’)“Finally I admit I screwed up the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion, but it’s all better now because I said so. Also, I’m willing to take advice from people who aren’t Republicans as long as they don’t actually disagree with me, because people who disagree with me hate freedom. 9/11, 9/11, god bless America”
We are totally screwed that this amazingly useless and ineffectual man is the leader of our country. A lot of people have died on his watch and a lot more will thanks to his ignorance and hubris.
ALSO: Can anyone tell me why he looked like he was directing airline traffic?
ALMOST AS LAME: The Democrats for not having the glimmer of a unified Iraqi position (I hear rumbles of Daschle/Gephardt in ‘02 once again). Here’s a starting point, geniuses.
“We are totally screwed that this amazingly useless and ineffectual man is the leader of our country. ”
Keep preaching it, my brother.
See you in ‘06
[...] sts, here and here. That second one is gonna really piss off the wankers. Update update: Oliver Willis asks, Can anyone tell me why he looked like he was direct [...]
Yes, when the Republicans lose 45 seats in November we will indeed see you. The American people put a lot of trust in the Republicans in Washington over the last 12 years and have seen their trust defiled. No accountability. Budgetary irresponsibility. Ideological zealotry. Corruption and pay-to-play government. Republicans win when nobody pays attention. Too bad, now people are paying attention.
Hey, wait. The Democrats took the postion that they have no position in Iraq. Thats a position, right? And what happened to Kerry’s genius idea of precipitous, ignominious retreat which we would fool the world on by describing it as “an estimated timetable for success”. Brilliant. Brilliant. Senator Kerry!
Dugger, After last night’s Bear’s game, lets describe the Falcon’s playoff chances as ‘an estimated timetable for success’
Keep making jokes Dugger, I’m sure the dead soldiers are laughing their asses off at your “humor”. How many people have to die for your failed president?
I have head the “underpants gnome” theory when used to explain Bush’s “plan” (South Park reference).
Step 1: Invade Iraq
Step 2:
Step 3: A Democratic, client state in the Middle East
Problem is, just like the underpants gnomes, there is no plan for step 2. Unlike the underpants gnomes, people are dying because there is no step 2.
The Bush plan:
1. Decide to invade country
2. Cherry pick intelligence to support invasion
3. Tell UN to sod off
4. Arm twist and bribe other countries to form specious “coalition”
5. Devote far to few troops to the effort
6. Blow shit up and see how the dust settles
7. Give no-bid contracts for reconstruction to Vice’s firm
8. Extend deployments to make up for inadequate troop levels
9. Remove national guard from potential disaster areas for the same reason
10. Spend billions upon billions
11. But keep cutting taxes so the deficit can be as big as possible
12. Kill upwards of 100,000 civilians in order to save them from tyranny
13. Round up those that are left and get them to hold an election, declare success and hope that everyone forgets 1-12 by the following November.
Hooray! My side has murdered less than your side! Therefore, it’s okay when my side murders! Hooray! 80,000,000 to go!
“Read and digest all of this actual thought.”
Actual thought?
factcheck,
“Keep making jokes Dugger, I m sure the dead soldiers are laughing their asses off at your humor . How many people have to die for your failed president? ”
Ok, I’ll keep making jokes. Dead people can’t laugh (and if ‘deaths’ greatly concern you, why are you on the leftist side of the political spectrum, which has murdered 100,000,000 versus about 20,000,000 on the right side.). We’re a democratic republic, so Pres. Bush is everybody’s president, unless you reject democracy. And there is certainly no indication his presidency is a failed one. In fact, the recent Iraq election has upped his odds for a successful presdciency.
Read and digest all of this actual thought. There may be a quiz on it later.
Doctor Dugger, Cogent, persuasive, and intimidating yet friendly to snarling progressives
Dugger, please answer these questions:
How many people can be tortured before the torturers can be compared to Nazis or Stalin’s regime?
How many soldiers have to die before Iraq can be compared to Vietnam?
How many needless deaths in Iraq does there have to be before Bush is a failed president?
My answers, btw, are 1, 0, and 1. I am interested to see how many lives of other people you are willing to expend for Bush’s presidency.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/12/21431/622
Pretty good photoshopping here.
The best one is the wicked witch of the west wing.
Shorter Dug: “Stalin was a murderer, therefore Bush is right and I’m a deep thinker.”
“My thinking on Dugger is either that he s just trying to get a rise out of us (which is rather sick and demented when you consider your point)”
… but perfectly consistent with Dugger’s support of torture.
Shorter Dug: Stalin was a murderer, therefore Bush is right and I m a deep thinker.
Real shorter Dug: I will, Mr Progresive, accept your moral high-horse about the war when you show me the your hateful, screeching criticism of Clintons, war dead, Carters war dead, etc.
Dugger, The greatest killers in history have been leftists, by far
“Just about every President this century has sent soldiers in harms way … the greatest murderers in human history have been leftists.”
One being a point not worthy of serious analysis, the other being a point entirely intellectually unsound.
“How many innocent deaths OK w/you to save one terrorist a little pain?”
The whole goddamn country. Because it isn’t about saving terrorists a little pain its about living up to our principles and ideals, even if we all have to die to do it. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with our principles and ideals.
I agree jk, I think the Dugger needs to go into the “Cone of Silence”. Bush’s pResidency has been about the biggest disaster this country has ever known. I’m hoping I wake up and find it was all just a bad dream. I have found out many disturbing things about my fellow Americans, that many like torture, murder, and racism as long as it furthers their twisted agenda.
Hey…Fatchek….don’t waste too much time trying to get answers from Dugger that are worth anything. His talking points are straight from the RNC website. My thinking on Dugger is either that he’s just trying to get a rise out of us (which is rather sick and demented when you consider your point), or, that he’s just dumb. Murphy’s law gets invoked here.
So, another Bush speech that gets the righties all riled up and patriotic for a week or two, and then they’ll be back on the defensive.
They must be told what to think these days, and if Pappy Bush says we’re winning, than Gol’ darn it, we’re winning!
However, Bush’s fantasy sppech will be trumped soon by news stories from Iraq about more dead soldiers, civilians, hostages, and journalists. Unfortunately for the 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, Bush can’t stop the violence and bloodshed. I wish with every fibre of my being that that were not the case, but he does not know how to prosecute this war.
He sickens me. Defeatist? How about the fact that you NEVER put those 100,000 troops in the best position to win, you stupid, arrogant man? You never did, and you cost the families of those troops loved ones that could have been saved.
Oliver is on target. He’s the most unprepared man to ever hold the office of the Presidency.
So, let us start the countdown to the end of the Red State Bush mistake, and God willing, we’ll get someone in there, Republican OR Democrat, that will find a way out of this mess.
JK
factcheck,
Hope you noted my corrections to your previous post.
As to your next (inane) post, why anybody can compare anything they want. That ability, however, in no way guarantees said comparison will be intellectually sound or worthy of serious analysis.
Just about every President this century has sent soldiers in harms way. As I said earlier, if you persist in trying to make this a partisan political issue (since Democrats and Repubs voted for war) I will AGAIN point out that the greatest murderers in human history have been leftists.
And “I am interested to see how many lives of other people you are willing to expend for Bush s presidency.” What kind of question is that? Did you mean to ask how many lives what I thought was an acceptable number to be lost in Iraq in pursuit of the bi-partisan policy there? If so, way, way, way less than Democrat presidents spent in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI etc.
BTW if I wanted to ask unfair questions, I would ask how many innocent American men, women and children you are willing to have die horrible, excruciating deaths because we can’t use torture against terrorists.
50, 100, 1,000, millions? How many innocent deaths OK w/you to save one terrorist a little pain?
Dugger
factcheck, I’ll participate in your rhetorical excercise.
The first time we torture someone not covered by the Geneva Convention. Of course, we’re using the real-world definition of torture (gassing, concentration camps, electrodes to the gonads) and not the preferred Lefty definition (my carpeted cell doesn’t get HBO!). Not to mention the fact these scumbags aren’t Geneva material (uniformed militia, etc.).
56,069 (58,226-2,157 as of 12/19)
This question exemplifies why Lefties don’t get it when it comes to National Security. Those deaths are only “needless” if you don’t see the need for a sea change in the Middle East as part of America’s Security Interest. It’s only “needless” if you think that it’s acceptable to lose 2,896 Americans every couple of years. It’s only “needless” if you want to go back to the Clinton-era foreign policy of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best which, to his credit, not even Clinton himself fully endorses, at least while not giving speeches in foreign countries.
Now, factcheck, some questions for you:
1. Would America be better off with Saddam still in charge in Iraq? Would Iraqis?
2. President Bush often says we will win the War on Terror “at all costs and pay any price”. What costs are you unwilling to forego? How many US civilians have to die before Democrats “pay any price”?
3. Should participating in an attack on the United States automatically guarantee the attacker US Citizenship?
Better dead than red?
Better dead than a torturer.
“Not to mention the fact these scumbags aren t Geneva material (uniformed militia, etc.).”
Don;t tell me you guys are still dragging out that bullshit. There is no person not covered by the Geneva Protection and guaranteed the basic rights and human dignity. The Bush administration has played fast and loose with interpreting the law by inventing on its own the category of “unlawful combatant,” a phrase never mentioned once in the Geneva Conventions.
Er…then…not than.
Please reread Part I Article 4 which defines enemy combatants and tell me under which stipulation alQaida bombers meet the criteria.
Better dead then a torturer, eh? Let’s make that the Democratic Rally Cry for 2006 and we’ll just see how many seats that wins you. My guess is it will 1994 will look like a relative nailbiter.
Save –
That has nothing to do with my point. The phrase “unlawful combatant” is not in the Geneva conventions because there is no such thing as an unlawful combatant. Every combatant is accounted for in the Geneva Conventions — including resistance fighters, sabateurs and those not in uniform — and granted basic rights to due process and human dignity.
Then why would Geneva go out of it’s way to label those folks as “lawful combatants” and not simply “combatants”?
What makes alQaida members “lawful”? I, and the voting public, would LOVE to hear your answer.
Ok, Ferris, I’ll play your stupid little game, if you promise to sign up for military service, ok? Just kidding.
“1. Would America be better off with Saddam still in charge in Iraq? Would Iraqis?”
Yes, America would be better off. Iraqis could decide for themselves if they wanted Saddam in charge, it isn’t our decision to make for them. Of course, if Bush I had keep his promise to the Shia in 1991 and given them air support for their attack on Saddam, we wouldn’t have this senseless war, and Iraq wouldn’t have Saddam.
2. President Bush often says we will win the War on Terror at all costs and pay any price . What costs are you unwilling to forego? How many US civilians have to die before Democrats pay any price ?
I am unwilling to forego what makes America great, which is the ideals put forth in the Founding Documents. As far as your other question, we are talking about Iraq. That has nothing to do with the “War on (some) Terror”. No civilians have died at Iraqi hands, from terror or otherwise.
I have a question for you- how many Americans have to die before YOU sign up for military service? Take your talking points somewhere else, junior.
Well, I am a teacher, and I did work for the police department. So need some help filling out the application?
http://www.goarmy.com
Hope you get back alive, junior.
And how exactly would they have done that? A strongly worded letter to the New Baghdad Times? A campaign ad from the “Committe to Elect Akhmed Chalabi”? How?
I agree with you on Bush I. However, I’d be willing to wager if he actually had done it, we’d be hearing the same “No Blood for Oil”, “Bush Lied People Died”, “Quagmire”, “Unilateral Cowboy” braying from your side of the aisle.
Which ideal in the Founding Documents stated that if you attack the United States or it’s military, you should be granted rights afforded specifically to US Citizens?
I’ll make you the same offer I made you last time: I’ll join the military as soon as you join the police force AND become a teacher. Cause until then, you can’t be supportive of crime prevention or education.
factcheck, Missed your answer.
“how many innocent American men, women and children you are willing to have die horrible, excruciating deaths because we can t use torture against terrorists.
50, 100, 1,000, millions? How many innocent deaths OK w/you to save one terrorist a little pain? ”
Dugger
fact,
Don’t forget: how many dead innocents OK with you before you would allow any kind of torture of even one terrorist?
these are easy questions, aren’t they?
Dugger
Why stop there?
Let’s allow torture of suspected terrorists too. And maybe a few people with known links to terrorists. Maybe a few people who are a threat to national security.
Am I getting even close to the point where you’d draw the line?
Are you ok with torturing the relatives of terrorists to stop a terrorist attack?
How about acquaintances of alleged terrorists? How about torturing that Jennifer Aniston, because the alleged terrorist really likes watching her on Friends, and would do anything to make sure she stays safe?
When does the torture end? And more importantly, how many tortured US POW’s are you ready to accept in order to keep the weapon of torture for us? Because we can’t very well torture, while we expect others not to torture our soldiers?
allow any kind of torture of even one terrorist?
Dugger;
Your assumption is that all caught in the dragnet are terrorists.
Can you show proof that each captive who has been subjected to
torture is truly one of the bad guys and not some marsh arab or Afghani farmer in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or is that germane to the torture advocates?
I still don’t get the argument that we need war, death and torture in order to save future innocent lives. We’re creating what we say we’re preventing.
Isn’t it the Republican argument that we’re supposed to “do it” to our enemy (and the colateral multitude of innocents) before our enemy does it to us? That makes no sense.
If wars begat peace, this world would be an unimaginable utopia by now. Our history has seen war after war after war. When’s the peace coming all you Bush-loving bomb throwers? It’s not even on the radar!
With conservatives, the message says war is the only way. So we need Bush to transform the Middle East. And we need America to become as barbaric as our enemy.
It’s unfortunate that those of us who don’t go along with this insanity are labeled unpatriotic and cowardly. What’s fortunate is that is not the truth. Thank God! (and I mean the peace-loving God that Christian Republicans refuse to acknowledge).
“What makes alQaida members lawful ? I, and the voting public, would LOVE to hear your answer.”
Save –
YOu cited the Third Convention. Read The Fourth. It specifically states:
Article 4:
“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”
So those people who are, at any given time, in ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, who find themselves in the hands of a Party to the conflict are protected under the convention. No mention of uniforms at all. In case you think this doesn’t include people engaging in hostilities, there’s article 5:
“Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.”
Check that last paragraph. It bascially says that even if a person is engaged in hostilities against the detaining party, while they lose the rights granted them under the convention, the State is still required to treat them humanely until their full rights under the Convention can be resotred at a later, but not interminable, date consistent with the State or Occupying power’s security. Essentially it means that we cannot torture or otherwise treat in a degrading manner anyone in our custody — even if they are hostiles — and that they must be afforded their full due process rights at as soon as is possible, consistent with security.
The Geneva conventions do not declare anyone an “unlawful combatant” because they guarantee that no one, not even terrorists, fall outside the protection of the law.
addendum …
The only time someone is not protected by the Geneva conventions is if they are nationals of a state that is not a signatory to the Conventions. So belonging to al-qaeda does not automatically disqualify someone from the Conventions protections, it only matters what country they claim as their nationality. Here’s a PDF file including the signatories to all Four Conventions:
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf
Signatories include Afganhistan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia etc.
BTW, Syria and Iran are also signatories.
I might add that the voting public may not love to hear that even terrorists are protected by the Geneva Conventions but there it is. It’s a convention that we are signatories to and thus we are bound to uphold it. I find it hard to believe that the voting public would love the idea that America is not good for its word.
Torture Doesn’t work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/18/torture_1/index_np.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/officersquotes.html
From the Army Field Manual:
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”
And so it goes… This all covers the absurd argument that as many as 1/3 of the U.S. population have been saved…maybe…by effective use of torture (that would be almost 100,000,000 people for the census impaired). You can bag and tag the crap that all captured “enemy combatants” are al-Qaeda or even remotely connected, given the easily Googled stories of inncocent civilians held for years, tortured in places like Syria (I thought they were terrorist supporters…oh wait), and eventually released without so mush as a “oops.”
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/torturetest/
BTW, the comparison of Vietnam to Iraq isn’t soley predicated on the number of casualties (though, in fact, Iraq has seen more U.S. casualties to date than Vietnam did after 3 years. The big surge in fatalities in Vietnam didn’t begin until after 1964). It’s primarily about the deceptive and often illegal practices employed by government officials to first drag the country into war and later to keep the conflict going. How is Bush’s argument that letting Iraq fall to the “terrorists” (see also, boogeyman) any different than the “Domino Theory” argument in Vietnam? Weren’t we exporting Democracy to Southeast Asia, too? Say, I seem to remember Reagan exporting democracy to Nicaragua via Iran, too, though less effectively than the way G.W. has handled Venezuela (failed coup)and Haiti(successful coup).
I’m sure the inevitable response will be something along the lines of “mumble…mumble…COMMIE LEFTISTS!…mumble…mumble…DAMN LIBERALS!…mumble…mumble…YOU’LL KILL US ALL!” The Right seems to have adopted the position that the world is round until the Left says so…then it’s obviously flat…and stop encouraging the terrorists!
I love the argument that any wrong doing by a Dem in the past nullifies any wrongdoing by Bush in the present (which apparently includes WWI and WWII). I’ll have to use that logic on my kids.
“Dad, Olivia is hitting me!!!”
“Stop it Olivia, you know that’s not allowed.”
“But Quinn punched me on Thanksgiving!”
“Oh,…well…that’s different…hammer away, then.”
fact,
As a ‘teacher’ what would you do with a student who repeatedly ducks a question?
I have no desire to harass so I shall drop the point, we both know what has happened here.
Dugger
So, in your view, WW II and the Civil War weren’t worth winning, since we had to resort to Internment and Martial Law in order to win those.
Gotcha.
Ferris
http://goarmy.com
You wouldn’t want to go back on your word would you?
Sign up or shut up.
Semant,
As Perry Mason would say, you have assumed facts not in evidence. I have said and do say I would permit torture under certain tightly controlled conditons. That I would not be a moral coward like certain current prominent politicians who are supporting the anti-torture law, but are also smart enough to acknowledge that there may be times when leaders will need to break said law (in the ticking time bomb scenario). Your example seems to assume that there would be blank check torturing of all terrorists suspects which I have never said and would not condone. For me the argument is: is it wise to absolutley ban all torturing? Considering an extreme ticking time bomb metaphor, I say no.
Perhaps a problem is that, per my scenario, I envision two or three times in my lifetime when torturing might be used by the good guys, and the left (you?) think it will become a near every day practice with be-Birkenstocked hippies being made to listen to Slim Whitman day and night.
Dugger
BTW Ferris, stay on topic, we’re talking about torture. If you’re trying to defend internment, you’ll have to start your own blog. It is pretty clear that internment was not necessary to our war effort.
http://www.goarmy.com
Bill, what the right wingnuts are doing to this country is shameful. They want to protect the country by making us like the enemy- they value life, or so they say, but they don’t value freedom.
I’ve always lived my life under the credo I was taught in my youth, which is if one American isn’t free, none of us are free. It’s a shame that the right doesn’t love our country. They must not, they certainly don’t believe in the ideals on which it was created.
Are you ok with torturing the relatives of terrorists to stop a terrorist attack?
How about acquaintances of alleged terrorists? How about torturing that Jennifer Aniston, because the alleged terrorist really likes watching her on Friends, and would do anything to make sure she stays safe?
When does the torture end? And more importantly, how many tortured US POW s are you ready to accept in order to keep the weapon of torture for us? Because we can t very well torture, while we expect others not to torture our soldiers
I envision two or three times in my lifetime when torturing might be used by the good guys, and the left (you?) think it will become a near every day practice,
Dugger,
Knowing your sober outlook, I did not believe you would assign Carte Blanche to torture, willy-nilly. But, as I have said the damage this Admin has done through their ham-handedness is going to make future unilateral, quick responses from our military much more difficult after Congress rolls back Executive powers due to the real or perceived abuses of this White House.
Thanks to them, even if true (as Bush said yesterday) they are severely limiting the (torture) who is going to believe him? Remember the childhood story, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”?
A lot of folks blame Congress for the shackles placed on the
Intelligence Services leading up to 9/11.
Does anyone recall why
that oversight was exercised by Congress?: Iran-Contra brought that on.
semant, Ok.
Dugger
I salute you, sagacious one.
Um, how shall I put this? Oh, I know, let me quote Perry Mason: “you have assumed facts not in evidence”.
Who says that torture will prevent the death of innocents?
Dugger, your friendly neighbourhood straw consumer.
Bonus round: What kind of animal eats a lot of hay? C’mon folks, just channel your inner Alex Corrigan and the answer will come to you.
“(in the ticking time bomb scenario)”
There’s no such thing as the ticking time bomb scenario. No one has ever presented evidence outside of the movies that this scenario has ever played out in reality. No one has ever given any verifiable evidence that torture has been used to save lives in such a scenario. Dugger says he would only allow torture in such a scenario and then only envisions that such a case would only come along rarely. So why is he totally wrong? Because his “ticking time bomb” scenario practically guarantees the kind of scenario were seeing now in the NSA-scandal: law enforcement agents making determinations of probably cause that will lead to the violation of civil liberties without any kind of oversight. In other words, the ticking time bomb scenario begins by totally trashing due process. Dugger doesn’t give a shit because he doesn’t care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principles of freedom and human rights that this country was founded on. Simple as that. He would grant the state the power to use the very same tactics used by Nazis, Stalin and dozens of repressive regimes around the world. In other words, Dugger is a fascist.
BTW …
Save — I’d LOVE to hear your response to the fact that the United States has been violating the Geneva Convention for the last four years.