are defending a fictional father figure. It’s that authoritarian personality you rethugs are known for.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pmAnd if a gang of jack-booted thugs decided to camp out where you have “built for yourself”, after bombing all your services and killing half your relatives, would you feel inclined to shoot at them?
October 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pmCome on sista, you can do betta.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Sadly, you can’t.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pmThen HillBilly must have been beaten regularly as a child, by his alcoholic father. That would also explain his debilitating fear, which his cynical leaders use to manipulate him so easily.
Comment by shoeless — October 31, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Why would you chose to disparage a great man you have never known and have no clue about just to try to cause me hurt….what kind of a person are you?
Comment by Billy Hill
I’m a person who does not give in to abject fear and send young people off to a “filthy country” to die, while cowering at home “around what I have built for myself”.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pmAnd if a gang of jack-booted thugs decided to camp out where you have “built for yourselfâ€, after bombing all your services and killing half your relatives, would you feel inclined to shoot at them?
Comment by pete — October 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
It would be too funny if Blackwater built it’s next encampment right next to hillbilly wouldn’t it. They could use him for target practice. And he’s such a good little Nazi he’d run out and thank them for using him.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:41 pmAny negative emotion you FEEL by informing one of a possible problem is in and of its self a problem……..DEAL WITH IT! It is obvious you do not have the qualifications to make that diagnosis so please take the elemental route through life and act on you “feelings†rather the cognitive thought….it will feel better.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Says the guy who claims to have waterboarded himself and by such a scientific experiment declared waterboarding to not be torture. Says the guy whose posts are becoming increasingly emotional through the progression of this thread. Says the guy who couldn’t tell that I was simply playing along with the “waterboarded myself” post in a funny manner.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:49 pmMr. Graham is the epitome of a lying sack of shit Christian.
He will look you in the eyes, lie directly to you, and then turn around and spout that he is a Christian.
It use to be - that I could stomach him - wait a minute - no actually I could never stomach him - he was the hypocritical lier pushing the impeachment of the President because he got a blow job.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pmIf your Iraqis were to stop shooting and killing the shooting and killing would stop. Period! The message has been sent but not received. That is their problem as long as they wish it to be.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 31, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
So in addition to believing in leprechauns, pegasuses, and Islamofascists, you also believe a civil war can be halted by some isolated Midwesterner saying “stop killing each other.”
They make very strong medications for people like you.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pmMr. Graham is the epitome of a lying sack of shit Christian.
He will look you in the eyes, lie directly to you, and then turn around and spout that he is a Christian.
It use to be - that I could stomach him - wait a minute - no actually I could never stomach him - he was the hypocritical lier pushing the impeachment of the President because he got a blow job.
Comment by totallynext
Graham pushed just impeachement because he was mad at Bill Clinton for getting a blow job from a young woman, rather than from a middle aged, closeted, homophobic, homosexual, male, Republican Senator from South Carolina.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Hell, I water-boarded myself the other day”
is that what you kids are calling these days? keep it up and you’ll go blind.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pmseriously though, way to undermine what little credibility you might have had by saying one of the stupidest, “darwin award”-worthy things ever posted here.
Another falacy, no great man would give birth to selfish, cowardly scum like you. My guess is you never met your father and you are defending a fictional father figure. It’s that authoritarian personality you rethugs are known for.
Comment by Shayne — October 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
No matter how hard you try Shaynie you cant make me break a smile, you see my dear, I am so secure in who I am and WHO I came from and where I am going even the worst day is a good day for me. I wish you only the best and please, girl, take a Midol.
Comment by Billy Hill
As you can see Shayne, pathetic, fearful authoritarian grovelers fall victim to a sort of Stockholm Syndrom, in which they become sympathetic to the authority figure who constantly abuses them. Their self-esteem sinks so low that they come to believe that they deserve their daily beatings and thus accept and even welcome the abuse. These are the pathetic, damaged, terrified people whom totalitarians, like Bush, Cheney, ect., use to support their diabolical regimes.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pm““credibility†in this forum is the least of my goals”
mission accomplished.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pmDon’t let Billy Hill derail this post. She shows up and starts spouting BS until someone confronts her. Then she keeps slinging hash until someone else confronts her. After a few of these iterations, the thread is hijacked to be about Ms Billy Hill. Ms Billy Hill is a loser, and a traitor to our beloved Constitution. She should not be given any attention because you will never convince her to see things as you do.
Being part of the 24%r’s has its advantages - She feels part of the team of delusional chickenhawks. Ignore her and she will go away…
October 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pmGraham, like TRAITOR Bush, is a christian. Note the lower-case “c”.
They do NOT follow the Word of Jesus Christ in that they KILL, LIE and do it in the Name of the Almighty God.
Graham and Bush BOTH need to have their faces SMASHED until bloody.
It may not happen in THIS life, but when they DIE and go to hell, where they belong, their MASTER Satan will do the honors.
He LOVES their EVIL ways SO MUCH…
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
October 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pmMukasey is another TRAITOR like WAR CRIMINAL Bush the MURDERER coxucker PUNK.
He was the judge that let Ali Mohamed go, the dual FBI/Bin Laden agent.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
October 31st, 2007 at 2:31 pmIt is so easy for a neocon to “digress down a logic gate” (sic - or a logicAL path ) “to total absurdity” and then to be gleefully amused about it. No wonder all their domestic and foreign policies are such prime examples.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pmPerhaps we find it difficult to find the humor in torture and other crimes against humanity? Perhaps “progressive thinking” is just that. Thinking. As opposed to blind faith and indoctrination. Perhaps we find it difficult to accept the claims of happiness by bitter, narrow-minded, hateful trolls? Perhaps progressives desire their grandchildren will live in a Nation worthy of respect, loyalty and love?
So long as neocons are calling the shots this can not happen. Rather we will slip into isolation and decline. The future deserves, and demands, a better fate.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pmMost here chose to follow me gleefully and willing down this path……to my amusement.
Comment by Billy Hill
I know Billy. That is our shame. Rather than dismiss your rants, we actively participate in them with you. Actually, I am not sure the comment section would be the same without you :)
October 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pmThese are the pathetic, damaged, terrified people whom totalitarians, like Bush, Cheney, ect., use to support their diabolical regimes.
Comment by shoeless — October 31, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Absolutely shoeless, and our own perpetually happy hillbilly, who claimed to be leaving for important business, namejacked me on several other threads. Very important indeed.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:00 pmLindsey Graham is a compulsive sycophant. He says the right thing at first, then finds a way to weasel his way back.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:01 pmHe must love kissing Bush’s ass because he sure does it predictably and regularly.
That’s funny Billy Hill, you followed Bush on stories of WMD’s and fear. Your thought process shut down and you gladly lapped up the blather that spewed from the WH. You turned your back when this administration set about revealing a covert agent (an act of treason in a time of war). You kept your hands ever so tight over your ears when it was reported that our troops hadn’t received the proper equipment 2 years after the invasion. The list goes on and on. You support the party even though your party is a mere shell of itself. Fiscally responsible? That’s a good one. Ol’ GW didn’t turn out to be that humble leader like he promised. He wasn’t quite the uniter as he promised as well but you followed him like a good lap dog because that unseen fear he kept talking about scared you. Cheney kept up the fear drumbeat saying if you vote for Kerry last election we would be hit again. Utter BS but you couldn’t get enough. No mention on how to pay for the invasion (nor for the upcoming clusterf%k that you’ve probably already made the decision to stand behind the missleader).
You are funny. Sad, missguided, ignorant of the position GW has put us in but funny.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:01 pmWaterboarding has been recognized as torture for more than a hundred years. I think it dates to the Spanish Inquisition in practice.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:05 pmOur government has sentenced soldiers to years of hard labor for using waterboarding. The Hague, Geneva Conventions, and all civilized nations state that waterboarding is torture.
But when it comes to Bush&Co, no one will accept that - they, like Graham, prefer to ignore their better judgment and their consciences as they further reduce our integrity as a country.
They are traitors to the USA and what this nation has historically stood for.
Lindsay Graham is another closeted gay republican senator.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pmYou can look it up.
Lindsay Graham is another closeted gay republican senator.
You can look it up.
Comment by Boy Genius
Oh good. I’m glad someone is making a list. There are so many of them, I can’t keep up.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pmLindsay Graham is another closeted gay republican senator.
You can look it up.
Comment by Boy Genius
Oh good. I’m glad someone is making a list. There are so many of them, I can’t keep up.
Comment by shoeless —
Its easier to keep track of who isn’t.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pmExcuse me Billy child, while I try to pull this thread back on topic. Here’s a great read on waterboarding from someone who has done it and had it done to him.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/ blog/ 2007/ 10/ waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
I don’t know how to turn it into an active link, but that’s the address.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pmI still say waterboarding someone with an undiagnosed lung problem is a death sentence.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pmLindsay Graham is another closeted gay republican senator.
You can look it up.
Comment by Boy Genius
Oh good. I’m glad someone is making a list. There are so many of them, I can’t keep up.
Comment by shoeless —
Its easier to keep track of who isn’t.
Comment by Boy Genius
Yes, a list of Republican Senators who are not closeted gay homophobes would undoubtedly be considerably shorter. However, since it is impossible to prove a negative, such a list would likely contain many errors. For instance, look at this quote:
“Let me be clear: I am not gay. I never have been gay.”- Republican Senator Larry Craig
October 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm“Let me be clear: I am not gay. I never have been gay.â€- Republican Senator Larry Craig
Colbert has already demonstrated this is gayspeak for “I am gay.”
October 31st, 2007 at 3:39 pmQuasi-on-topic…From today’s Legal Times…It is always problematic to try and guess what a court will do based on the questions asked at oral argument, but it appears the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is ready to back President Bush’s use of executive power:
4th Circuit Hears Enemy Combatant Case
By Brendan Smith
Legal Times
October 31, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. — Several members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday appeared ready to back President George W. Bush’s use of executive power to indefinitely imprison U.S. residents deemed enemy combatants.
The court, sitting en banc, heard arguments in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, an Illinois man accused of being an al-Qaida sleeper agent. Al-Marri, a U.S. resident originally from Qatar, was arrested just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He has been detained in a Navy brig in South Carolina for more than four years without being formally charged.
In June a 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to order al-Marri released, finding that his due process rights had been violated. The Justice Department asked the full 4th Circuit to vacate the decision.
At Wednesday’s hearing, al-Marri’s attorney, Jonathan Hafetz from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, faced intense questioning from many of the 4th Circuit judges.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said he didn’t understand “all of the hoopla†surrounding al-Marri’s case, given that only a handful of people in the United States have been declared enemy combatants, unlike the roundup of German citizens during World War I and the large-scale internment of Japanese citizens during World War II.
“We’re not talking about a dragnet,†he said. “We’re not talking about a sweep.â€
Several of the judges appeared to favor the Justice Department’s argument that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress shortly after 9/11, permits indefinite detentions of enemy combatants because the law gave the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the [9/11] attacks.â€
October 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pmSorry, I meant to cut down the article before hitting send….Here’s the link:
http://www.law.com/ jsp/ dc/ PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1193735024593
October 31st, 2007 at 3:42 pmthose nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the [9/11] attacks.â€
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Like the Bush Family and Administration?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pmBillyHill - it’s quite obvious that you and I do NOT inhabit the same America.
You and yours, through your unbelievable arrogance and utter stupidity, have turned this country into the Fascist Theocracy of Jesusland, where torture is the law of the land, the government spies on the citizens, and nobody is safe from rendition.
Enjoy that nice clean air while you can, BillyHill, because your Dear Leader is busily fouling it - along with poisoning the rivers, lakes and oceans, killing all the fish/wildlife, logging all the timber and strip mining the land for coal.
And I sincerely hope that someday, when you are being rendered to a black site to be tortured - because you accidentally dialed a phone number belonging to a terrorist - that you open your eyes in the blackness of your cell - and it comes to you: WHAT HAVE I DONE???
And may that day come SOON. You’ve *earned* it, BillyHill.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pmIt’s beginning to look like billy is being blocked for bad behavior. How can we survive without it’s insight?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:52 pmExley, look up operation Falcon. Read up on how their is direct Federal intervention at the local level. All under the guise of rounding up Illegal aliens. Look at the number of people captured under this. Look up the status of them and let me know what you find.
All done under Executive Power.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pmHiB,
Okay…Looked it up (Thank goodness for ‘the Google’):
“Operation FALCON is a nationwide fugitive apprehension operation coordinated by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The resources of federal, state, city and county law enforcement agencies are combined to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of violence.
Operation FALCON represents a continuing series of historically successful national fugitive apprehension missions, which have resulted in the collective capture of more than 36,500 dangerous fugitive felons.”
http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/index.html
October 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pmYou’ve only done half the homework Exley. What is the status of these dangerous fugitive felons? For that matter who are these felons? Where are they? Where is the seperation of powers from Federal to local?
Will you take it for it’s face value, or will you question?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:09 pmHiB,
According to the Web site,
Falcon I focused on gang related crimes, homicides, crimes involving use of a weapon, crimes against children and the elderly, crimes involving sexual assaults, organized crime and drug related fugitives, and other crimes of violence.
Falcon II resulted in the arrest of 9,037 fugitives and the clearance of 10,419 warrants. Of those fugitives arrested, 462 were wanted for violent sex crimes, 311 for other sex crimes, and an additional 783 failed to register as Sex Offenders.
I dunno, HiB…Sounds like a pretty legitimate exercise of the police power. Indeed, it seems like just the kinda thing law enforcement is supposed to be doing. It doesn’t really seem relevant to the 4th Circuit case heard today.
Am I missing something?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pmAm I missing something?
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
An obvious post, deserving an obvious answer, YES, you’re MISSING A BRAIN!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:20 pmAm I missing something?
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Yeah……………………………Brains.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pmOnce again poor little ExLax is spreading her verbal diarrhea, instead of defending PRO-AL-QUEDA and PRO-TORTURE Mukasey! It’s easy to see why she changes the subject, poor little girl!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pmLindsey Graham cracker just threw himself out of favor with the voters of South Carolina. Lindsey’s a cute little toe-tapping, water-dipping Republiscum.
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 31, 2007 @ 11:59 am
I didn’t post that, someone stole my id TP!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pmIt has nothing directly related to this present thread, other than the refusal of this administration to stand on the side of the law.
There have been no updated status reports on 10,000 “felons”. None. The coordination is unprecendented. I forget the executive order’s name but it gives the president the authority to bypass congress, call for Marshall law. This has been an exercise in testing the functionality and usefullness of putting Marshall law into place.
There was no need to capture most of these “felons” in a massive sweep. They already knew the existence and location of most of them. Why the massive dragnet?
Where are these “felons” now?
I’ll ask you again. Do you take things for face value, or do you question?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:31 pmto search for the truth? (should have been added to my last post.)
October 31st, 2007 at 4:31 pmthose nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the [9/11] attacks.â€
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Like the Bush Family and Administration?
Comment by pete
Or the leaders of Dubai?
9/11 report cited possible bin Laden, U.A.E. ties
Bin Laden’s operatives still using freewheeling Dubai
October 31st, 2007 at 4:35 pmHiB,
“Do you take things for face value, or do you question?”
I guess that depends on who is talking to me….
October 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pmThe fact is that internet trolls, like the supporters of despots throughout history, believe that their loyalty keeps them safe. Unfortunately, they lack the historical perspective to realize that their masters can’t and won’t protect them. Often these loyalists pay for their complicity with their blood, and the blood of their children. And the World turns. Again.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:41 pmI forget the executive order’s name but it gives the president the authority to bypass congress, call for Marshall law. This has been an exercise in testing the functionality and usefullness of putting Marshall law into place.
Comment by hellinabucket — October 31, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Are you talking about NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51?
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
October 31st, 2007 at 4:42 pmExley,
Do you take Bush’ word at face value? Alberto Gonzalez? Cheney’s?
You have also sidestepped the larger questions.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pmshoeless,
I took this from informationclearinghouse:
in October 2006, George Bush quietly changed the Insurrection Act, which prevented the President from deploying troops inside the United States. Bush’s revision effectively overturns the Posse Comitatus Act which put strict limits on the executive’s power to use US troops in domestic situations. Just days earlier Bush signed a similar bill, “The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ which gives Bush the power to take command of National Guard units across the country which are traditionally under the control of the state governors.
Without fanfare, Bush has taken control of all armed forces and militias inside and outside of the country and now has a monopoly on all the state-sanctioned tools of organized violence. It’s a coup that could never have succeeded without the tacit cooperation of the media.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pmHiB,
“Do you take Bush’ word at face value?”
I am old-school. I do tend to trust most of our elected leaders on matters of grave importance. Yes, I do take Bush at his word on serious matters of national security just as I was inclined to take Clinton at his word on national security matters….
I am aware that politics requires that people look at matters with a certain degree of cynicism and skepticism…
For example, when Bush or Pelosi or Cheney or Reid or whoever talk about things like health care reform or Social Security or S-CHIP and each side starts tossing around completely different sets of numbers that directly contradict one another, I don’t believe either side. It’s all BS from GOPers and Democrats. That’s one of the main reasons I admittedly don’t have a heck of a lot of interest in domestic affairs. That is why I almost never post on threads devoted to domestic policy. I just don’t trust either side to tell the complete and accurate truth when it comes to those types of issues.
But on grave matters of national security, I do tend to trust national leaders.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:58 pmBut on grave matters of national security, I do tend to trust national leaders.
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
That attitude has killed more people than gunpowder, smallpox and malaria, combined. It’s especially dangerous when national “leaders” base policy on the wishes of their “invisible friend”.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm#99 boy genius
October 31st, 2007 at 5:07 pmFew would care of the sexuality of Lindsey Graham or anyone else - it’s because their party makes such a huge deal about this non-issue that makes it amusing to watch them hide the truth always afraid of being outed. Another Rep. Cong. from Seattle was outed today and like 99% of republicans, he has denied it.
Hypocrisy is rampant.
HiB,
“which gives Bush the power to take command of National Guard units across the country which are traditionally under the control of the state governors.”
This is not new.
Presidents have long had the power to put the National Guard under federal control. President Eisenhower did so in 1957 when he put the Arkansas National Guard under federal control in order to protect African-American students — The Little Rock Nine — who were trying to enter a public school building.
Eisenhower also ordered 101st Airborne Division paratroopers to Little Rock.
In June 1963, President Kennedy also put a state National Guard under federal control after Alabama Gov. George Wallace refused to allow two black students to enter the University of Alabama. Kennedy used the National Guard to ensure the safety of the students.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pmThose you mention above Exley are for specific incidents. Bush has no specifics. It’s another preemptive strike.
Bush’s revision effectively overturns the Posse Comitatus Act which put strict limits on the executive’s power to use US troops in domestic situations.
Operation Falcon was a dry run to flex the executive powers. You comfortable with that? You still didn’t answer what happened to all those felons and just what were their crimes?
October 31st, 2007 at 5:16 pmHiB,
“Operation Falcon was a dry run to flex the executive powers. You comfortable with that?”
I really think that is putting an unreasonably nefarious spin on a joint federal-local law-enforcement operation. I am pretty certain that FALCON was not the first such operation.
With all due respect, you sound a little like far-right wingers in the 1990s who talked about “jack-booted thugs” and touted Ruby Ridge and Waco as evidence of a coming “new world order” under the U.N. or some other nefarious international organization.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pmExley,
Please read this article and see if it raises any doubts in your mind about Bush’s motives regarding Iraq. I did and still support going after AQ in Afghanistan, but Iraq is Bush’s War, not America’s war. It wasn’t defensible then and isn’t now in my opinion. I don’t trust that lying POS to tell the time of day with any honesty if there were a motive for him to lie.
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
October 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pmNanlichi,
I will read it.
By the way, I am glad to read did and still support going after AQ in Afghanistan.
I realize the Iraq War was controversial from the beginningm but I am honestly surprised by the level of opposition to the Afghanistan war I see here.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pmI’m not convinced that the invasion of Afghanistan was any more justified than our occupation of Iraq. Overthrowing a government for the alleged actions of criminals is a dangerous precedent. And, even if it was a good idea, I’m not convinced that Pakistan wasn’t the appropriate target. But they have nukes.
We certainly should have held every Bin Laden we could find. And a little pressure on our “friends”, the Saudis, might have had better results.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:43 pmYou are assuming without searching Exley. Educate yourself on it more than the us marshalls website. I don’t put more into it than what is already there. I’m a bit let down by you. You should know by now that I’m not the alarmist type.
You are also misstaken on the level of opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan here. The opposition is next to nil here. Most of the posters have consistently supported the decision to go after OBL, AQ and the Taliban. We still do.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:46 pmExley,
I think it’s the way it was handled. Instead of a clean surgical cleansing of AQ, now matter how brutal, we lost attention and focus and didn’t finish the job. We would have sent a message to the world, and especially to the ones who wish to do us harm, that we will strike back hard when attacked.
But we pissed away our moral high ground by diverting into Iraq and I am afraid we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. Even in Afghanistan where we are too accepting of civilian deaths.
And I promise I am not channeling Pat Tillman.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pmI realize the Iraq War was controversial from the beginningm but I am honestly surprised by the level of opposition to the Afghanistan war I see here.
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
There WAS huge support for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and there can/could be more support. BUT the occupation of Iraq has taken the initial success in Afghanistan and thrown it away. Afghanistan is not the success that it was. The Bush admin has not provided Afghanistan with a stable country and as long as the Bush admin stays in Iraq they will never finish the job they started in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was just a stop over for Bush to get to Iraq and then to Iran. AQ has had far too much time to muddle things up in Afghanistan AND Pakistan.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:51 pmBut on grave matters of national security, I do tend to trust national leaders.
Comment by Exley — October 31, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Then you are truly an antiAmerican moron. Truly. That is single stupidest thing ever posted on this site. And your excuses for their theft of our rights and shredding of the Constitution make you an enemy of the United States, as they are.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:55 pmNanlichi,
Actually, as I have said numerous times, while I admit I initially favored the invasion of Iraq, now agree with you.
I wish we had never gone in and had kept our focus on Afghanistan. It was a mistake to invade Iraq. It does depress me when I remember how united the nation (and the world) was in the aftermath of 9/11 and how that is now pretty much all gone. But the thing is my wishes are irrelevant. The fact is we are there now and now Al Qaeda is there as well. So, we need to stay in Iraq until at least AQI is defeated. We can’t let Iraq become the new Afghanistan. That is the reason I oppose any type of serious, sustained military action against Iran.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:55 pm#139, Nature Rules,
I actually agree with pretty much everything you said. See posting 141.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:58 pmMaybe Exley cares to explain why he believes Nazi forms of torture aren’t torture, and why Mukasey protected Ali Mohamed (the CIA Agent behind the first WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombing, and the 911 training camps) from prosecution?
October 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pmAQI. jesus, you’re such a gullible fool.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:00 pmAQI is, either, the creation or fabrication of Bushco. Regardless, continually supplying weapons to both sides of a civil war, while occupying the “middle ground”, strikes me as criminal stupidity. Or stupid criminality. Take your pick.
To then mistreat prisoners, while we have “boots in harms way”, absolutely leaves me at a loss. The English language doesn’t have enough expressions of contempt to describe such things. “EVIL” is the only word that comes close.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:09 pmI might add that AQI, by all reports, doesn’t have the capability to threaten the U.S. even if they have the inclination. If we left Iraq whatever threat they pose would, reportedly, disappear.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pmI might add that AQI, by all reports, doesn’t have the capability to threaten the U.S. even if they have the inclination. If we left Iraq whatever threat they pose would, reportedly, disappear.
Comment by pete — October 31, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Modern AQI is a direct product of the CIA. Ali Mohamed the CIA Agent behind the first WTC bombings, the African Embassy bombings, the Afghan training grounds, also trained Osama’s bodyguards and core personnel.
There’s as much evidence that AQI is CIA, as there is that the CIA wants to get rid of it! What a disgrace to that organization this whole event has been. And who’s at the center of the disgrace? Mukasey! The judge that let Ali Mohamed go free and train the rest of AQI!!!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pm“So, we need to stay in Iraq until at least AQI is defeated. We can’t let Iraq become the new Afghanistan. That is the reason I oppose any type of serious, sustained military action against Iran.”
Comment by Exley
And how will you know when they’re kaput? I predict AQI will be declared defeated just before Bush leaves office. That way (he thinks) historians will judge him less harshly. We all know AQI is just a convienient tool for republican fundraising, anyway.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:41 pm.
Senator Graham,
Is torture EVER an American Principle?
.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:12 am