Pelosi And Bush
Tweet
I don’t know if folks have picked up on this, but the way that Speaker Pelosi has been responding to Republican attacks on her – all the way up to the president – has been great. She has basically taken the position that these people are amazingly stupid and that they can’t understand basic statements. She’s two heartbeats away from the presidency, and she’s acting like it.
Kudos.
82 Responses to “Pelosi And Bush”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
yea what a great way to run a democracy…..
The true face of the democrat party is coming out in Ollie….let it shine man…2008 is just around the corner…let the rest of america understand the rich limosine liberals that have been handed the keys to the candy store
Speaker Pelosi is third in the line of succession; not third in the chain of command.
She and Sen. Reid provide more evidence each day of the conservative maxim: Liberals are useful in government, but not in charge.
And yeah, you guys were so sure the Dems would lose last year. Somehow I don’t think y’all have your pulse on the zeitgeist.
modern conservative = delusional
did either of you dipshits read the post linked to? Pelosi essentially told the White Houese to take its partisan spin and shove it.
A dem fially, FINALLY tells the truth about the white house spin and all you broken records do is repeat the same shit over and over. You act like the last six effing years of republican corruption, cronyism and utter incompetence never happened and that we still don’t have two more years of an utterly lame duck republican president. Sheesh. What a coupla idiots.
The first two commenters are the Republican’t base.
Goodbye GOP, and good riddance.
frame, where did this “dipshit” come from? I thought I was an idiot.
What do you mean, did I read the post?
I understand the liberal interpretation of “bipartisanship”: Pelosi essentially told the White Houese to take its partisan spin and shove it.
I got that right, didn’t I?
You are a tool — a pretentious, self-absorbed, pseudointellectual tool.
In typical democrat fashion, pelosi ignores the constitution (where in the constitution does the house have any role in setting foreign policy?)
Then, the democrat party fembots come out cheering that pelosi is undermining the foreign policy plans of the sitting president and weaking america’s diplomatic power.
The democrat party: No respect for constitutional authority and proud of it….
I thought I was an idiot.
Now, Frank, don’t be so hard on yourself. Today you might be an idiot, but if you keep smacking your head with your shovel, why, someday you might make it to imbecile.
midderpidge: Still smarting from that “tweedledumber” zinger, eh?
Don’t worry, graduating from idiot to imbecile is something you’ll never have to contend with.
On a more serious note, the problem here is that Oliver has quoted from a blatantly biased source.
So, if the Republicans went to Syria with the President’s agreement, that source would never admit it,because it takes away from the thrust of the accusation.
Now, if someone has some information concerning the Republicans’ trips to Syria, that might make for an intriguing discussion.
“Pelosi good – Bush bad” is not what I mean by an “intriguing discussion”.
did they pull, like, a tanker truck of kool aid up in front of your place, pedro?
pelosi visiting foreign countries is unconstitutional? Really? Are you kidding me? You guys are just gone, totally gone.
“On a more serious note, …”
ROFL.
Look it up Frank. You want to know about it, look it up. Then you can post your findings here, since its such an important point for you. Stop being so lazy.
On a more serious note: Pedo, I was just joking with Frank. So put down the shovel, it won’t help you.
Pedro whines: “where in the constitution does the house have any role in setting foreign policy?”
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to…
“…provide for the common defense…of the United States
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations…
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
“To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years…
“[T]o exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings…”
weaking america’s diplomatic power.
Bush and the GOP have been doing a fine job of that all on their own. They don’t need our help.
“2008 is just around the corner” fd
If I were you Frank, I wouldn’t have my hopes too high. Bush’s last 2 yrs are all the power Republicans have left for a long, long time.
All you and your kind are capbable of doing now is preaching to your own demented choir. Your party’s influence is gone.
Lookit Repack Rider quoting the Constitution. Doesn’t he know that document doesn’t mean jack when you’re engaging in perpetual war?
fd10801: “the problem here is that Oliver has quoted from a blatantly biased source.”
This from someone who has provided links to such organizations as The Competetive Enterprise Institute and The Cato Institute.
Now there’s some unbiased material.
Spider, it’s not just that we’re in a series of perpetual wars, the problem is that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
As to the exact details of the trip, it seems that quite a few politicians have visited Syria, with no effect, recently, and in the last year.
So, the trip, in addition to being disapproved of by the White House, is undoubtedly futile.
Pelosi’s Syria Trip Undermines US Policy, Says Expert
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 03, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s planned visit to Syria later this week will undermine American foreign policy, a conservative analyst said Monday, citing the Baathist regime’s links to regional terrorism.
Shrugging off White House disapproval, the California Democrat plans to hold talks with President Bashar Assad in Damascus, as part of a Mideast visit that has also taken in Israel and Lebanon.
“Pelosi’s visit is likely to undermine the Bush administration’s foreign policy and help the Syrians go back to business as usual – much to the dismay of our Lebanese, Iraqi, and Israeli friends, all of whom want the United States to take a tougher stand against Syria,” Jim Phillips, a research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service .
He said the “ill-timed trip to Syria is likely to encourage Syria’s dictatorship to think it can get away with murder – literally-in Lebanon.”
“The Syrians continue to block a U.N. sponsored investigation into the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister [Rafik] Hariri, which has Syria’s fingerprints all over it, and have been isolated by their attempts to meddle in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestinian areas,” Phillips added.
Critics of engagement with Syria also frequently cite its longstanding support for terrorism – violent Palestinian terrorist groups have been hosted in Damascus – hostility towards Israel, support for groups that have carried out terrorist attacks against Americans – especially Hizballah – pursuit of non-conventional weapons capability, and suspicions of a hand behind the assassination of senior Lebanese politicians critical of Syrian involvement in Lebanon, including Hariri.
On the other hand, the Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Congressman Lee Hamilton, recommended last December that the U.S. engage both Syria and Iran.
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a member of Pelosi’s delegation, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “We are going with the clear intention of making our position crystal clear to the Syrian leadership, basically indicating that it is in their interest to return to a position where they can be part of the positive forces in this region and not be in tight alliance with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s Iran.”
‘Broad consensus’
, called Pelosi’s trip a “really bad idea.”
“We discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” she [Dana Perino, acting White House press secretary] said during a daily press briefing. “This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the [Fouad] Siniora government in Lebanon, and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders.”
“We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends, and the message that it sends to our allies,” Perino added.
Seems to me that that would include any member of Congress who goes. It is Speaker Pelosi who is going now, so she is the one who should take this advice.
So, it seems the White House id being bipartisan in their disapproval, and Speaker Pelosi, who should know better, shouldn’t go. The previous trips had no effect, and there is no reason to believe this one will.
Is she grandstanding more than the average addlepated politician? I guess not. Has she “shown up” the President? Not really.
I still think she is acting like she is third in command, when she is only the Speaker of the House — I don’t care how big her taxpayer – funded plane is.
Rounds: For the record, it was Dr. P who said “2008 is just around the corner.”
To all of you who are suggesting that Dr. P and I have not detected a sea change in American politics, I would point out three things:
1) The Democrats once again disguised themselves as conservatives to win in 2006, 2) You all thought Gore would win in 2000, and
3) You all thought Kerry would win in 2004.
The Dems are blowing their opportunity to take the White House, and keep both houses of Congress.
ND: I said the problem here is that Oliver has quoted from a blatantly biased source. It has, in this case, resulted in a serious omission: To wit, that the White House had suggested that no Congresshumans should go to Syria. This, despite Speaker Pelosi’s statement that the White House had said nothing.
Oliver just repeated that falsehood. As I’ve already said, whether or not that occurred was important to know.
In the future, if I quote from a conservative source (and I don’t even recall quoting from the Cato Institute), please feel free to point out any factual errors of the author’s…
Sorry about all that extra jazz — I thought I erased it.
Should read:
As to the exact details of the trip, it seems that quite a few politicians have visited Syria, with no effect, recently, and in the last year.
“We discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” she [Dana Perino, acting White House press secretary] said during a daily press briefing. “This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the [Fouad] Siniora government in Lebanon, and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders.”
“We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends, and the message that it sends to our allies,” Perino added.
Seems to me that that would include any member of Congress who goes. It is Speaker Pelosi who is going now, so she is the one who should take this advice.
So, the trip, in addition to being disapproved of by the White House, is undoubtedly futile.
So, it seems the White House is being bipartisan in their disapproval, and Speaker Pelosi, who should know better, shouldn’t go. The previous trips had no effect, and there is no reason to believe this one will.
Is she grandstanding more than the average addlepated politician? I guess not. Has she “shown up” the President? Not really.
I still think she is acting like she is third in command, when she is only the Speaker of the House — I don’t care how big her taxpayer – funded plane is.
Rounds: For the record, it was Dr. P who said “2008 is just around the corner.”
To all of you who are suggesting that Dr. P and I have not detected a sea change in American politics, I would point out three things:
1) The Democrats once again disguised themselves as conservatives to win in 2006, 2) You all thought Gore would win in 2000, and
3) You all thought Kerry would win in 2004.
The Dems are blowing their opportunity to take the White House, and keep both houses of Congress.
Once again, sorry…
Goodlord Frank. You complain of Oliver using a blatantly partisan site, then you have to post an entire article of drivel from CNS, a blatantly partisan site. Incidently, the article bases most of it’s article on research from the Heritage Foundation, which again is so blatantly partisan as to be useless.
Now if you had followed Oliver’s partisan link to the blatantly partisan site, you could have clicked on their link to a yahoo/AP article with many of the details of Pelosi’s trip.
Next point, this isn’t even what you asked for. What were the details of the Republican’s trip?
Last, Democrat’s disguised themselves as conservatives in 2006? Which ones? Whatever candidate the repubicans field will have to run against the spectre of GW Bush. It’s the kind of handcuffing Gore went through in 2000 when he didn’t know how to run on the Clinton platform. Except Bush will be far more of a drag on the ticket.
JOhn McCain goes to Iraq and wastes valuable military resources for the sole purpose of shoring up his own failing presidential campaign and its Pelosi who’s grnadstanding by visiting heads of state as speaker of the house. Okaaaay …
The Dems are blowing their opportunity to take the White House, and keep both houses of Congress.
Speaking of blowing..
“I still think she is acting like she is third in command, when she is only the Speaker of the House — I don’t care how big her taxpayer – funded plane is.”
Its funny that in this thread you cite CNS News. Are you even remotely self-aware?
Careful, OW. You’re acting like it’s your blog.
I wasn’t citing CNS News about anything. I located a quote from the White House about Congresshumans going to Syria. Are you going to say she didn’t say it, because the quotation happens to be in CNS? The article you cited said that Speaker Pelosi said “the White House” didn’t say anything about Republicans going to Syria, but that was NOT SO.
Now, as I said, if I quote from a conservative could you please point to errors in fact.
And, it was not my intention to quote the article at length, which I explained and apologized for.
pd100: I don’t recall saying anything about the idea of Speaker Pelosi having a plane. I believe my meaning was clear: Just because she’s flying around in her own big airplane, doesn’t make her third in command of the United States. So while it’s real nice of Tony Snow to graciously accept the fact that Speaker Pelosi is tooling around the country, and wherever else, in a big old plane — it is at the taxpayers’ expense.
Careful, squirrel — you are what you eat…
Gore went through in 2000 when he didn’t know how to run on the Clinton platform.
He didn’t know how? What the hell does that mean? His father was a Senator, he was a Senator, he was Vice – President for eight years, and he didn’t know how to campaign?
Are you kidding me? Supposedly , Clinton was the greatest leader in the history of the world since Pericles. Al Gore was an environmentalist supreme. He even kissed his wife on TV!
He didn’t win, because he didn’t win a majority in 50 states. He also knew how the Electoral College works, too.
He lost his home state because he decided to ignore the issue of gun control. That cost him the election, even more then the Florida Fiasco.
Frank, the White House condemned Pelosi, and completely ignored the Republicans that went to Syria, until she called them on their bullshit.
Gore didn’t win because of election shenanigans in Florida. The vote was close because Gore couldn’t decide whether to embrace or distance himself from Clinton.
Next election the Republican candidate will have a similar problem. He will have to embrace Bush in the primary and then have to try to distance or delineate himself from Bush during the general election.
midderpidge: Are you saying that when the White House made a statement of disapproval of Congressional trips to Syria, that they traveled back in time so as to deliver it a week ago?
Gore didn’t win because of election shenanigans in Florida.
A special team of journalists investigated the facts, and determined that that was just NOT SO.
…Gore couldn’t decide whether to embrace or distance himself from Clinton…
That’s not the kind of inability to make a decision that we want in a President, now is it?
Next election the Republican candidate will have a similar problem
Only if the candidate comes from within the administration — most of them don’t, e.g., Novak says Thompson is looking real good.
And, in view of the general disenchantment many conservatives have with Pres. Bush, a candidate will have no trouble distancing him / her self from Bush for the primaries and the election.
Show me a quote from the President chastising any Republican member of Congress for going to Syria.
Nope, just Nancy Pelosi.
Add to that his mention of how trying to use diplomacy to deal with Syria doesn’t work, when, in fact, we are meeting with Syria right now.
Bush is not capable of telling the truth.
This wouldn’t be the same Syria Bush rendered prisoners (innocent Canadians, anyway)to, would it?
Or the Syria that tried to negotiate with Israel until Bush interfered?
Bushco doesn’t do diplomacy, at least in the Mid East. They make the motions, pretend to be open to all “options,” then they move to undermine progress either through diplomatic pressure or all out aggression. Any real attempt at diplomacy just makes it harder for Bush’s pretend diplomacy to keep the region destabilized and ripe for U.S. military and industrial interests.
We know Sunni insurgents are getting a huge proportion of their support from Saudi Arabia, and al-Qaeda and the Taliban are pretty much livin’ la vida loca on the Pakistan border.
Must be time to rant about Syrian supported terrorism and ratchet up the drive to bomb Iran!
Bill L., You know how I hate to be contentious, but I’m fairly certain that the article you cite with regard to a Canadian citizen, states he was deported, not rendered.
Just thought I’d point that out, because it seems you didn’t read the article.
Yes, Frank, even though Canada was so close they deported him to Syria for an all expense-paid year of torture and abuse.
midderpidge: I’m sure Syrian government officials are fully capable of torture and abuse without any prodding from us.
Frank, how true. Can you imagine how we lighten the Syrian’s load when we actually authorize the torture and practice torture ourselves?
Frank, I imagine that’s why Bush sends them victims.
Can you imagine how we lighten the Syrian’s load when we actually authorize the torture and practice torture ourselves?
{Ladies and gentlemen. zadura thinks he has me trapped. No matter how I answer the question, I will be admitting that the USA practices torture.
What shall I do? What shall I do? Oh, wait! I’ve got it!}
a) We don’t select Syrians for torture.
b) A Syrian getting tortured is like an American filing a tax return — it happens every day.
c) If we were to torture our enemies — and I’m not saying we do — I wouldn’t give a damn.
As for “Mr. Pipeline”, your nonresponsive responses are redolent of “s”,the psychopathic nitwit who seems to have found another “celebrity” to stalk.
“If we were to torture our enemies — and I’m not saying we do — I wouldn’t give a damn.”
And this is why you’ll never understand what’s great about America, Frank.
Frank:
a) Apparently we do help select them, that’s the point.
b) We don’t need to help with the torture.
c) Maybe your kids could be next.
Dr. AGH: I understood what was great about America before you could pronounce the word.
I offered my life for my country, and spent 15 years working for the government. When JFK said, “… ask what you can do for you country”, he was speaking to me and my generation.
What have you done for your country lately, Doc?
Besides bitch about it…
Maybe your kids could be next.
Don’t even pretend you care…
Frank, many of us recognize that you are a Vet and that is why we find it all the more difficult to understand why you would surrender your freedoms so easily.
The issue isn’t even whether or not you give a damn about torturing our enemies–it’s whether or not you give a damn when they torture people who aren’t our enemies.
“Frank, many of us recognize that you are a Vet …”
Others of us also recognize that Frank is totally crazy which explains just about everything else …
and spider, we shouldn’t be torturing anyone regardless …
Frame – True, but what I didn’t express correctly is that even people who can see a reason to torture captured combatants fail to recognize how likely it is that we’re torturing innocent people.
All the heavy-handed conservative bluster about how Gitmo is for “our enemies” and torture is for “our enemies” and their lament that due process of law might be applicable to “our enemies” completely glosses over the fact that not every single person swept up in the net is “our enemy.”
Let me see if I have this straight:
the Canadian in question was “deported,” not “rendered” to Syria (where we are known to have rendered others), not Canada (his home), where he was tortured by the Syrians, who spontaneously torture anyone in reach and not because of any “understanding” with the U.S. All of this with no charges filed, no trial, no tangible “benefit” to the U.S. or Canada of any kind. Just a sudden release years later with no explanation or apology (from the U.S. and Syria, at least).
Funny that Canada doesn’t seem to see it that way.
With “deportations” like that, who needs “renditions?”
“What have you done for your country lately, Doc?”
I voted against torturers. I spoke out against torture in our country’s name. Can you say the same?
Ah, yes, the blood is in the water once again!
Dr. AGH “voted against torturers”… Speaking truth to power,eh, tough guy? As if you wouldn’t have voted for Kerry if he had been caught on tape dropping puppies into blenders.
Bill L. thinks that Canada should speak for him…
Good, the border’s open — buh-bye!
SpiderJ presumes that the Americans who captured those terrorists knew they weren’t terrorists, so they were either idiots or monsters.
That’s what I call supporting the troops. Maybe you can get a two – for – one deal with Bill L., and go where the soldiers don’t even fight.
frame: Being called “totally crazy” by you is a compliment.
zadura: I don’t recall having surrendered any freedoms, but I’m sure that since I’ve said that, you’ll point out which ones I’ve lost.
“As if you wouldn’t have voted for Kerry if he had been caught on tape dropping puppies into blenders.”
So you’re criticizing me for something I might have done in an alternate reality? Meanwhile, in this reality, Bush tortures people, and you stand by and do nothing. If that makes you feel like something less than a man or a patriot, it’s not my fault, Frank.
Actually, Frank, I presume that not everybody we’ve caught is a terrorist. I presume that human beings are fallible, and in acknowledgment of that we try not to push a situation beyond a point where we cannot go back.
Can you say with 100% certainty that we have not tortured completely innocent people?
Frank, the freedoms I hold dear are the ones that the Founding Fathers risked life and limb to protect. Namely, the right of the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be protected against unwarranted search and seizures, and the right to a fair trial, the rights that prohibit cruel and unusual punishments.
In another time, these might have been Republican issues since they certainly permit a narrow constructionist view of the constitution. Unfortunately, it appears that some Republicans can’t get off their collective La-Z-Boys to defend American principles.
Meanwhile, in this reality, Bush tortures people, and you stand by and do nothing.
a) Bush is not torturing anybody
b) The so-called “torture” for which you might have evidence” scarcely qualifies as torture. It is designed to make prisoners uncomfortable, and more willing to talk.
c) You have done exactly one thing — voted against Pres. Bush, something you would have done, anyway.
d) I didn’t say anything about feeling unpatriotic or like “something less than a man”. Insinuating that I did is childish and pointless
Can you say with 100% certainty that we have not tortured completely innocent people?
If you are talking about the metaphysical certainty that each and every person that has been “made uncomfortable” [see above], was “guilty” of something, then, no.
But “making someone uncomfortable” to get them to talk is not a punishment for a crime. It doesn’t take a lot of time for a person to convince an interrogator that he has no usable knowledge.
Stop trying to identify highly trained US military interrogators as bad actors in a ‘B movie’.
Frank, the freedoms I hold dear are the ones that the Founding Fathers risked life and limb to protect.
a) These rights have been set aside on many an occasion when the US is at war.
b) Hardly anyone has been affected by these changes. It’s not like the average citizen is cowering in fear under his bed at night.
c) And I’m still waiting for you “Freedom Fighters” to tell me what you have actually done to “preserve” our freedoms, stem the tide of Republican totalitarian oppression, or, certainly not least, combat terrorism; besides piss and moan about what a meanie Pres.Bush is?
Face it, guys, what I think about the world means nothing to you. I represent, in your minds, the forces of eeeeevil, and you can convince yourselves that you are fighting for “truth, justice, and the American way”, by beating up rhetorically on one of the few conservatives you even know.
I’ve been in demonstrations, I’ve stood up for black folks in the South, and volunteered to fight in a war against Communism.
My guess is that, although you want to do such things, you never have. So, this blog is the best you’ve got. I’m not putting you down for what you haven’t done, don’t put me down for what I have done.
Damn you, italics!
I’m not putting you down. I’m saying you support torture and torturers. I’m further saying that because you support torture and torturers, you clearly don’t understand what makes America a good country. Frankly, your response to those charges is evasive and unconvincing. What else is there to discuss?
I’m further saying that because you support torture and torturers, you clearly don’t understand what makes America a good country
And I’m saying that you have said that dozens of times without expanding on it. Are you insisting on defining torture as “making a prisoner uncomfortable” [MAPU]?
Are you using being for or against MAPU as a standard for whether a person knows what makes America great?
Should I have voted for a man who may, or may not, have mouthed the words “I oppose torture”, even if I opposed about 99% of his platform?
Should I have voted for a man who may, or may not, have mouthed the words “I oppose torture”, whether or not he had no plan to discontinue it in his administration, if he had won?
And here’s the $64 question: Do you honestly believe that because I voted for Pesident Bush, that I support torture and torturers, as defined by me (not MAPU, as you define torture)?
That’s what else there is to discuss.
Frank, thank you for at least admitting that George Bush has impinged on our Constitutional protections. That is more than you’ve admitted thus far. Do the current encroachments represent a full-frontal assault on our liberties? No, but I choose not to cede ground on principles for political expediency, for I know that this is the crack in the door that allows the undemocratic elements in our government to flourish and grow. If nothing else, the fact that Bush used provisions of the Patriot Act to try to hide the US Attorney resignations should let offer a red flag to true patriots. Which side are you on?
To prove his point Frank volunteers to undergo the same treatment that Gitmo prisoners have been subjected to.
And Frank, voting for Bush doesn’t necessarily make you pro-torture despite Bush’s torture policy, but your defense of it does.
“frame: Being called “totally crazy” by you is a compliment.”
unless of course you really are totally crazy …
Keep in mind, frame, that I can communicate with people for hours on end without cursing, swearing or call someone a dipshit or an idiot.
One might say that civility is associated with sanity.
Frank, thank you for at least admitting that George Bush has impinged on our Constitutional protections.
First of all, I believe that I have said on many occasions that such things were necessary during a war
Second, similar things have occurred going back to the War of 1812. I don’t recall any creaking door remaining open, after those wars. I also don’t recall a flood of innocent victims claiming their rights were violated without justification.
Third, when it comes to violating people’s rights, it was the Clintons who were found to have income tax records in the White House. No “crack in the door” talk then, eh?
So, Frank, the question is: would it be justified if you were treated the same way as prisoners at Guantanamo? Would you consider the government to be justified in arresting you, holding you without outside contact of any kind for years? Would you feel it was ok if you were waterboarded repeatedly, left naked in cold rooms for days, chained in stress positions for hours, etc etc etc. How about if your kids were treated this way?
Would you consider the government to be justified in arresting you, holding you without outside contact of any kind for years?
Were you expecting me to say yes? I’m not a terrorist, or even a suspected terrorist. Hell, I’m not even a liberal Democrat(ic)!
If I were captured under the same circumstances as they were, i.e., armed and in a war zone, yes.
Same goes for my kids. But you can stop pretending to worry about them, and you can stop using their existence to win arguments now.
The fact is, they spend so much time on the Internet, and playing video games, they barely even go outdoors.
They won’t be going to the middle east to fire on American soldiers anytime soon.
,“f I were captured under the same circumstances as they were…”
Therein lies a major problem with your argument. Many weren’t captured armed in a war zone. Many were turned over just for the US bounty money. Many had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist groups or the war and were held for years with no process at all to gauge their innocence or guilt. So Frank, the question remains: what if it were you or one of your kids?
You think the point is moot because you aren’t brown. Imagine if they started treating domestic terrorist groups the same way? There are many white Americans involved in terrorism just as deadly and maybe more dangerous than Muslim brown terrorists. Anthrax and Oklahoma City. In Texas they caught a man with a sodium-cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands. What tipped law enforcement off to this plot? A box of fake IDs (Department of Defense and UN) was delivered to the wrong address.
The point is, your neighbor could be a terrorist and could give up your name simply because he doesn’t like when you mow your lawn. Then it would be you.
Many were turned over just for the US bounty money. Many had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist groups or the war and were held for years with no process at all to gauge their innocence or guilt
Many? I doubt it.
Besides, many have been sent home.
You think the point is moot because you aren’t brown
Don’t even call the travel agent to buy the tickets to go there. That is complete nonsense on two levels. Terrorists aren’t “brown”, and they’re not picked up because their names are Achmed or Abdullah. So just knowing that someone is ethnically semitic isn’t enough. And I’m not racist — I just want the government to apprehend terrorists in the USA, and kill them everywhere else.
The point is, your neighbor could be a terrorist and could give up your name simply because he doesn’t like when you mow your lawn. Then it would be you.
That is just rhetorical hogwash. If that ever happened to me, I’d complain about it. If it ever happens to you, I’d complain about it. If it happens to someone you know, let me know. If someone you know ever tells you it happened to someone they know, then come back to me. Until then, I’ll not engage in any McCarthy era fantasies that we’re all in danger of being snatched and flown off to Gitmo. [And I don't mow my lawn, you rich capitalist landowner, you -- my filthy capitalist pig landlord exploits a Mexican superintendent by paying him lots of money to do it].
And could you please at least pretend you have the good taste to leave my sons out of this. It is inflammatory as well as foolish.
Frank, why do you reveal information about your personal life in your posts and get angry/offended when anyone comments on that information?
Yes, Frank, many have been sent home after being held and mistreated for over three years, exactly the point. Eventually let go because they had nothing to do with terrorism.
See the point is Frank, a precedent now exists for people to be arrested and held incommunicado with no judicial review on little or no real evidence for years at a time. These same people are mistreated. Again with no system in place to even establish guilt or innocence.
midderpidge: the waiver of rights is commonplace in wartime. Whether or not there has been a Congressional declaration, we already have two crucial items for “a war”: There are combat troops in the field, and there is an enemy that seeks our destruction.
Presidents have always, in wartime, suspended civil liberties to different degrees. This is no different.
There are tribunals in place right now to determine if each of the prisoners is a combatant (subject to the Geneva Conventions), or a non-combatant (subject to due process).
That should, but probably will not, satisfy you.
Squirrel,because I didn’t reveal it to be used as “rhetorical ammo” for ill – mannered, sophomoric commenters.
Why do you think that I bear any responsibility for someone else’s comments?
Why do all you liberals say things like, “If you didn’t want me to mock your handicap, why didn’t you conceal that hook?”, as if the fact that you know something requires you to comment on it.
So, your personal information is off limits to any comment but you’re free to mock other peoples’ personal information (e.g. frameone’s profession)?
“Why do all you liberals say …”
Nice sweeping statement considering the sentence above it.
The waiver of Geneva convention rights is ok in wartime? Why have them then.
Taking 3+ years to get around to having tribunals to determine the status of prisoners is not following the Geneva conventions.
Also, many feel the tribunals were shams anyway.
It’s been months since I said anything about frameone’s profession.
And I’m inclined to believe that my children are more important to me than my, or anyone else’s, profession.
And when I say, “You liberals” I am referring to the practices of the people here on this blog.
Apparently, the thrust of my argument is valid, as you haven’t seen fit to even try to refute it.
I’ll bet that the subject of my children comes up long before the subject of frameone’s profession. And I think it’s safe to say that for all conservatives and all liberals that post on this blog.
Finally, my first name is bandied about all over this blog, mention has been made of my address, my schooling and my age — on many occasions. I’m asking that my children be left out of this, especially in usages like, “Would you want ________ to happen to your children?”
There’s a commenter on this blog who mentioned the other day that his daughter is of age to vote, and that she is anxious to do so. What would you think if, in the midst of a discussion about capital punishment, I asked him how he would feel about capital punishment if his daughter were raped and killed? Would that be O.K.? He brought it up, didn’t he?
As I said, midderpidge, “That should, but probably will not, satisfy you.”
I guess we should get them all ACLU lawyers, and a jury of Muslim peers.
Or we could treat them as they are treated where they come from.
The point Frank, is it’s easy to say “I believe this” if it doesn’t effect you. The use of “what if it were you or your children” is to attempt to make you think about whether you would still hold that belief if it happened to you.
If we were discussing capital punishment and I took the position that it never should happen, a valid examination is if I would still hold to that belief if my daughter were raped and murdered. (I don’t believe in capital punishment because of various trial flaws).
Now back to Gitmo detainees.
Of the detainees:
Only 8% were classified as fighters for
30% were classified as members of a terrorist group or the Taliban
60% were classified as associated with
2% had no classification alleged.
___________________
Of Group Affiliations;
32% affiliated with Al Qaeda
28% affiliated Al Qaeda AND Taliban
22% affiliated Taliban
7% affiliated Taliban OR Al Qaeda
10% Unidentified or unalleged
1% other
_____________________________
55% FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile act against the US or its coalition allies.
_____________________________
Only 5% of the detainees were captured by the US
86% were captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance when the US was offering large cash bounties.
___________________________
“Get wealth and power beyond your dreams….You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al-Qaida and Taliban murders. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life. Pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.”
An example of a US ad placed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
__________________________________
Each detainee was determined by the US to be an enemy comabatant before his CSRT hearing.
______________________________
Criteria for determining a detainee as an enemy combatant include:
- Possession of a rifle
- Possession of a Casio watch.
- Wearing drab olive clothing.
- Staying in a guest house (similar to a hostel).
______________________________
The Taliban government was run by 11 governors and several ministers, mayors, police bigwigs, and senior administrators. None of which are at Gitmo. The Taliban heavily used conscription. Many unwilling conscripts are at Gitmo.
______________________________
11 Out of over 500 detainees had actually met Hussein.
___________________________
My conclusion:
Gitmo is an expensive jail for some innocent people and some guilty small fish masquerading as a PR prison for the “worst of the worst”.
Oops
Link
According to Fig.1 on page 8, 89% of the detainees are alleged to be affiliated with either the Taliban or al Qaida, or both.
My question to you is: How many of them were American citizens turned in by angry neighbors?
The use of “what if it were you or your children” is to attempt to make you think about whether you would still hold that belief if it happened to you.
If we were discussing capital punishment and I took the position that it never should happen, a valid examination is if I would still hold to that belief if my daughter were raped and murdered. (I don’t believe in capital punishment because of various trial flaws).
So, if I read you correctly, you think that I believe what I believe because it can’t happen to me, and apparently, you also think that if I could be made to see that (by none other than you, of course) then I might change my mind.
You, of course, have a certain belief which you wouldn’t change if it happened to you.
Do I have that right so far?
What if I told you that I believe what I believe precisely because it is going to, in most cases, happen to exactly the right people?
What if I reminded you that those “trial flaws” melted away like last winter’s snows when Libby got framed?
And what if I reminded you that if you are not going to change your mind, just because “it happened to you”, then there is no reason to suppose that I have not come to my way of thinking after thinking about what might happen to me and my children, now is there?
Have you ever been falsely arrested? I have.
Have you ever seen your brother choked by a policeman for nothing? I have.
Have you ever been threatened by a policeman, with a gun, right in the station, in front of a secretary, who quickly turned her eyes away? I have.
I know what can happen right here in the good ol’ USA … You don’t need to remind me of anything.
Just keep feeling more sorry for the prisoners at Gitmo than I do for the families and survivors of the people killed on 9/11.
Play it the Democrat(ic) way.
None, Frank. Many, however, were people turned in for American bounty money.
Of course we don’t know how many American citizens were arrested in the US and held for months as material witnesses. Ditto for legal immigrants.
So, Frank, you accept, condone or justify anything that happens to people as long as they aren’t US citizens. Regardless of US involvement. Thanks for clarifying that.
midderpidge: If you wish to speak for me, then I will speak for you…
Do you want to trade places?
Oh, Frank, was I speaking for you? Oh, I’m sorry, I guess I would hate to have you speak for me! Not that you don’t do it anyway, like on the comment directly before mine that you were so offended by:
Just keep feeling more sorry for the prisoners at Gitmo than I do for the families and survivors of the people killed on 9/11.
So it’s about the revenge huh?
You call it revenge; I call it justice.
Or should I say,”You say I say it’s about revenge; I say it’s about justice.”
Doesn’t fly Frank. My position has been about justice, yours has been about justification for revenge.
Thank you for clearing that up. And all the time, I thought you didn’t know what I was thinking, until I typed it in the little box.
Whether or not I’m seeking revenge, I’m still concerned with ending terrorism, and I still consider the USA to be at war, and I still contend that many Presidents have suspended civil liberties in time of war, with no permanent negative results — except perhaps Lincoln’s Civil War income tax.