Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Perhaps you should try sticking your head up your ass to get the benefit of the typical liberal's world view.

I have frequently said that there are only 2 sorts of persons who support or supported the commies.

First there are those who have never experienced the brutal ravages of communism. Second there are those who have never experienced the brutal ravages of communism.

In the first category you have the leaders of any communist nation. In the second you have the candy-assed elitists of America and W.Europe’s left wing.

I recently made this assertion to a naïve young associate at my firm, who replied, “well, how about Elian’s dad?”, which made realize that there is a third sort of person who supports communism. The guy with the communist leader’s jackboot in his back and gun to his head.

All of which served to remind me that I am constantly awestruck at the stupidity of the urban elite leftist masses, brain washed into stupification by CBSNews and all the Chardonnay and Brie that they consume. These people couldn’t muster a whisper of dissent when Clinton and Reno used federal forces to kidnap a innocent young boy at gunpoint and facilitate the death of his freedom and yet they vehemently cry out against the use of federal or state executive power to rescue a beautiful young woman’s life from being tortured to death. That is some twisted amoral compass.

Reminds me of what Annie Coulter said in her best selling tome, Slander:

Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now. She should have added, they hate life and they hate freedom.

I am confused
 

What the revisionist pussies love to forget that this country was built upon the backbone of young men. Young men who were violently tortured and who bled the RED of our Red, White and Blue.

Do you think the patriots of Boston and Philly and weren't tortured and starved by the Boddy redcoats back in 1777? They raped the women and left injured Minutemen to starve in stocks, while bleeding from infected, gaping wounds from primative musket fire. Same thing in the War of 1812, except this time we had the French and the Redskins piling on with the torture.

In the Spanish-American war, US soldiers, when caught, would be left to die of thirst in a hole. Unlike this Schiavo chick, these boys were awake.

And do we really need to talk about WWII? Baatan? Those slope savages slaughtered ever injured soldier they could find. If they weren't deliberately maimed first. Many were beheaded and their heads were taked as trophies. Two more words: Iwo Jima.

And what was that quagmire in the 60's? You know, the one where the commie pigs tortured and kept our boys in pens for tens of years. Too bad the Geneva Convention was around to prevent it.

And you dare to talk about torture.

I am confused
 

Verily! God bless you, you red, white and blue bleeding minuteman patriot mutherfucker you!

LET'S ROLL!

BRING EM ON!

DEAD OR ALIVE!

I'd like to buy a vowel
 

For all the doofi here who love the leftwing socialist blogsters so much, try this from Mr. pat Sajak, christian, American, patriot, and all around man of the Right! It couldn't be said better.

Why I've Stopped Arguing with Liberals

by Pat Sajak
Posted Mar 28, 2005

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical -- and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis -- it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative -- one of the bad guys -- complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they -- being the good guys -- will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am confused
 

I can go along with that.

Right back at ya
 

To my fellow Republicans - please forgive me but I just couldn't help myself.

Why I've Stopped Arguing with Social Conservatives

by Pat Sajak’s Alter Ego
Posted Mar 28, 2005

Every time I argue with a Social Conservative, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Social Conservative friends out in Alabam when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that all the courts that upheld the removing of Shiavo's feeding tube were “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; these courts were worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical -- and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis -- it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Right. They tend to do things like accusing members of the left of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, God is on their side and they have the corner on the morality market. If a Social Conservative -- one of the good guys -- complains about the content of music, films or television shows, it is OK that he wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he can be a censor because he knows what is good for the rest of us. However, a Liberal complains certain type of “hate speech” that incites people to commit racist violence then they are accused of enforcing Nazi like politically correct codes.

When liberals want to enforce standards of education from the state or Federal level, like the teaching of science in a Biology class instead of religion, they are accused of infringing on state rights. But, when a husband tries to follow his wife’s wishes as far as dying with respect, the want every branch of the government to intervene no matter what the law says. .

When Social Conservatives want to legislate what you can do with your own body or what you do in the privacy of your own home, that is fine, because they ensuring public morality. But when Liberals want to legislate to make car safers or the food you eat safer, or limit the power of special interests they are asking the Government to intrude where it does not belong. . The excesses of the Conservatives are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from their closeness to God.

In a different Mid West conversation, I complained to another Conservative friend about some of the Right’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “blue state” voters caricatured as “the urban elite leftist masses, brain washed into stupification by CBSNews and all the Chardonnay and Brie that they consume”. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in the country, who are God fearing, and less exposed to all those crazy foreign ideas are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

RINO
 

Rhetorically hysterical? Really?

Here is what Hitler said on the subject in 1939:

"The authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner
that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most
careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."

Here is what Greer said about Terri, 2005, "she will die”, which translated into the German means:

"The authority of Dr. Felos and Nurse Mikey Schiavo to be designated by name by this Imperial Court in such manner that Terri Schiavo, according to their hearsay and inuendo, is incurably vegetative can, upon a most circumstantial diagnosis of her condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death by starvation, as the same shall be administered by this Court through its agents, Dr. Felos and nurse Mikey Schiavo."


http://home.comcast.net/~phildragoo/...6/site1368.jpg

I am confused
 

i like this sock, but I don't remember it having some 200 posts.

I am confused
 

When i expound on things you cannot understand, like science, I try and distill the facts so that the poorly-read of you can understand my point.

You might want to try and distill the few dozen some blogs that inform your opinions here, then we'll understand better:

Ty- last Summer:
"DU and the other blogs I read and accept as gospel say oil for food is a meaningless distraction cooked up by Chalabi to cover for his other lies."

Ty-now:
"Annan's family getting super rich over the bodies of dead Iraq kids isn't something that would cause me to question the role of the UN in the world generally, and in the Iraq decisions in particular- because my blogs explained blah blah blah- meaningless strained- frankly- wierd- distinction- blah blah....."

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Stop with the PC shit. You aint getting laid from the girls on PB.

Right back at ya
 

Why apologize to them? You just illustrate the truth. Fuck the self-righteous urban-sophisticate liberals convinced of their own elite superiority, fuck the self-righteous bible-banger conservatives convinced of their own divine inspiration.

Everyone vote libertarian!

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Not since I scored Not Me's hoo haa and took her out of commission.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

War sucks. It never ceases to amaze me how people who would find things outrageous in other contexts can so easily dismiss them when they occur in the context of war.

Well, at least you're in good company. Even the Supreme Court was willing to suspend the very principles we were fighting to defend in the Japanese internment camp cases.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Except when it's convenient not to.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

You're only partially right -- non-pigness is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Like, not naming names?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Well, thank the Lord above we have mechanics from West Virginia and unemployed inner-city kids in their late teens to make that judgment on the spot. Otherwise, something might go wrong with your system.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

If you don't see this as morally reprehensible, period, then it is because you apparently lack a moral compass. There is no further point in debating this issue.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

So, above, you make fun of my "shit happens" point, and here, your point is, shit is gonna happen? I suppose you coould just state your overall rule as, "I get to review everything in hindsight, and I'll let ya know when you fuck up".

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Since it will take Wanker 35 years to catch up, I think what he was saying is that we should not be giving the people on the ground discretion as to whether they can beat the crap out of someone for information (or sodomize him, or whatever), not that "shit is going to happen." club/hank seemed to be proposing that the individual soldiers make the call. wanker was pointing out that perhaps people pulled in from the National Guard are not terribly well-equipped to make such calls.

It seems like it should not be first thing in the morning where you are, unless you are in Hawaii on vacation or something, but I think they have plenty of coffee there.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

No. I was criticizing your generally dismissive attitude about the fact that shit happens.

And my point was not that "shit happens." My point was that Club was full of shit with his "tortures only okay if they're really bad guys" theory, because there is no way in the context of Abu Ghraib to know who the bad guys are at the time they're deciding to beat or rape them and/or their families.

I would prosecute the soldiers who committed the unlawful acts. I would prosecute the officers who were charged with supervising them. I would prosecute the commanders who oversaw Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

And I would obtain counsel who clearly understood that, if individual liberties mean anything in our society, then they apply universally, and violation of them cannot be condoned.

Shit happens. But a decent people clean it up.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Thanks, Sis.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

It's always first thing in the morning wherever I am.

And I think the point is that the people at Abu Ghraib (sp?) were not given that discretion. But, war being a bloody unorganized mess, they took it anyway. And, are in the process of being punished. There's a large moral difference between authorizing a thing, and failing to stop a thing. They're being treated the same here, because it's convenient for the partisan argument.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Actually, I never argued that the military wasn't starting to clean the mess up. I also wasn't pointing out the fact that before they started cleaning up, they spent a lot of effort trying to argue that it was okay. I could have made that point. I could even point out that our Glorious Leader nominated one of the torture apologists for Justice of the Supreme Court, thereby creating one of the adminsitration's Supreme Ironies. I could have made those points. But that would have been partisan.

I was merely expressing dismay at the fact that so many posters here seem to think that civil rights and basic human dignity are for us here at home only. At least at this point in time, when such niceties are inconvenient to the Mission.

I expected better of us. I now know I was wrong.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Bullshit. This should not be a partisan issue. Those acts of barbarism have damaged our national prestige and our claim to be a civilised society. It will have a negative impact on our foreign policy for years to come and created unnecessary risks for our current and future soldiers. I'm not out for W's hide on this, so quit feeling like you have to defend the administration. Let's admit that there was a problem and fix it, and fix it as openly as possible to repair some of the damage that's been done. This is not what's happening, as the piece posted by gatti indicates.

eta: From this week's The Onion:

American Torturing Jobs Increasingly Outsourced
WASHINGTON, DC—AFL-CIO vice president Linda Chavez-Thompson, representing the American Federation of Interrogation Torturers, released a statement Monday deriding the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, under which American torturing jobs are outsourced to foreign markets. "Outsourcing the task of interrogating terror suspects to countries like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia is having a crippling effect on the Americans who make a living by stripping detainees nude, shackling them to the floor, and beating the living shit out of them," Chavez-Thompson said. "And specialists within the field—corrosive-material chemists, ocular surgeons, and testicular electricians—are lucky to find any jobs at all. How are they supposed to feed their families?" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended extraordinary rendition, saying the program will create jobs in the long run by fostering a global climate of torture tolerance.

http://www.theonion.com/

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Bullshit. This is entirely a partisan issue. Everyone who hates us for Abu G already hated us for Iraq, and for Afghanistan, and probably for France. No minds were changed; all that happened was a new label was provided. In the grand scheme of things, this is a talking point for one party, and nothing more. The day we as a nation adopt the morals of the Abu G guards, call me. Until then, this is a small group of people given too much discretion who fucked up badly.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Hmm. No partisanship here. Did you read what he wrote? The legal doc that you are calling an apologia for torture? Obviously not, which is what leaves you free to engage in this lowest form of demagogic sloganeering. No blood for oil!

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

With the War on Terror, we suspend those very principles in all sorts of cases, even here in the United States. Just ask Mr. Padilla -- oops, that's right, we can't talk to him.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

And that new label is torturers? Nice.

You keep dismissing this as a small thing, no big deal. I see this as a very serious issue, though not a political one necessarily. One way to remove any hint of partisanship from this would be for the party in power to demand a full investigation and accounting of this sordid mess. Is it so hard to do the right thing when you control all three branches of government?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Many people who are blind nonetheless can understand that others can see.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Meth is bad for you.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I think when I take a shit, for you it would be a partisan issue.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Well, if you would stop doing it here . . .

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

You can't change my mind about meth. But that's only because in this case I already agreed with you.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Actually, I did read it. And what's more, quit ducking the point of my post. You are claiming that a little torture is no big deal. Where the fuck does that come from?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

But you are missing my point. Our civil rights and basic human dignities at home are neither guaranteed nor written in stone. It is up to us to defend them.

I started off this discussion saying that I was torn on the issue because the stakes in war are so high that a win at all costs attitude may be necessary. Let me throw this back at you. Would it be better for us to not torture, even if that meant losing the fight and, in turn, our civil rights and basic human dignities?

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

This is not at all close to the situation we were confronted with. Let's dispense with the fun little hypos and stick with the facts.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

Let me suggest that if we view them as being dispensable, we are in the process of losing the the fight. If we truly believe we can torture people under any circumstances and that such behavior should be condoned by society, what basic human dignity is left? We have tossed it aside in the name of expedience.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

This discussion isn't about the current situation. You have made it that way because it is convenient for you to do so.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

The one guy caught in Pakistan- the no. 3 guy- supposedly has given up a good deal of info that rooted out cells here and in Europe. assume he was tortured to give up the info (I do). Is that acceptable because he clearly had good info? Does it matter that it was likely Paki agents doing the torture (ie is it just that we're above it)?

Should we take a "fruit of the poisened tree" approach to torture-induced info?

Whether ex-car mechanics from des Moines should have been molesting prisoners isn't at issue. They shouldn't have, but where we are at in the world right now- at least strains some of those old rule, i think.

Ty- now is it a scandal?
 

I certainly agree with your second point, on the large moral difference between authorizing a thing and failing to stop a thing (assuming said failure was inadvertent and/or negligent rather than reckless or willful). Most of the incidents we've heard of to date, particularly those involving the regular infantry and/or reserve/NG units (i.e. folks not well-trained/prepared for the job) seem to fall into that category.

That said, "failing to stop a thing" which one should stop (or minimize) can be a significant failure -- as I think it was not only in Abu Ghraib but in too many instances in this campaign and related efforts. (After all, its all one big War on Terror -- right?)

On your first point -- that they took discretion not given by the command -- that's probably true wrt Abu Ghraib and (like I said) most other incidents.

What troubles me most, though, Bilmore are the indications we have seen that there are individuals and/or units -- including some who floated in and out of Abu Ghraib - who _have_ been given that discretion to torture and kill prisoners.

In my view, too many bodies have been and continue to be turning up, reportedly in connection with "contractors" or "other government agencies" or SOF, for it to fall into the category of "shit happens without some direction from above." There are too many little news blurbs about investigations begun months and years after the fact that go nowhere, or are closed with a finding or no misconduct despite prisoner deaths. Remember the congressional testimony wrt Gitmo a couple years back that "the gloves are off now"? Once you take them off its hard to get them back on.

S_A_M

P.S. I don't go nearly as far as Taxwonk on the prosecution issue -- but I really think that if the Abu Ghraib troubles had not been so politically incendiary (and the CO had not been so aggresssive and media-savvy), the military sure as hell would have done much worse to General Karpinski. Like it or not (and I think its mostly good), senior commanders are held accountable for such complete breakdowns of discipline in their units, especially when there are systemic problems up and down the chain as Taguba noted. She wasn't even relieved of command.