At the UN, Bush Cites Human Rights Declaration

When George W. Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, he glowingly referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN in 1948. He said:

This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.

The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world."

One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become president of this assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles applied equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home.

In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents....The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written.

That is some endorsement. But how familiar is Bush with the entire document? Let's start with Article 5:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Bush claims that his adminsitration has not tortured any terrorist suspect. But that claim has been challenged. (In the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the War, we recount the tale of a captured al Qaeda commander handed over by the CIA to Egyptian authorities, who was aggressively questioned--perhaps tortured--and provided false information linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. This information was then used by Colin Powell during his now infamous UN speech before the invasion of Iraq.)

Article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Terrorist suspects detained as enemy combatants by the United States were not afforded equal protection of the law.

Article 9:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

The Bush White House has argued that the president has the power to arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an enemy combatant and that a detainee can be held as long as the president deems fit, without any due process. The Supreme Court, though, has not gone along with that view.

Article 10:

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him

Did Bush's original idea of using a military tribunal to try suspected terrorists jibe with this provision? Is his current proposal to try detainees with secret evidence in sync with this article?

Article 12:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Bush keeps insisting on the right to wiretap people--including American citizens (under certain circumstances)--without a warrant, not even a secret warrant. As for the right not to have one's honor and reputation assailed, the drafters of this declaration must have forgotten to put in a clause exempting the targets of political campaigns.

Article 30:

Noting in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein

In other words, not even a wartime president gets a pass. So did Bush read this document before he praised it? Or was he just reading a speech?

******

INFO ON HUBRIS: Tom Brokaw says "Hubris is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For more information on Hubris, click here.

Comments (385)

1. Started to get worried that there would be no mention of "The Book".....was relieved when this popped up...

   "Bush claims that his adminsitration has not tortured any terrorist suspect. But that claim has been challenged. (In the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the WarHubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War, we recount the tale ..."

   WHEW!

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:24pm

2. Ah! But it did come with the familiar "Info on Hubris" advertisement at the end of the article. Though you think that he could have gotten a better quote from Brokaw, like "Today's pro-terrorists sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome (aka "progressives") are really the Greatest Generation and Corn is at the helm".

   Posted by woodyee at 09/19/2006 @ 4:38pm

3. i don't really think mr. bush intends people to ask the sort of questions that mr. corn does. when mr. bush says, "i don't pay attention to the news," or just the other day, in characteristic response to a reporter who asked about mr. powell's letter which questioned mr. bush's moral high ground, mr. bush retaliated, "i just can't accept that."

   mr. bush is so extraordinarily insulated from reality, that one has to wonder whether he is in danger from it, or whether he is putting us all in danger from it. does his wife not think to turn him into a psychiatric hospital? because with every passing day, it seems more and more evident that mr. bush needs serious therapy. i am saying this out of total concern for the man: he needs help, and badly so.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 4:39pm

4. woodye goes on the ignore list, next.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 4:41pm

5. You know, David Corn would have REALLY surprised me....and that's saying something given he's pretty predictable now....

   if he had simply written his critique of Bush's UN speech, and left out a pretty tangential reference and shameless plug of "Hubris".

   I mean it....If this had been a "pure" article (no book plugs), even if it left the "Hubris" info paragraph at the bottom....I think it would have given a LOT of ammo to those who defend him going on and on and on and on in making every thing he's written for a MONTH now....a commercial!

   And supposedly it's on the NY Times Best Seller list (not a doubt, just haven't seen the Times list)....so it doesn't even NEED it (especially here with a mostly friendly audience!).

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:45pm

6. another completely irrelevant and utterly ridiculous comment falls out of bravo's mouth.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 4:52pm

7. i don't get it mary....

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 4:56pm

8. looks like mary's going on the ignore list

   bye bye!

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 5:12pm

9. Darlaloon, it is you who needs therapy immediately! I am convinced that you and the rest of the lunatics n the left would not get it even if a Nuke were to hit N.Y.! The mental disorder known as liberalism would cause many to state that Bush didn't do enough to protect us ( homeland security ) if we were attacked with a nuke. Yet, as long as we are not attacked, the left will state that the threat is much smaller ( a few radicals that Bush created ) and that all the tactics Bush uses to ight terrorism is his way of fear-mongering! So, no matter what happens, you'll blame Bush. This is why there will always be those ( lunatic liberals ) who will deny the threat we face ( out of hatred for republicans and this country ) even if we are hit with a nuke. You know you are a sick person when 99% of your criticism is pointed towards your own democratically elected president, yet none of your time is spent criticizing the actions of THROAT-CUTTING, SUICIDE-BOMBING, CONVERT OR DIE TERRORISTS WHO HAVE SHOWN THAT NO AMOUNT OF DIPLOMACY SHORT OF FULL CONVERSION TO ISLAM WILL STOP THEM! My advise: Check yourself into a mental institution immediately or move to FRANCE!

   Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 5:14pm

10. read my post above, zero, not only is it laughable or hideously cynical, i think the man needs help.

    i think his wife needs to slap him, throw some cold water on his face, or get him stoned.

    send him over to darla's, i got the skunkiest dank out there....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 5:19pm

11. barry, jesus cristo! if a nuke hits the US? now WHO would wanna do that?

    nukes aren't actually meant to be used. if iran nuked us, then we would nuke them, 100 times over. how smart, then, would it be for iran to nuke us?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 5:20pm

12. barry = ignore list

    this is getting fun!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 5:21pm

13. Bravo!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 5:36pm

14. DARDALOON:

    I make it easy. Other than a couple I still read for comic relief (MASK AND OKSPORTSGUY), I have all of the right wing trolls on my ignore list. I mean, if we want to read such tripe, we can all read National Review Online or Weekly Standard Online.

    Posted by trabaris at 09/19/2006 @ 5:39pm

15. Everything with Bush is just absurd. I recently viewed the film "...So Goes the Nation" at a private screening. It shows how Bush/Cheney campaign was able to manipulate the swing state of Ohio during the 2004 election. It caused me to cringe at the numerous misopportunites of the Kerry campagin.

    Posted by JJHunsecker at 09/19/2006 @ 5:49pm

16. RE: the right-wing, neo-fascist Republicans who have argued on this blog in the past in favor of the use of torture as a means of interrogation- they fully deserve to be snatched, shipped off, and tortured just like this man was- due, it appears, to the simpleminded incompetence and bigotry of the RCMP and US authorities.

    I have put almost all of those cretins on my ignore list. What is the point of talking to someone who favors torture until proven innocent? These people have not advanced beyond the Middle Ages-- interestingly, exactly what they accuse Muslims of.

    Canadian probe acquits suspect of terrorism ties

    Inquiry faults U.S. in deporting him to Syria, where he was tortured Ian Austen, New York Times

    Tuesday, September 19, 2006 Ottawa -- A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted both Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

    The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities before sending Arar to Syria.

    "I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada," Justice Dennis O'Connor, head of the commission, said at a news conference.

    O'Connor sifted through thousands of pages of documents and sat through testimony from more than 40 witnesses. He delivered two versions of his report to the government: one classified, the other public. But portions of even the public edition of the long-awaited document will be withheld due to security concerns.

    Article link [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 5:50pm

17. nice post Mr Corn. obviously Bush didn't read the thing or is so delusional he doesn't understand he is in voilation of it. or wants to be.

    I hope something crazy happens at this conference. like if there's a gala it would be sick if ahamdenejad asked laura bush to dance.

    I LOVED what he said in TIME about everyone minding their on business. there is no reason for us to be in the middle east. all it seems to do is stimulate raical islam and raise the price of oil. total isolationism is the only way out

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 09/19/2006 @ 5:51pm

18. looks like mary's going on the ignore list

    bye bye!

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/19/2006 @ 5:12pm

    You won't miss them. They are here to waste your time and energy. Address Bushalini's talking points and you will have covered everything they have to say. They are birdbrained parrots.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 5:53pm

19. Darlalunatic, you be smokin' too much o' dat dank! I say nuke, you say Iran! Talk about being narrow-minded! How about a suitcase nuke? Ever heard of that? Is it possible that a Nuke is already here? Take your mouth off the bong for a second, open your mind / eyes, do some research before you spew your shit, and you'll find that there are more ways than one ( Iran? ) to deliver Nukes! My point was, though, that if we suffer a catastophic attack, you'll blame Bush for not protecting us and for causing the attack to occur in the first place ( because as we all know, terrorism didn't exist and no one tried to attack us before Bush created all these misunderstood terrorists ). If we are not attacked ( we will be )you'll blame Bush for exagerrating the terrorist threat we face ( fear-mongering ) in order to keep power so he can steal oil, torture innocent muslims, and increase profits for war-profiteers like Halliburton. So, no matter what happens, you lunatics WILL blame Bush. There is nothing he can ever do to please you, NOTHING! And this is where the sickness ( today's liberalism ) is. You hate your president soooo much that you are obsessed ( proven by the fact that 99% of all your efforts and criticism are focused on attacking Bush and you have very little if anything to say about the enemy we face! An enemy that wants to force you to convert to their religion ( liberals are supposed to be against this, you know, religion ), an enemy that is against womens rights ( liberals are supposed to be for womens rights ), an enemy that rejoices in violence and is truly a culture of death ( liberals are supposed to be against this ), an enemy that is truly intolerant to any type of homosexuality ( liberals promote homosexuality! So, it's obvious that your sickness has caused you to overlook the actions of a culture that promotes and accepts the very ideals that you liberals despise due to your hatred of Bush. You're sick....GET HELP ( start by puttin' down the BONG, dope will make you dopey )!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 5:54pm

20. You children are soooo funny with your ignore button. I don't think I have ever seen a conservative use that button on this blog, yet it is widely used by the tolerant, free-speech, everyone should have a voice, open to new ideas, progressive ( ha! ) liberals! Bonafide hypocrites!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 5:58pm

21. So it's wrong and unethical for Mr. Corn to alert readers to journalism on recent national events that he has written and placed in a book form. Such a blatant tip-off to the existence of this book of journalism about current national events might unwittingly alert people to its existence, who might then actually read it and learn more about these events. It's almost as bad as having card catalogs in libraries, or supplying ink to a printing company. It can only encourage them.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 5:58pm

22. "All of these fantastic principles are wonderful, and like law enforcement, they only work when everyone agrees to abide by them."

    Err ... so law enforcement only works if crooks always obey the law. And if crooks refuse to obey the law, it is useless to even attempt law enforcement. And ... er ... prisons only work is prisoners agree not to escape from them. And ... er ... bullets only work if people agree to be hurt by them. And ... er ... stop signs only work if everyone agrees to stop at them. And er ... doors only work if people agree to close them. Or else there is no sense having doors.

    Just checking. Thanks.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 6:05pm

23. You children are soooo funny with your ignore button. I don't think I have ever seen a conservative use that button on this blog,

    Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 5:58pm

    i've been ignored by Maasch, Luvvy, tood bot, cpt, my favorite roman, and friebaby

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 6:08pm

24. "I wish the people who want to install the global Caliphate could be reasoned with, but they can't. At best their grandchildren will be more reasonable. Until that time, I believe it is imperative that they know the US has the ability and the political will to destroy them if they attack us again."

    From a strictly biological perspective, if you destroy them they can't have grandchildren, reasonable or otherwise.

    And so until "they" attack "us" again, you are opposed to destroying "them" which would mean "not destroying them."

    Just want to check that out. Thanks.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 6:09pm

25. "An enemy that is truly intolerant to any type of homosexuality ..." -- Barry.

    Dear Barry,

    When President Bush drops his opposition to gay marriage and his opposition to full equal rights for gay Americans and his opposition to full equal rights for gay members of the United States Military, I will fully concede and agree to your well-stated point.

    Thanks for caring about gay people and gay American citizens. It is much appreciated and heartening to hear.

    Sincerely,

    Tispaquin.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 6:15pm

26. "Is it possible that a Nuke is already here?" -- Barry.

    At last count, I think we have about 15,000 of them. We also have millions of tons of ammonium nitrate. Tim McVeigh used a few hundred pounds to demolish the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and all of its occupants. Mr. McVeigh's little homegrown chemistry experiment stands as the second largest terrorist attack on US soil in the country's history.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 6:20pm

27. You children are soooo funny with your ignore button. I don't think I have ever seen a conservative use that button on this blog,

    Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 5:58pm

    BARRY25 dripping through the cracks of someone else's response.

    You're on the ignore list because of a long history of never saying anything even remotely intelligent. If my use of the ignore list is so humorous why did you find it important enough to comment about? Look in the mirror- you're only here because you have a compulsion to spew part of your sick, hateful soul on someone.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 6:24pm

28. There are groups of people who do not recognize the right of people to self-determination. There are groups of people who feel it is legitimate for any man to beat any woman who is in need of moral instruction. There are groups of people who feel honor killings serve a legitimate place in society. There are groups of people who believe slavery is legitimate.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/19/2006 @ 6:29pm

    you just defined Operation Rescue

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 6:32pm

29. You know that is a wild exageration and completely untrue. I don't defend Operation rescue. They take a noble principle, defend innocent life, and pervert it. It gets so distorted some use it to defend killing innocent life. But they don't believe in honor killings. They don't believe in any man beating any woman.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/19/2006 @ 6:38pm

    change a few words around and that same argument could be made for the muslim world

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 6:43pm

30. Jesus Will, I'm jealous.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/19/2006 @ 6:45pm

    why... now I gotta feed all these goats

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 6:49pm

31. One of my favorite subjects. I wish I had the time to explain why I support the Federal Marriage Amendment. But I have to sign off to go hang light fixtures.

    Some other time maybe.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/19/2006 @ 6:34pm

    And then...

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/19/2006 @ 6:38pm

    Just how long is your dissertation on discrimination against gays and lesbians?

    Back to the topic, for anyone who has done the slightest bit of research at the college level, we can see what this group is all about. Think back to your days in college and those classes in which you might not have paid sufficient attention. And then, looming at the end of the semester, was the research paper. Now, as an undergraduate, no one is expecting publishable material, but the prof is probably expecting a demonstration of broad and deep knowledge around a particular, relevant topic. Take weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Take human rights. Good students would spend weeks doing research, building up to well-argued analyses of the current state of thinking on the topic. Bad students would pull an all-nighter, copying out of whatever books they were able to hustle out of the library before closing or re-typing whatever articles they could photocopy. The resulting paper depended neither on an overview of viewpoints and information nor on an ability to evaluate the little that was read. Rather the research was patchwork and the presentation was redundant.

    This is what we have: a C student trying to full the professors that he did the required preparatory work to produce an A paper. Unfortunately, even if we give this piece of shit F after F, we still have to face the cheerleader coach (in the guise of Mary, Barry, Rio, and the others who failed to produce anything other than a rousing "Good going, guys!" for the team), who says, "But we need his energy for the big game on Saturday. You can't fail him."

    I'm still convinced that this is a nightmare taking place in late October 2000.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/19/2006 @ 6:50pm

32. everybody likes torturing people. But if it saves hundreds of thousands of your citicen's lives, you do it. Murder is wrong, but if you could murder Bush, you'd do it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/19/2006 @ 6:56pm

33. "They will never be able to agree on common laws or the legitimacy of a police force or government."

    Mary, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with all of it except the sentence quoted above. Never is an awfully long time. Sheer probability alone suggests against such a conclusion. The original US Constitution sanctioned and made legal slavery. It was changed. Under the British Crown law of the 1600s, one was guilty until proven innocent. It was changed. Under British Maritime Law, it was once legal for the British Navy to kidnap and "impress" citizens of coastal towns into the Navy upon penalty of whipping or death. That was changed. If you read about Islamic society in Jerusalem between the various Crusades, there was a broad tolerance for Jews, Christians and other sects living in Jerusalem and the surrounding towns. Not perfect, but not bad for the times. Like Christian societies, various Muslim societies have gone through many phases, over many places, of repressive and open societies. Christians and Muslim societies have gone through so many metamorphoses in so many places at so many times that anyone can "cherrypick" one particular instance of history to prove their point. The totality of history must be absorbed and sifted. This requires mental exertion and lots of reading and research because of the very long history of both religions and the cultures associated with them. None of this is easy or simple and I will not admit to having any definitive answer since I am just a student as you are. But I do know that simple, sweeping conclusions are usually as accurate as throwing a dart without your eyes closed.

    Thanks.

    Tispaquin

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 6:58pm

34. Long live the islamic republic or Iran.

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 09/19/2006 @ 7:20pm

35. Only fascists couch policies that benefit the few in ways to suggest they benefit all.

    Non-fascists like ... er ... the authors of the US Constitution ... craft workably legal and societal structures that zealously protect the rights of individuals while aiming toward the uplifting of all.

    But since that takes a lot of work, fascists just say screw it, I'll help my myself and my friends.

    Posted by Tispaquin at 09/19/2006 @ 7:21pm

36. Tispa..whatever, here's where you morons show how insanely out of touch with reality you are. I make a comment on how our enemies are truly intoerant of homosexuality, and you idiots try to act as though Bush and the Christian right are the same way. WRONG, MORON! Bush and Christians are not killing people for being gay. We have laws that forbid discrimination against homosexuals. Bush is against GAY MARRAIGE as am I, which is a far, VERY FAR CRY from how Islamic regimes treat homosexuals, MORON!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 7:39pm

37. Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 7:39pm

    bush boy

    you sound frantic

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 7:56pm

38. Ya Franktits, but he still IS your DEMOCRATICALLY RE-ELECTED MASTER...I mean PRESIDENT! So, bow down you little bitch, cause he'll be around till 08' and you little whiney twerps have got to deal with it! Same with Cheney and Rove! You little bitches thought you had the Teflon Don's but like always, you were dead wrong! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 8:37pm

39. Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 8:37pm

    correction

    you sound maniacal

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 8:55pm

40. Nobody likes torturing people. But if it saves hundreds of thousands of your citicen's lives, you do it.

    The only problem is that torture does nothing of the kind. Information obtained thereby is intrinsically unreliable. It also ultimately serves to brutalize the practitioners as well as the victims.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/19/2006 @ 9:19pm

41. "i've been ignored by Maasch, Luvvy, tood bot, cpt, my favorite roman, and friebaby

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person "

    I have only 2 people on the ignore list. The others, including you, are ignored to the extent that they have no relevency or value to add to the thread...usually their posts will apply to every thread here..just reworded differently, but it is all the same, so ignoring is required. The ignore list should be labeled eliminated list, as that is the result..

    and Will, you have and will be ignored by many more millions than you can imagine..and many of those live on the left.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 9:57pm

42. Kooks are ignored from both sides, Will, and you are , well, a kook.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 9:58pm

43. "iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad is speaking before the UN. How come he sounds so much more intelligent that Bush? "

    Because you support him and are like him.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 9:59pm

44. Ahmadinejad IS much more intelligent than Bush! Bush, after all, still believes that the Holocaust occurred, yet the truly intelligent and enlightened deep-thinker Ahmadinejad knows that it's a "myth" or "hoax"! And rational people like Ahmadinejad believe that " Israel should be wiped from the history books", while morons like Bush believe it has a right to exist! I'm sure glad deep-thinker's like Rese and Ahmadinejad are out there to help us get our historical facts right!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 10:16pm

45. Eventually DARLA isn't going to have to see ANYTHING she doesn't like posted....just like ZERO!

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 10:17pm

46. BTW....supposedly, doesn't David Corn have a new book out?

    Anybody know anything about that rumor?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 10:18pm

47. Brownout, WRONG! Sometimes torture doesn't work and sometimes it does, depending on the individual! Problem is, we aren't torturing people in the way you'd like to believe! These terrorists are lucky they weren't pullin' this shit in, say, WW2 because they would've felt REAL torture and this problem with radical Islam would've already been solved. It's just too bad that in this day and age, America has to fight battles with kid-gloves, ultimately causing thousands more innocent victims to die due to the mental-disorder known as liberalism!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/19/2006 @ 10:22pm

48. Is that ignored, ignorant sack of flesh CPT around to glibly say, "It's a bitch fighting terrorism"? I hope he gets a dose of his own medicine someday. All the other sociopathic cretins, too.

    The inquiry, which focused on the Canadian intelligence services, found that agents who were under pressure to find terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, falsely labeled an Ottawa computer consultant, Maher Arar, as a dangerous radical. They asked U.S. authorities to put him and his wife, a university economist, on the al-Qaeda "watchlist," without justification, the report said.

    Arar was also listed as "an Islamic extremist individual" who was in the Washington area on Sept. 11. The report concluded that he had no involvement in Islamic extremism and was on business in San Diego that day, said the head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O'Connor.

    Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

    "This is really the first report in the Western world that has had access to all of the government documents we wanted and saw the practice of extraordinary rendition in full color," he said in an interview from Ottawa. "The ramifications were that an innocent Canadian was tortured, his life was put upside down, and it set him back years and years."

    Arar, who came to Canada from Syria when he was 17, said in Ottawa that he was thankful that he had been vindicated. He expressed surprise and anger at learning Monday that Canadian authorities also had asked U.S. authorities to put his wife on the al-Qaeda watchlist.

    "He really is a victim of authorities in three governments, as well as being an innocent man," Irwin Cotler, a member of parliament from the Liberal Party, said after the report was issued.

    http://tinyurl.com/lehel

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 10:38pm

49. He isn't necessarily that much more intelligent than Bush, Frank. He may just come off that way because he's stating some simple truths that almost everyone in the political class of the "West" pretends don't exist.

    Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad had particularly harsh words for what he called the council's inaction in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

    "It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine," he said of the conflicts in which Israel has been engaged in Gaza and the West Bank. "That apparently does not violate human rights." (Watch Ahmadinejad complain about the U.S. and the UK -- 3:27)

    He also criticized the "blanketed and unwarranted support" for Israel during conflicts in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. In Lebanon, he said, the Security Council was "incapacitated by certain powers" from enforcing a cease-fire between guerilla fighters and Israel.

    Referring to Israel, he said, "That regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region."

    On Iraq, Ahmadinejad said the United States -- whom he called "the occupiers" -- is "incapable of establishing security," and scores die daily as a result.

    "Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom can the people of Iraq seek justice?" he asked. How can the Security Council act "when the occupiers themselves are permanent members of the council?"

    He added, "Apparently, the Security Council can only be trusted to secure the rights and security of certain big powers."

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.un/index.html

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 10:42pm

50. Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 7:39pm

    bush boy

    you sound frantic

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 7:56pm | ignore this person

    Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 8:37pm

    correction

    you sound maniacal

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 8:55pm

    I must be missing out on something hilarious. Did he run out of grease for his hamster exercise wheel?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/19/2006 @ 10:44pm

51. MASK! MASK! I found it!

    It's: http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/hubris_the_pres.php

    You're welcome.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/19/2006 @ 11:21pm

52. Bravo!!!!!!!!!! Now get ready for the insane spin, change of subject, or just flat out silence in response to your question in paragraph 4!

    Posted by barry25 at 09/20/2006 @ 01:03am

53. We never saw this coming, did we BRUNOWE?

    Tactical nuclear weapons would be required to penetrate the defenses Iran has constructed around its nuclear facilities, according to Col. (res.) Shlomo Mofaz, an international consultant on terrorism and intelligence and a research fellow at the Institute of Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

    Mofaz argued that any preemptive action - not necessarily launched by Israel - against Iran's nuclear facilities would need to employ tactical nuclear weapons.

    "The Iranians have invested a lot of money to hide their weapons and infrastructure underground. The most sensitive items are below the surface," he said.

    "American experts have said they are not sure that conventional weapons would be able to infiltrate these sites," he said. "Based on information from public sources, any attack should use tactical nuclear weapons." http://tinyurl.com/lyxan

    Not necessarily launched by israel? How about it's American satrapy?

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 02:48am

54. Did you expect an intelligent speach? NOT!

    Posted by Mary3 at 09/20/2006 @ 08:33am

55. Kooks are ignored from both sides, Will, and you are , well, a kook.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH t09/19/2006 @ 9:58pm

    but um... my side doesn't ignore me. and the only one from your side that still ignoring me is todd bot. so by your own definition I'm not a kook

    but by the traditional definition of the word massch... you are

    thanks for reminding us

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/20/2006 @ 08:34am

56. I must be missing out on something hilarious. Did he run out of grease for his hamster exercise wheel?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/19/2006 @ 10:44pm

    from a comment he made about CNN I'm guessing he watched the news and they said soemthing nice about chimpy.

    my widdle fwend bush boy gets all emotional when CNN says something nice about his hero

    Posted by Will C. at 09/20/2006 @ 08:37am

57. This Marybretbrad is crazy like Bush!

    Posted by Mary3 at 09/20/2006 @ 08:42am

58. Marybretbrad = ignore this person

    Posted by Mary3 at 09/20/2006 @ 08:42am

59. Posted by MALCONTENT 09/19/2006 @ 11:21pm

    Eric....is that the ONLY link you could find????....hehe

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 08:44am

60. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/19/2006 @ 10:42pm

    BTW, gotta love that FRB. He'll post all day long on "Western" human rights abuses, but then glowingly quote a guy whose country jails dissidents and where women are second-class citizens.

    Fortunately he's in a minority even on the Left....since we know that Howard Dean called the Iraqi PM an anti-Semite, for sounding HALF as pro-Hezbollah/Iran as FRB does!

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 08:48am

61. David co-wrote a book? Really?

    ct

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/20/2006 @ 09:41am

62. Rio, you are an idiot. David Koresh was raping little girls. He shot at Federal law enforcement agents. Your boy, Gen Boykin ordered the tank attack. At ANY time Koresh could have let people out of his compound. It boggles the mind that on one hand you call people america haters, claim we need to kill and torture to keep people from killing Americans, then defend people that actually tried to kill Americans, on American soil. It is just blind hatred of Clinton, the same thing you decry in Bush-haters.

    Did any of you good christians read the report from the Canadian government about the INNOCENT man that was falsly imprisoned and tortured? Do you feel better now? Why did this happen? Because you are afraid of your shadows. there has NEVER been a person captured with knowledge of a suitcase nuke. If that was the case then severe means would be justified, in my opinion. But that has NEVER been the case. You so called "moral" people use the most outrageous scenario to justify your treatment of anybody that looks at you weird. I find it fascinating that the most religious posters here are the ones most in favor of torture and killing. Rio seems to be in favor of letting rapists roam free.

    The guy that literally wrote the Army book on interrogation says that torture is the LEAST effective means of acquiring intel. I forget his name now, but I have heard him interviewed 3 times, and everytime he says the same thing. In his 40 years of experience he has learned the best ways to get info, and pain is not effective. The bad guys either revell in their ability to withstand pain, or they give the interrogater what he wants to hear. But you guys love that stuff. Makes you feel tough, even if it is ineffective. Theory matters more than results to you. Iraq is the prime example of this.

    Once again, w shows that his words mean nothing, they are just platitudes meant to assuage the masses. If you neo0cons had an ounce of the morals that you claim, you would agree with the UN on this one, but you don't. You only have your fear.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:12am

63. BARRY25, I guess your hours have been cut at the Burger Hut. Did you miss out on the Asst. Mgr. slot again? Poor lil guy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:15am

64. Darin (MARY), I have written it many times, i will do so again. I truly beleive that you would be more comfortable living in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Your belief system sure seems to have more in common with the Islamists you hate so much than it does with the American system of checks/balances, innocent till proven guilty, fair trials and humane treatment.

    I ask again, what seperates Us from Them in your eyes? I think it is our rules and the adherence to the Geneva conventions ideals. I think you would have Us become Them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:21am

65. And there you have it, Darin is willing to kill and maim innocent people in the hopes that it will keep him safe. it used to be said that it was better to have ten guilty men walk free than have one innocent man jailed, that used to be the American standard. No more. Fear rules.

    I can say with the utmost certainty that kidnapping and torturing "that Canadian" did nothing to keep me safe. Can you say it made you proud to be an American?

    Darin, put up Mary, Bret and Bradley for incarcaration. I FEEL they are a threat to me. I am sure your cool with that. I just KNOW that when they grow up they will threaten my way of life, because they will have learned from you. So I want them incarcerated for life. Because I FEEL threatened by something that MAY happen in the future. That is how I interpret your words.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:30am

66. Can you say with certainty that the program that incarcerated and tortured this Canadian fellow didn't save 10 innocent lives? Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:22am

    Can you say with certainty that, while being tortured, this Canadian guy didn't give false information that cost 10 additional innocent lives? If the odds for a Canuck to be subject to this travesty are 1 in 150,000,000, what are the odds for an Iraqi? An Afghan?

    You say you "you can't criticize the program simply because there was a terrible unforgivable mistake." Can you criticize the program if it creates more terrorists than it neutralizes?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 10:42am

67. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:43am

    Actually MARY, I have a metallurgy professor from BYU that can prove that Mossad agents planted thermite charges on Vince Foster!

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 10:46am

68. Rio, you are an idiot. David Koresh was raping little girls.

    That's a lie. The US government spread that propaganda, without any evidence, in order to win public support for the siege.-MARY

    Ahh, guvt propaganda. I guess you missed the sworn congressional testimony from one of Koresh's little sex toys. The guy was a menace, he brought it upon himself. If feds showed up at your door, would you shoot first or take the supeona and fight in court? You would probably kill your neighbor because you thought he finked on you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:48am

69. So, Darin, you are comfortable killing, raping, and torturing innocent people, but you won't let a gay guy defend you from the bad guys? Does that make any sense to you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:56am

70. Sorry, Darin, my perception of risk is guided by the law of the land. I am willing to take a risk in defense of the ideals set forth in our Constitution and the treaties ratified by congress. The ideals that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for. You piss on all of that with your fear of a few insane people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:00am

71. That's a lie. The US government spread that propaganda, without any evidence, in order to win public support for the siege.-MBB

    Is that anything like "We know where the WMD's are", or "When talking about Saddam and Usama you are talking about the same group". or "We have found the WMD's" or "Saddam and usama have operational links"???

    What Clintons people lied about was Koreshs manufacture of speed. The War on Drugs. And you believe Koresh over the FBI about who shot first? You must hate America.

    Care to defend Warren Jeffs, while your at it? Sounds like he is your kind of guy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:08am

72. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:55am

    Well, as in everything else, I guess there are good actuaries and there are bad actuaries. Have you seen that al Qaeda "membership" has been estimated at a total of 20,000 on 9/11 and 50,000 today?

    How many mistakes will it take before you criticize the program?

    Even at Gitmo where, Mr. Rumsfeld assures me are held only the "worst of the worst", "a senior American military interrogator at Camp Delta told 60 Minutes II that as many as 20 percent of the Guantanamo prisoners were sent there by mistake - and that they were innocent bystanders, or very small fish."

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 11:10am

73. Well I didn't know the Canadian guy was raped.-MBB

    He was not. But you defend Koresh's treatment of children.

    And I wouldn't do it if I knew they were innocent. You see that's the problem, we can never know with certaint-MBB

    That is why we have laws to protect the innocent. But you hate America and what it stands for.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:12am

74. The inquiry, which focused on the Canadian intelligence services, found that agents who were under pressure to find terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, falsely labeled an Ottawa computer consultant, Maher Arar, as a dangerous radical. They asked U.S. authorities to put him and his wife, a university economist, on the al-Qaeda "watchlist," without justification, the report said. -

    -O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.

    -Canadian police opened a file on Arar after seeing him talking to two other Muslim Canadians they were watching, authorities have acknowledged. Arar insisted the men were casual acquaintances in the small Muslim community in Montreal, where he lived before moving to British Columbia.

    -O'Connor said Monday that police agents told the Americans that Arar was "suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement." The judge concluded: "The RCMP had no basis for this description."

    CW- the US authorities violated US and international laws in it's efforts to detain an innocent man. they denied him his righ to contact the Canadian embassy. they illegally moved him to Syria, a country thet is known to mistreat people, in violation of OUR law.

    Remember why we are fighting? To defend freedom, liberty, justice? Nah. To keep you safe from faggots.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:21am

75. Mr. Arar had lunch with a man, then talked with him on the sidewalk about ink cartidges. For that he lost a year of his life. He was kept in a "coffin sized dungeon" for 10 months. Because you are afraid. Make you all warm and comfy? Make you proud? Make you feel safe knowing that we wasted man hours chasing ghosts?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:24am

76. This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.

    The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world." -George W. Bush

    You must be a Bush-hater Darin, you seem to disagree with Chimpies words, if not his actions. He must be an "appeaser" if he wants to "work together". He sees a "peaceful majority". Peace is for wimps and lilly livered libs.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:37am

77. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 11:36am

    This is an inane comment. You grasp at straws.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:38am

78. Sorry, I should have written "This is a Maskian comment".

    Why do you hate America, Darin?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:39am

79. "The only problem is that torture does nothing of the kind. Information obtained thereby is intrinsically unreliable. It also ultimately serves to brutalize the practitioners as well as the victims."

    very good Brunowe. to which I would only add that torture BEGINS with the brutality of the practitioner, and his enablers, the Bush administration.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/20/2006 @ 11:44am

80. And it blew up in their faces causing the deaths of (I think) four federal agents and 74 innocent women and children and (I think) 6 men.-MBB

    Nobody "caused" the deaths of 4 agents but they ones that pulled the triggers. To blame it on the ATF or Clinton is bizarre logic. The same logic that blames America for 9/11. Koresh was an American Taliban. It is beyond my comprehension that you argue for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis to save you from scum in Afghanistan, then you defend Koresh. There is no logic there.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:53am

81. Well then, you tell me how to create a perfect system. One that identifies every single person who is determined to commit murder and distinguishes them from the people who will not commit murder. You seem to be saying that since there is a risk that the innocent will be harmed We shouldn't have any laws.-MBB

    See, here you go again, setting up a false argument. I am not saying that a "perfect system" is achievable. A system is set up, Bushes people ignored it. Had the laws been followed Mr. Arare would not have been caught up in this fear induced dragnet. What don't you understand about following the laws that exist? That is all I am asking of the guy that took an oath to defend the Const.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 11:56am

82. My apologies, I am doing 2 things at once while getting dressed for work. I don't have time right now to explain to you how our Const works, how treaties ratified by congress apply to the FBI, the CIA and Chimpy. My replies have been flippant and cursory. Please do some research, read the damn document. Read the UN Human Rights pages. We are a signatory to the UN charter. We should abide by the rules. If we don't like it, Congress can remove us.

    have a nice day, hope you don't talk to the wrong person today. It could ruin it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 12:02pm

83. FRB

    We never saw this coming, did we BRUNOWE?

    My position has been quite clear re Iran. Sanctions until Iran accepts the Additional Protocol. There is no justification for military force.

    MBB

    The problem with your risk-assessment argument is that turning someone over to Syria for "alternative interrogation" isn't going to save anyone given the ineffectiveness of torture as an intelligence-gatherine tool.

    The other problem with reducing injustices to numerical equations is that you use that to justify any atrocity. By your logic I should be allowed to deter a terrorist by taking his three children, shooting one of them and holding the other two hostage, on the grounds that it creates the possibility that it might deter him from blowing up a plane. What makes us better is that there are lines that we (theoretically) don't cross. Certain means are so corrupt that they deprive the ends obtained thereby of any virtue.

    Can you say with certainty that the program that incarcerated and tortured this Canadian fellow didn't save 10 innocent lives?

    I would think that you would have the burden of proof on that, given the moral depravity of torture. Incidentally, does your risk assessment take into account the increase in people motivated to terror acts by such actions. You don't think that Abu Ghraib didn't recruit insurgents in Iraq?

    Posted by brunowe at 09/20/2006 @ 12:05pm

84. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 11:59am

    Clintons ATF agents were fulfilling a legal warrant against a known rapist. They secured the perimeter so no more outside civilians got hurt. Bush lied us into an illegal war to defend against a non-threat. 2 different things. I also suggest a Logic 101 course for you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 12:05pm

85. So, MaryBretBrad, are you a bad actuary?

    I am critical of Bush's detention policy and you label me a Bush-hater...what are the odds that I can be critical of a Bush policy and not hate him?

    I cite the increase in al Qaeda membership as indicative of failed Bush policy, and you have no response to that, nor to the military's admission that 20% of Gitmo detainees are there by mistake. Wouldn't a good actuary put aside their party affiliation and emotional attachments and look to the numbers...?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 12:06pm

86. Regarding Mr. Arar, the issue isn't that you don't to counter-terrorism, the issue is that you don't send him to countries that torture and that don't have due process.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/20/2006 @ 12:06pm

87. The neocon Bush buttmonkey world view (as expressed on these blogs): It's ok to torture bad guys (or anybody suspected of being bad guys, or anybody seen with bad guys, or anybody in the same neighborhood as bad guys, or anybody in the same neighborhood with suspected bad guys, and so on) in order to protect Americans and the American way of life, and even though torturing people is against all civilized laws and conventions, and specifically prohibited by US law and stated procedure, it's ok to break the law to defend the greatness of America, and the cornerstone which underlies the greatness of America is the freedom of its citizens, and the freedom of its citizens is based on the protections afforded by legal codes known as the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of the rights of Man, among other agreed-to documents, the same legal codes we need to ignore to keep America great, but we need to keep ignoring these codes (by torturing bad guys - or suspected bad guys, etc. etc - and other examples)so that the bad guys will stop killing us, because they hate us for our freedom, which is, as stated above, based on the protection of law...so in essence we have to ignore that which is what used to give us moral authority over the terrorists in order to maintain temporary safety from those who ignore what makes America great and which is what makes them (the terrorists) terrorists.

    Is that clear?

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 12:16pm

88. we sent the guy to Syria? did I read that correctly? the same Syria which Bush excoriated at the UN? the same terrorist supporting Syria? I guess if Saddam was still in power we wouldn't have shirked from sending prisoners to Iraq to be tortured. But I guess bush is right, it's too expensive to have to send prisoners all over the world to be tortured. this is a job americans can do right here at home, and with relish.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/20/2006 @ 12:16pm

89. Fire is the only effective method of fighting fire. Fighting terrorists with civility is suicidal.

    If they aren't a threat to our existence, how can how we fight them be suicidal? Besides, you stil haven't established why extraordinary renditions, torture and GITMO are necessary for dealing with Islamist groups.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/20/2006 @ 12:44pm

90. Sorry, I should have written "This is a Maskian comment".

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/20/2006 @ 11:39am

    No....THIS is a "Maskian comment"...

    "David Corn has a new book out!?!?!? Who knew?"

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 1:06pm

91. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 12:26am

    Should I be surprised that now you've tried to change the subject away from "disappearing" and torturing "terror suspects"?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 1:09pm

92. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 1:25pm You wrote "What would al Queda's member ship be if 19 of there members blew up the WTC and America apologized and then ran and hid? 100K? 1,000,000?...." That's a detour to what Mr. Rumsfeld might call "unknown unknowns". It also skirts the question of what AQ's membership would be if we had kept our eye on the ball and finished the job in Afghanistan, brought bin Laden and al Zawahiri to justice and let the U.N weapons inspectors finish the job in Iraq (No WMD? No WMD programs? No ties to 9/11? What are the odds Americans would have supported the invasion?)?

    And now you write "The suggestion that torture doesn't work is a non-starter". Please cite the substantiation of that statement, as all the media reports I've seen have indicated that information gained from tortured suspects is unreliable.

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 2:15pm

93. Crabcake, " he was raping little girls" so Clinton and Reno decided they'd put those little girls out of their misery and killed them ALL! Great point! Truly insightful deep-thinking from ol' Crabcake. It follows protocol for liberals though! They're ALL for gov't sponsored killing of children ( abortion ) because they know what's best for us! Whether it's killing American citizens, innocent children that were supposedly being raped, or abortion, those damn liberals are only concerned about our best interests like, say....population control?

    Posted by barry25 at 09/20/2006 @ 2:20pm

94. Fighting terrorists with civility is suicidal.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 12:40am

    Fighting terrorists by using their methods would make us...terrorists! How about fighting them with every legal tool available? Or is that too hard? Would that require the commando-in-chief to have a modicum of intelligence? No wonder he opts for the neanderthal method - no heavy intellectual lifting required. Keep killing them and hope we can win a war of attrition, huh? Problem is, there's more of them than there is of us. And to build on your "direct" fight fire with fire approach, to fight the terrorists strictly militarily is like fighting a grease fire with water - it only causes it to spread. To properly fight a grease fire you must remove it's "food", and the "food" of terrorism would be things like poverty, invasion of Muslim countries, pissing on the Koran, complete and total support of Israel, just to name a few.

    And nice try with the implication that liberals believe that if we're just nice to the terrorists they'll go away. Probably that notion feeds your image of conservatives being "macho" but in reality is just completely not true. Speaking for myself, I think it's pretty well proven that guerrilas/terrorists cannot be defeated militarily, so we need to add to the ways in which we change the world in which our children and grandchildren will (hopefully) prosper.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 2:22pm

95. And nice try with the implication that liberals believe that if we're just nice to the terrorists they'll go away.

    Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 2:22pm

    TURK, what DO liberals believe will make terrorists go away....if not "being nice"? You add just after this statement that they can't be defeated militarily....so how?

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 2:31pm

96. So, in Waco, it would have been prudent to isolate the tyrant, surround his compound, make it clear that his behavior was inappropriate, take measures to make sure that supplies or people couldn't enter or leave the compound, and just wait, instead of storming the compound, risking the lives of innocent women and children, and having no real exit strategy? Even though the tyrant was amassing weapons of less-than-mass destruction (of which there was proof), raping innocent children, and terrorizing people who could not leave the compound for fear for their lives and the lives of their families? Is that what the conservatives are proposing Clinton should have done? Hmmm, where else might this technique have been tried? You know, the waiting for the proof before endangering the lives of innocent women and children. Nah, that sounds like a lousy idea. Why wait when you're the "Decider!"

    And before all the neocon Bush buttmonkeys get their conservative panties in a twist, the above analogy was purely for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to tyrants, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

    I'm laughing, how 'bout you?

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 2:34pm

97. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 2:33pm

    That's your citation that torture works? May I ask, when you look for the book "1984" in the library, do you find it in the fiction section or the non-fiction section? Okay, I'll save you a trip to the library: it's in the fiction section. That being the case, what are the odds that it's fictional?

    Do you have another citation; like maybe from somebody who is familiar with interrogation tactics currently being used on terror suspects?

    Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 2:40pm

98. TURK, what DO liberals believe will make terrorists go away....if not "being nice"? You add just after this statement that they can't be defeated militarily....so how?

    Posted by MASK 09/20/2006 @ 2:31pm

    And I quote (myself, no less!) To properly fight a grease fire you must remove it's "food", and the "food" of terrorism would be things like poverty, invasion of Muslim countries, pissing on the Koran, complete and total support of Israel, just to name a few.

    To this I would add (although I thought How about fighting them with every legal tool available? made my position fairly clear) using intelligence to foil terrorists plots (with legally approved methods), developing better relationships with the governments of countries where the terrorists come from (does Bush think that threatening the crazies and then ignoring them when they ask for a sit-down is really the best way to start solving our problems?), and in general try to live up to the American ideals that make America the best country in the world.

    I don't think anybody can logically come to the conclusion that it is only by ignoring US and international law and using the methods of the terrorists and can we uphold US and international law and defeat the terrorists - it can be spun using fear and machismo, but not with logic.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

99. Did you see the movie 1984? (I think it was a book as well.) Obviously it doesn't always work, but just as obviously, it works sometimes.

    Oh, where to start?

    1. 1984 is a novel that cries out against every principle that the commando-in-chief holds near and dear (using fear, propaganda, and the constant condition of "war" to keep the masses under control). It is a classic novel written as a response to a fear that government could gain too much control through use of the military-industrial complex and the media, and if Aldous Huxley could have known to title it 2004, that might have been too freakin' scary!

    2. 1984 is fiction!

    3. The torture in 1984, if I'm not mistaken, causes the hero, Winston, to be brainwashed into believing patent lies and spewing blatant untruths, so, yes, torture works if you want the subject to say and do anything to make the pain stop. How this in any way relates to the current rationalization by the neocon Bush buttmonkeys that we need to torture terrorists is beyond me.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 2:52pm

100. Their way of life is incompatible with Western ways and they need to convince their people to continue to follow them.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 2:47pm

     Yes, and how best then to convince those in the direst straits that all will be well if the Westerners could be wiped off the face of the Earth. Yes, there are terrorists from the middle and upper classes, but as a whole, the masses would be much less likely to sympathize with terrorists if they had things like, say, running water, electricity, education, hospitals, and a few other luxuries.

     And it is you who has no clue what this "war" is about. I get that they are not like me, because I live in relative comfort compared to them, and can't even conceive that blowing myself up might be a way to solve my problems.

     But if we continue, as you advocate, shooting and bombing and destroying their civilization, of course they're going to feel like we're trying to exterminate them. That seems like a logical conclusion. There needs to be a multitude of approaches to reducing terrorism (you wll never eliminate it unless you can somehow imprison every single person who might become a terrorist...say, is that what Gitmo is all about? Seriously, intelligence and diplomacy are the most likely tools to beginning to solve these problems. Which is why America is so screwed - Bush is SOL when it comes to intelligence, and his false sense of machismo will not allow for diplomacy. What's your excuse?

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 3:03pm

101. Yeah, I know you guys think the deaths of 74 women and children are a big joke and all. So let me be clear. If Koresh was the threat The Clinton Administration claimed, they should have arrested him during a jog.

     In fact, they didn't care about Koresh, they cared about staging a public relations stunt to manufacture support for anti-gun programs. Originally, he was an illegal gun dealer. After the ATF agents were shot, that's when he became a child-rapist. This was a conniving political stunt that got almost 100 US citizens killed.

     I don't defend the Watergate break-ins. It offends me that you defend this.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 2:58pm

     Geez, who's the conspiracy theorist now? There is, I suppose, proof of all your claims?

     And before you get all holier than thou, let's not forget who espouses killing and torture in the "war on terror" - you!

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 3:08pm

102. NathanHale was trying to claim torture doesn't work. If it didn't work you wouldn't have to outlaw it.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 3:03pm

     I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. If by "work" you mean that torture does not elicit valuable information from suspects, than that is correct according to every expert source I've ever heard from.

     If by "work" you mean that torture can not get people to do things and say things against their will in order to get the pain to stop, then of course it works. But the results are not exactly reliable.

     Torture is the last refuge of the incompetent and fearful. You might want to ask John McCain his opinion of torture and see if he thinks torture "works."

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 3:13pm

103. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 3:03pm

     MaryBretBrad, world-famous actuary, claims torture works because it works in the movies and there are laws against it.

     Well, to be honest, MaryBretBrad claims that torture works sometimes, but sometimes it doesn't.

     I wonder if MaryBretBrad has a statistical formula that graphs the benefits gained from the incidents where torture provides useful information against the losses accruing from incidents where torture provides fictitious information. I also wonder how the Colin Powell letter including the line "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" would fit into the graph.

     Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 3:24pm

104. Hey MaryBretBrad, the following is an excerpt from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

     ...listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

     Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

     Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 3:27pm

105. And I quote (myself, no less!) To properly fight a grease fire you must remove it's "food", and the "food" of terrorism would be things like poverty, invasion of Muslim countries, pissing on the Koran, complete and total support of Israel, just to name a few.

     Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

     So if we "cure" their poverty, don't invade them, don't piss on the Koran, and totally cut loose Israel....isn't that "being nice" to them? Seems if I was a radical Muslim, I'd atleast consider that "somewhat friendly", hmm?

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 3:51pm

106. It was posted: David Koresh was raping little girls.

     MBB replied: "That's a lie. The US government spread that propaganda, without any evidence, in order to win public support for the siege."

     The former statement was neither a lie nor simply "government propaganda".

     The response is only proof that MaryBretBrad is a windbag apologist who does zero research before coming here and proving his own ignorance.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 3:58pm

107. Oh, oh, wait...

     Will MBB decry claims against Koresh for being a child rapist because Koresh ended up dead before he could brought to trial for those alleged crimes?

     Be interesting to hear MBB argue for trials for those accused of crimes, then be asked to make the same argument for detainees...

     Rio, Barry, MBB, Maasch, and their ilk would be funny if they weren't so sad...

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

108. MBB -

     Try Googling "Kiri Jewel".

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 4:08pm

109. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

     Well, maybe MBB will claim that torture doesn't always work, because, after all (as he/she put it earlier) "one [of] the tactics used was to constantly blast loud music 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

     Posted by nathanhale at 09/20/2006 @ 4:15pm

110. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/20/2006 @ 5:12pm

     Rio hates the freedom of speech.

     We reap that which we sow. Chavez is a mild lunatic, why give him ammunition? That is part of this larger issue, why do all of these grotesque things, torture, illegal war, occupying a muslim country? To make us safer? But our very actions give Chavez the ability to stand up and make these funny accusations. If we had finished the job in Afghanistan, NOT kidnapped and tortured innocents, NOT opened gulags in Romania and Cuba, then he would have zero platform. But chimpy decided that the law means jack-shit on his watch, and you morons voted for him twice.

     Marybretbrad thinks the worst thing about the Arar debacle is that he was eventually released, not that US guvt agents broke several laws, denied him his basic human rights or refuse to apologize. I guess that is what I should expect from someone that given a wish, would wish for the deaths of thousands of people that he, and he alone, deems terrorists. Sad, pathetic, frightened little people.

     While it is difficult for me to wish ill upon someone, I do hope one day your kids are falsely charged with a crime, held without bail, maybe get a broom stick up the wrong end, no phone calls allowed. You will sit at home wondering what happened to poor Bret. Did the cops take him? No comment. Is he ok? No comment. Did he get his Miranda rights? NO, that is for lib pussies. Then when he comes home, after ten months in jail, with scars, bruises and lacerstions maybe you will get it. Probably not, though.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 5:45pm

111. TURK, you da' man! Thats what I was trying to say.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 5:48pm

112. He also said the U.N. "doesn't work" in its current system-Rio Cowardo

     See, even you and Chavez can find common ground.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 5:53pm

113. Darin, as a world famous actuary, isn't it part of your job to assess threats and recognize cost/benefit ratios? Do you think the $1,000,000,000,000 a week we spend in Iraq would be better spent actually fighting terrorism, disease, hunger or educating our children instead of starting a civil war halfway 'round the world?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 6:00pm

114. As to disappearing, I have to admit that I am suprised he didn't disappear or rather was allowed to reapper when the mistake was detected. That would seem the easiest way to cover your mistakes.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 1:25pm

     sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your words, after you claimed that torture works wonders.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 6:04pm

115. That's a fucking lie and you know it.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 5:57pm

     do you touch your Bible with those fingers?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 6:05pm

116. NATHAN, chimpy says torture works. What more proof do you need? He has never led us down a false path before, right?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 6:08pm

117. well, i wonder if the smell of sulfur still lingers...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2006 @ 6:52pm

118. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 6:38pm

     i largely agree with you. i am firmly convinced that the vast majority of bush supporters are like yourself - decent folk who have a hard time seeing the ugly truth about those in whom they have put there trust. your decency has blinded you.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2006 @ 7:04pm

119. re-edited:

     Ok, as I see it, is that new cons are really torturers of the conservative ideal-- by redefining it, they flayed its character right off the thing, they're not re-repub's, they're new skinless and different, neo-. hsuB, being the decider, is the leader of the new and different tortured techniques: language (mangled, sometimes beyond recognition), history (stuffing a WWII tool up Iraq's ass), laws (stripping and then forcing the Constitution, FISA, Geneva Conventions, into unusual and embarrassing pyramid stressed positions), redefining conservatism (force feeding a budget gut busting economy, tortured going to war info gathering, open border cavities, Katrina water-boreding, etc.), which then stifles dems per there's really no counter to a tortured and weakened non-conservative idea, which isn't based on a healthy history, language, or laws,... Basically making tortured shit up as you go and just worrying about making up the right tortured shit up just before another election in November to get tortured election voting machines to say what you want them too. No 'real' belief system at all. Well, except for tortured bloody profits for the rich. Uhmmm, this sounds familiar:

     http://www.trainerscity.com/startrek/rulesen.php3?lang=en

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/20/2006 @ 12:43am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/20/2006 @ 7:12pm

120. re-re-edited (ooops):

     Ok, as I see it, is that new cons are really torturers of the conservative ideal-- by redefining it, they flayed its character right off the thing, they're not re-repub's, they're new skinless and different, neo-. hsuB, being the decider, is the leader of the new and different tortured techniques: language (mangled, sometimes beyond recognition), history (stuffing a WWII tool up Iraq's ass), laws (stripping and then forcing the Constitution, FISA, Geneva Conventions, into unusual and embarrassing pyramid stressed positions), redefining conservatism (force feeding a budget gut busting economy, tortured going to war info gathering, open border cavities, Katrina water-boreding, etc.), which then stifles dems per there's really no counter to a tortured and weakened non-conservative idea, which isn't based on a healthy history, language, or laws,... Basically making tortured shit up as you go and just worrying about making up the right tortured shit up just before another election in November to get tortured election voting machines to say what you want them too. No 'real' belief system at all. Well, except for tortured bloody profits for the rich. Uhmmm, this sounds familiar:

     http://clearharmony.net/articles/200406/20143.html

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/20/2006 @ 12:43am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/20/2006 @ 7:20pm

121. CRABWALK,

     What makes you call Hugo Chavez a "mild lunatic"? Especially if we limit the test pool to World Leaders, I gotta think Chavez is near the top when it comes to ability to see the bullshit and point it out where it exists. Sure, he used the word "devil" to get Bush lapdog's like Rio or Tucker Carlson in a lather, but jeezie-peezie he came across like a distinguished statesman after Bush's aimless quest to tie whatever he thinks he's doing to something that the rest of the world (and most of us in this nation) perceives as noble. Fat chance.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/20/2006 @ 7:52pm

122. Can you say with certainty that the program that incarcerated and tortured this Canadian fellow didn't save 10 innocent lives? Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:22am

     You say you "you can't criticize the program simply because there was a terrible unforgivable mistake." Can you criticize the program if it creates more terrorists than it neutralizes?

     Posted by NATHANHALE 09/20/2006 @ 10:42am

     MARYBRETBRAD, you are subhuman. It isn't a "mistake" when someone is falsely accused due to unchecked state power combined with cultural bigotry.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:00pm

123. FRB

     We never saw this coming, did we BRUNOWE?

     My position has been quite clear re Iran. Sanctions until Iran accepts the Additional Protocol. There is no justification for military force.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 09/20/2006 @ 12:05am

     It's notable that what you say has meaning and effect in respect to "catapulting" the false rationale that Iran is a real threat and that what you say has absolutely no meaning or effect when the homicidalists are satisfied that the propaganda ground work has been sufficiently prepared to start delivering the nuclear weapons upon the victims.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:11pm

124. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/20/2006 @ 8:00pm

     Nor is it a mistake when Homeland Security decides to scare the shit out of us because someone they're "interrogating" spews out fantasies of threats rather than evidence of them. It's just ridiculous. So many people simply can't accept that there are times when doing something--even if it feels good, like beating down someone who seems suspicious--is worse than doing nothing.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/20/2006 @ 8:16pm

125. Doesn't it seem like a waste of time and energy to respond to every stupid utterance of MARYBRETBRAD and RIO-BRAIN-DAMAGE-O?

     These jackanapes have a mentality straight out of the Middle Ages and they are a useful illustration of the desirability of never again allowing their political party, the Republicans, into any significant public office. However, that's immediately evident to most people who are intelligent enough to vote without responding in detail to their ravings about armed "Christian" nutcases and the desirability of torturing any Arab that's readily available.

     They are here to waste your time and energy. Use the ignore feature rather than allowing them to dominate the conversation with their ignorant "religious" bigotry.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:26pm

126. Be interesting to hear MBB argue for trials for those accused of crimes, then be asked to make the same argument for detainees...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 4:06pm

     Koresh was a Citizen who wanted to be left alone. The detainee are illegal combatants, shooting at US soliders, and have pledge the destruction of the great Satan, USA.

     Are you capable of making any distinctions what-so-ever?

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 5:55pm

     Are you? And are you defending David Koresh, religious lunatic, gun-runner, and child molester?

     And further, are you arguing that all of those detainees are guilty of being "illegal combatants, shooting at US soliders, and have pledge the destruction of the great Satan, USA"?

     I'll give you a hundred bucks if you can prove that. Your ignorance is stunning in its width and depth, and means you're about to place a very bad bet.

     I'd suggest you do some research on where, how, and by whom those detainees were captured, Darin.

     Fifty-five percent of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

     Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% had no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

     The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

     Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

     National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following:

     A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).

     Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.

     Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.

     The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.

     Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.

     Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps. Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan.

     The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.

     I welcome updated information that contradicts this, but I sure don't expect to get it from Darin.

     "Guilty until proven innocent" and "terrorist for being brown" are perfectly okay with you, Darin?

     I pity your children.

     For the record, let me reiterate that I personally believe that anyone proven to have committed the acts you paint all deatinees with should be dragged into the courtyard and shot.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 8:28pm

127. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/20/2006 @ 8:16pm

     It's more than ignorance. They are sadistic psychopaths who have sublimated their illness more than the typical psychopath that inhabits a penitentiary. They seek to use the state to fulfill their compulsion.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:30pm

128. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 6:11pm

     Please provide for the board an example, any example, of anyone you're against who has suggested that we "do nothing and passively accept a few thousand US citizens dead each year from terrorist attacks WHICH WILL INCLUDE A DRAMTIC REDUCTION IN CIVIL LIBERTIES (at least until they get chemical or nuclear WMDs)"

     Nice straw man, but a bullshit argument, just like the ones you've posited here defending David Koresh and excoriating all detainees as guilty without a trial.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 8:32pm

129. What, anyway, is so remakable about referring to George W. Bush as "the devil"? Could it possibly be that all the "Christian" devil worshippers here are dancing around and gesticulating about something that doesn't exist? Who else could be their object of reverence?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:35pm

130. OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH

     Re: democracy promotion (CSID)

     Monday, Sept. 11, 2006

     Dear Mr. President:

     As Arab and Muslim intellectuals and activists concerned about the promotion of democracy in our region, we urge you to reaffirm--in words and actions-- America 's commitment to sustained democratic reform in the Arab world. It is our belief that the main problem with U.S. policies in the Middle East (in particular in Iraq , Palestine , and elsewhere) is precisely their failure to live up to America 's democratic ideals of liberty and justice for all. We have been heartened by the strong commitment to liberty you had expressed in your November 2003 speech at the National Endowment for Democracy and then your second inaugural address, when you said that "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

     Despite some initial skepticism, those statements nurtured hope in our region. We realize that democracy is not easily attained and must ultimately come from within. But it can receive encouragement and support, both of which it badly needs today in Arab countries. The minimum support the people of the region yearn for is precisely what you have undertaken in your NED speech: to break with 60 years of US support for non-democratic regimes in the region, and to make that known to the world in unequivocal terms. This would be more consistent with the principles of the United States, which has, since its birth, been intimately connected with the ideals of democratic governance enshrined in its founding documents--ideals that speak to all generations and peoples everywhere.

     We know that some in the United States , worried by recent Islamist gains among voters in Palestine and Egypt , are having doubts about the wisdom of pushing for freedom and democracy in the Middle East . These worries are exploited by despots in the region to perpetuate the untenable status quo. However, there is no way to advance liberty without inclusion of all elements that are willing to abide by democratic rules, and reject violence. Democratic participation is the only way to combat extremism and pressure all groups, including Islamists, to moderate their stance in order to maximize their share of the vote. The US should continue to press for an end to regime repression of democratically spirited liberal and Islamist groups, and to emphatically distance itself from such repression and condemn it in the strongest terms whenever and wherever it occurs. We are confident that if Arab citizens are able to have their choice, they will choose democracy, freedom, peace and progress.

     A return to the pre-9/11 status quo is not the answer. It will only embolden ruling autocrats, hurt Arab reformers, and damage America 's credibility. In the end, it will probably strengthen the very forces that America fears. The shore of reform is the only one on which any lights appear even though the journey demands courage, patience, and perseverance.

     Perhaps emboldened by the impression that America is wavering in its support for democracy, some autocrats have recently intensified repression. This makes the need for sustained U.S. and international support and pressure more urgent than ever. The region needs to hear again that the course of freedom and democracy is the only course which America , guided by both interest and principle, will support.

     To mention but one case where U.S. influence may do much good, Egypt has lately seen a regime crackdown on opposition activists. In February, the government postponed municipal elections and renewed the emergency law. The regime has not even spared Egypt ' s venerable judiciary which has steadfastly proclaimed its independence in recent months. And liberal opposition politician Ayman Nour, who was allowed to run in last year's presidential election and won 7.6% of the popular vote, second behind President Mubarak, was arrested and sentenced in a murky process to five years in jail. The health of Mr. Nour, a dear friend and colleague of many of us, continues to deteriorate. We pray that you will take his case to heart and let the Egyptian regime hear your concerns. Hundreds of other activists (including doctors, university professors, journalists and civil society activists) whose only crime was to express their desire for freedom, continue to languish in jail and suffer torture and police brutality. This brutality often included sexual molestation and public humiliation of women activists and journalists by pro-government thugs.

     As you have argued, the war against terror and extremism can only be won by helping Middle Eastern countries reform their closed political systems. As societies become more open, citizens can voice their grievances through legitimate, democratic means, making them less likely to resort to violence. You are right to believe that democracy and pluralism point the way to peace and moderation.

     We hope that you will consider our words, recall how much is at stake in the Arab world, and ponder how costly silence and mixed signals can be when freedom is under assault. We entreat you to do everything you can to ensure that a small number of authoritarian rulers will not control the future of more than 300 million Arabs, more than half of whom are not yet 20 years old. Freedom and democracy are the only way to build a world where violence is replaced by peaceful public debate and political participation, and despair is substituted by hope, tolerance and dignity.

     Sincerely,

     Name, Organization, Country

     1. Radwan Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, USA

     2. Aly Abuzakuk, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, USA

     3. Sherif Mansour, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, USA/Egypt

     4. Khalid Cherkaoui Semmouni, President of Center Moroccan of Human Rights, Morocco

     5. Qamar-Ul Huda, United States Institute of Peace, USA

     6. Anwar N. Haddam , Liberty & Social Justice Movement , Algeria

     7. Randa Slim, International Institute for Sustained Dialogue (IISD), USA

     8. Abdelwahab El-Affendi, Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster , UK

     9. Ibrahim M. Hussein, Alliance of Egyptian Americans, USA

     10. Najah Kadhim, International Forum for Islamic Dialogue , UK

     11. Abdelazim Mahmoud Hanafi, Kenana Center for Research and Studies , Egypt

     12. Najib Ghadbian, University of Arkansas, US / Syria

     13. Anna Mahjar Barducci, Middle East Media Research Institute , Italy-Morocco

     14. Malath Arar , GE Infra, Energy , USA

     15. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, International Quranic Center , USA / Egypt

     16. Ahmed Shabaan, ICDS , Egypt

     17. Abbas H.Rahi, Iraqi Organization for Rehabilitating Society and Environment, Iraq

     18. Gameela Ismail, El Ghad Party , Egypt

     19. Amir Salem, Justice and Freedom Party , Egypt

     20. Mohamad Ibrahim, Noor Association for Social Services, Egypt

     21. Emad Farid, El Ghad Party , Egypt

     22. Haytham Mouzahem, Independent Researcher and Journalist, Egypt

     23. Ibrahim Dadi, Islamic Thinker, Algeria

     24. Othman Mohamed Ali, Pharmacist and Islamic Researcher, Canada/Egypt

     25. Adel Mohamed, Center for the Study of Islam , Egypt

     26. Hamdi Shehab, Alwasiqa Center for Citizenship and H R, Egypt

     27. Ahmed Farghali, Alwasiqa Center for Citizenship and H R, Egypt

     28. Mohamed Abdel Aziz, Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, Egypt

     29. Mohamed Allawzi, Activist , France

     30. Hamdi Abdelaziz, Sawasia Center for Human Rights, Egypt

     31. Ghassan Ali Othman, Islamic Researcher, Sudan

     32. Mohieb Alarnaoti, Activist, Egypt

     33. Safei-Eldin A. Hamed, Alliance of Egyptian Americans AEA, USA/Egypt

     34. Marwa Abdelkader Helmi, Activist , Egypt

     35. Mohamed Fawzi, Human Association for Development Studies, Egypt

     36. Hazim Alluhaibi, President of the Iraqi National University, Iraq

     37. Naiem A. Sherbiny, Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, USA

     38. Saeed Abdel Hafez Darwish, Forum for Development and Human Rights Dialogue, Egypt

     39. Dhuha Rouhi, President of Association of Women Entrepreneurs (AWE), Iraq

     40. Ashur Shamis, Libya Human and Political Development Forum, Libya

     41- Amr Hamzawy, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA/Egypt

     42- Nadia Lachiri, Forum Des Femmes Marrocaines- MEKNES-, Morocco

     43- Chedley Aouriri, Tunisian Community Center, USA

     44- Hesham Abdelsalam Alsadr, Secretary-General of the Iraqi Civil Group, Iraq

     45- M.Nagui ElGhatrifi, President of ElGhad Party, Egypt

     46- Randa Al Zoghbi, Program Director for Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), Egypt

     47- Cankurd MD, Member of KDP-S and Kurdish PEN Club, Germany

     48- Dr Mohamed Gamal Heshmat, University Prof & former PM, Egypt

     49- Jamal E. Ryane, Global Migration and Gender Network Consultant, Netherlands

     50- Omar M. Najib, Attorney At Law, USA

     51- Ali Al-Ahmed, the Institute of Gulf Affairs, USA

     52- Louay Safi, Syrian American Congress, USA

     53- Shifa Garba, Zaymar Services, Nigeria

     54- Faeza AlEbadi, The New Iraqi Women Association, Iraq

     55. Hassan AlIbrahimi, Iraqi Human Rights Watch Association, Iraq

     56. Omar Hisham Altalib, Minaret of Freedom Institute, USA

     57. Bachir Edkhil, President of ALTER FORUM, Morocco

     58. Amer AlAmir, Architict, Painter, & Writer, Canada/Iraq

     59. Mohammad Harbi, Journalist, Egypt

     60. Abdellatif Saied, Activist, Egypt

     61. Amir Aldargi, Thinker, Norway/Iraq

     62. Zaienab Alsellami, Women and the Future Association, Iraq

     63. Shaza Nagi, Women for Peace, Iraq

     64. Abeer Azzawi, Women for Peace, Iraq

     65. Kawther Rahim, Human Rights and Civil Society organization, Wasit Province, Iraq

     66. Hafez Ben Othman, Activist, Tunisia

     67. Omar S'habou, Président of the Maghrebian Alliance for Democracy, France

     68. Sabry Fawzy Gohara, Surgeon and professor of surgery, USA

     69. Mustapha Kamel Al-Sayyid, Professor, Cairo University, Egypt

     70. Abdulmajid Biuk, Transparency Libya, USA/Libya

     71. Mohamed Nabieh, Center for Developing Democratic Dialogue, Egypt

     72. Said Galal, Activist, Egypt/Canda

     73. Wagih Khair Ikladious, Rewak Ibn Khaldun Association, Egypt

     74. Safia Fahassi, President of the Algerian Coordination of Families of Missing eople, Algeria

     75. Ibrahim AlHadari, Social and Environmental development Association, Egypt

     76. Mohamed Hafiz Alhafiz, President of the Iraqi/Japanese Friendship Organization, Iraq

     77. Sameer Jarrah, Arab World Center for Democratic Development, Jordan

     78. Nadi Abou Zaher, Committee for International Complains (CIC), Palestine

     79. Saleh Hadi, Association for Human Rights in Wasit, Iraq

     80. Ibrahim Hussien, Egyptians Without Borders, USA/Egypt

     81. Sayed Salem, Islamic Researcher, Palestine

     82. Nuha Al Darwish, Model Iraqi Society Organization, Iraq

     83. Mohamed Albadri, Egyptian Liberal Party, Egypt

     84. Nesma Ahmed Ibrahim, Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, Egypt

     85. Mamdouh Nakhla, Alkalema Center for Human Rights, Egypt

     86. Hatem Abdelhadi, Egyptian Writers Union, Egypt

     87. Mohamed Youssef Bakeir, Economical Consultant, Egypt

     88. Amal Mohey Eddin, Alwasat Islamic Party, Jordan

     89. Alidrissi Omari Abdelmajid, Human Rights Activist, Singapore

     90. Refaat Ismail, Independent Activist, Egypt.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/20/2006 @ 8:36pm

131. MBB -

     Didn't you blast someone earlier for "defending" Watergate, while you continue to defend David Koresh?

     You claimed that Koresh was innocent of molesting children.

     Did you Google "Kiri Jewel" yet?

     Tell the board that you're willing to take Koresh's word over a little girl's who claims to have been molested, then explain your rationale, please.

     I'd love to hear it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/20/2006 @ 8:38pm

132. Intersting letter, LR. What is your take?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/20/2006 @ 8:39pm

133. The Republicans are "fighting terrorism".

     The moon is made of cheese.

     The Department of Homeland Security has locked horns with a group of scientists over which is providing accurate and helpful information on how to be ready for a natural disaster or terrorist attack -- the federal government or a summer intern. The fledgling department in February 2003 created Ready.gov as an emergency preparedness Web site that has since been viewed by more than 23 million daily visitors. The Federation of American Scientists now has its own version -- ReallyReady.org -- which states that "unfortunately for these visitors, Ready.gov contains information that is both inaccurate and incomplete." Ivan Oelrich, director of the federation's strategic security project, acknowledges their Web site was researched and constructed by a University of Virginia sophomore, and brags that she was able to put a better preparedness guide together in two months than "a bunch of experts" did for the federal government in three years. --- http://tinyurl.com/hnft3

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 8:40pm

134. As to the question as to whether reliable info can be obtained from use of interrogation methods that some people regard as torture such as waterboarding; ABC newsman Brian Ross was just on television talking about his Polk Award winning reporting.

     Ross stated that of 14 high value terrorist prisoners that were interrogated with water boarding, 11 (or 12) of them gave useful information to the CIA within seconds of its use. Included was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who lasted the longest. 23 seconds. The Al Qaeda plan to bring down the 73-story Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted because of this information.

     Ross spoke to Bill O'Reilly today so you can catch the repeat if you are interested in what Ross says he is 100% certain is the truth.

     Posted by ljm at 09/20/2006 @ 8:57pm

135. As to the question as to whether reliable info can be obtained from use of interrogation methods that some people regard as torture such as waterboarding; ABC newsman Brian Ross was just on television talking about his Polk Award winning reporting.

     Ross stated that of 14 high value terrorist prisoners that were interrogated with water boarding, 11 (or 12) of them gave useful information to the CIA within seconds of its use. Included was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who lasted the longest. 23 seconds. The Al Qaeda plan to bring down the 73-story Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted because of this information.

     Ross spoke to Bill O'Reilly today so you can catch the repeat if you are interested in what Ross says he is 100% certain is the truth.

     Posted by LJM 09/20/2006 @ 8:57pm

     To ask some obvious questions- was Brian Ross present at the torture sessions? How did he get the information that he is "100% certain is the truth"? From the same people who have lied to us so many times in the past five years that we have stopped counting?

     What important information was elicited from the Canadian citizen, who had no information, by torture?

     And, of course, what does a journalist have to do to win an award in America?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 9:28pm

136. You can find the answers to your questions if you watch the program.

     Posted by ljm at 09/20/2006 @ 9:38pm

137. So if we "cure" their poverty, don't invade them, don't piss on the Koran, and totally cut loose Israel....isn't that "being nice" to them? Seems if I was a radical Muslim, I'd atleast consider that "somewhat friendly", hmm?

     Posted by MASK 09/20/2006 @ 3:51pm

     I'm not sure why I respond to your B.S., but AGAIN -

     TURK, what DO liberals believe will make terrorists go away....if not "being nice"? You add just after this statement that they can't be defeated militarily....so how?

     Posted by MASK 09/20/2006 @ 2:31pm

     And I quote (myself, no less!) To properly fight a grease fire you must remove it's "food", and the "food" of terrorism would be things like poverty, invasion of Muslim countries, pissing on the Koran, complete and total support of Israel, just to name a few.

     To this I would add (although I thought How about fighting them with every legal tool available? made my position fairly clear) using intelligence to foil terrorists plots (with legally approved methods), developing better relationships with the governments of countries where the terrorists come from (does Bush think that threatening the crazies and then ignoring them when they ask for a sit-down is really the best way to start solving our problems?), and in general try to live up to the American ideals that make America the best country in the world.

     I don't think anybody can logically come to the conclusion that it is only by ignoring US and international law and using the methods of the terrorists and can we uphold US and international law and defeat the terrorists - it can be spun using fear and machismo, but not with logic.

     Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

     You keep asking, I keep answering, and then you ask again. Are you obtuse, or an asshole?

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/20/2006 @ 9:44pm

138. Posted by LJM 09/20/2006 @ 8:57pm

     To ask some obvious questions- was Brian Ross present at the torture sessions? How did he get the information that he is "100% certain is the truth"? From the same people who have lied to us so many times in the past five years that we have stopped counting?

     What important information was elicited from the Canadian citizen, who had no information, by torture?

     And, of course, what does a journalist have to do to win an award in America?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/20/2006 @ 9:28pm

     You can find the answers to your questions if you watch the program.

     Posted by LJM 09/20/2006 @ 9:38pm

     I watched the program. No change- 99.99% bullshit just like the last time I watched it.

     Do you always have so much trouble with simple questions?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/20/2006 @ 10:04pm

139. CRABWALK,

     What makes you call Hugo Chavez a "mild lunatic"-TJ

     Because he meets with and gladhands Castro. I don't find him to be dangerous, like the neos seem to. So, a mild lunatic. Maybe not the best description, but all I got right now.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:08pm

140. Published on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 by the Hartford Courant (Connecticut) Faith Leaders Call Torture Immoral Clerics Call For Campaign To Take Opposition To Congressmen by Frances Grady Taylor

     Calling torture a religious issue, Connecticut faith leaders demanded Tuesday that the state's congressional delegation oppose any changes of federal law that would allow violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.

     "Torture is immoral, always," the Rev. Allie Perry said during an afternoon press conference on the lawn of Hartford Seminary. "I find myself wondering what have we come to as a country that we are having to debate something that is so very wrong in every way."

     To give the CIA more methods to get information from Guantanamo detainees, President Bush is proposing legislation that would exclude terrorism suspects from Geneva Conventions protections. But his plan has met with mounting opposition in the Senate - even from members of his own party.

     Religious leaders are rejecting Bush's plan, calling the debate a defining moment for the nation, one that has put America's reputation as a defender of human rights in jeopardy. "Nothing less is at stake than the soul of our nation," said Perry, a member of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and of Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice, a clergy activist group.

     Legislation sought by the administration would also require changes to the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act, which makes it a war crime under American law to violate any of the Geneva Conventions.

     The Rev. Davida Foy Crabtree, Connecticut Conference Minister of the United Church of Christ, called Bush's plan "an outrageous proposal that cannot go unchallenged."

     "The issue before us today is torture - it may be called by different euphemisms, but let's be clear: the issue before us is torture," Crabtree said. The group called on people of faith to raise the issue with their elected officials and all candidates for public office.

     "The message of this press conference is an unequivocal no to torture - anywhere anytime," said Rabbi Donna Berman of Charter Oak Cultural Center in Hartford. "Torture is a sin that degrades the image of God in those who are tortured and those who are doing the torturing. There must be no compromise on this."

     Bishop Andrew Smith, leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, said that if the Bush proposal were allowed, "rather than being seen as people who bring liberation [we] could be seen as people who are agents of torture and mistreatment."

     "It is inconceivable to me that we as a nation claiming to fight terrorism, in treating prisoners in the ways proposed - with deprivation, humiliation and physical pain - would ourselves be evoking terror in the hearts and minds of people who are our prisoners and those we seek to liberate," Smith said. "It's inconceivable that terrorism itself could be a weapon in our own arsenal."

     Others at the briefing included the Rev. Robert Evans of Plowshares Institute, Rabbi Jeffrey Glickman of Temple Beth Hillel, the Rev. Kathleen McTigue of the Unitarian Society of New Haven, Heidi Hadsell of Hartford Seminary and Bad r Malik of the Connecticut Council on American-Islamic Relations.

     John Humphries, a member of Hartford Friends Meeting, called recent statements by Sen. Joseph Lieberman opposing Bush's proposals encouraging, but he charged that Lieberman has more often "voted on the wrong side of the torture issue," supporting a bill to strip Guantanamo detainees of their habeas corpus rights - the right to challenge their imprisonment in court.

     Sen. Christopher Dodd has posted a strong statement against torture on his website, Humphries said, "But we need to hear his voice saying so on the floor of the Senate."

     "We stand here today to challenge Connecticut senators and congressional members to speak out and declare themselves committed to upholding the moral values this nation has stood for half a century," Humphries said. "This is not a partisan political issue, or a campaign trail issue. It's a moral and spiritual issue."

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/20/2006 @ 10:10pm

141. Redbird

     Were you asking me to explain a program to you that you have seen twice?

     Posted by ljm at 09/20/2006 @ 10:24pm

142. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/20/2006 @ 11:27pm

     Uh, well, you know...

     ...nevermind, it's just not worth it. Much easier to accept that Canadians are liars. See you up there on the border, eh?, building the wall to keep them lying sons of bitches in the frozen hell in which God intended them to suffer.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/20/2006 @ 11:40pm

143. Redbird

     Were you asking me to explain a program to you that you have seen twice?

     Posted by LJM 09/20/2006 @ 10:24pm

     There's no explanation necessary. It's bullshit and you know it. That's why you can't answer three simple questions. It certainly isn't even necessary to watch a Bill O'Reilly dog and pony show to see the logical inconsistencies in the statement you made.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/21/2006 @ 02:43am

144. As to the question as to whether reliable info can be obtained from use of interrogation methods that some people regard as torture such as waterboarding; ABC newsman Brian Ross was just on television talking about his Polk Award winning reporting.

     Ross stated that of 14 high value terrorist prisoners that were interrogated with water boarding, 11 (or 12) of them gave useful information to the CIA within seconds of its use. Included was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who lasted the longest. 23 seconds. The Al Qaeda plan to bring down the 73-story Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted because of this information.

     Ross spoke to Bill O'Reilly today so you can catch the repeat if you are interested in what Ross says he is 100% certain is the truth.

     Posted by LJM 09/20/2006 @ 8:57pm

     Three simple questions:

     1) was Brian Ross present at the torture sessions? How did he get the information that he is "100% certain is the truth"? From the same people who have lied to us so many times in the past five years that we have stopped counting?

     2) What important information was elicited from the Canadian citizen - who had NO information - by torture?

     3) And, of course, what does a journalist have to do to win an award in America?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/21/2006 @ 02:50am

145. The question that I was originally answering was whether harsh interrogation or torture results in reliable information.

     The Canadian citizen was not part of the conversation with O'Reilly and Ross nor does that situation have anything to do with the original question. He did not have any information so no form of interrogation would have been reliable.

     What does a journalist have to do to win an award in American? Google is a wonderful thing but this might help you:

     http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk/polk.html

     Here's a question for you. Who are these people that have lied to you and Brian Ross for so many years? Please don't feel obligated to reveal your sources or out any "operatives."

     Which part of the Brian Ross info that he is 100% certain of do you regard as bullshit?

     Posted by ljm at 09/21/2006 @ 08:37am

146. You keep asking, I keep answering, and then you ask again.

     Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 9:44pm

     No...you answer, and I question YOUR ANSWERS.....like how "curing poverty" and "cutting off Israel" isn't "being nice" to the terrorists?

     Aside from a MILD "let's prevent them from doing things", you offer NO pro-active responses....EXCEPT "being nice" (i.e. giving into their demands for cutting ties with Israel, and offering (what?) billions? in economic aid).

     Name something you support to eliminate terrorism...that ISN'T "nice".

     This is EXACTLY why Democrats still suffer on the question of terrorism in polling (not as much on "national security", but on "terrorism" atleast 10% down to Repubs)....it's because of the Hard Left (like you) which still offer the same 1960s "crime solution" (i.e. "root causes") which is all carrot and no stick.

     Posted by Mask at 09/21/2006 @ 09:05am

147. New Dawn,For the record, let me reiterate that I personally believe that anyone proven to have committed the acts you paint all deatinees with should be dragged into the courtyard and shot.

     Jawohl Herr Gauleiter.

     actually quite sad. I urge you to seek professional help.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 09:24am

148. crabwalk:"Because he meets with and gladhands Castro.

     this is a problem? this is worse than Bush inviting the dictator of Kazhakstan and gladhanding him? or worse than Rummy meeting with Saddam? or Bush branding other nations as "evil" hyperbole is not exactly unknown at the UN.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 09:34am

149. osted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 09:34am

     never wrote, or said that. chimpy is a full fledged loony and dangerous to boot. He cannot even hold a candle to Chavez's oratory, only repeat sad, worn out platitudes. He can stand there and praise the UN human rights documents, but fails to even notice that he is peeing on them.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2006 @ 10:27am

150. I have lambasted Chimpy and Birdshot for there gladhanding of Khazikstan, Uzbekastan, Tajikastan, Equatorial Gunea, and Qhadafi. Birdshots business dealings with Saddam, his push to give nookyoolar tech to Iran, their willingness to outsource torture to former Soviet bloc countries all put them in the same moral region as The Enemy.

     But have you noticed the cons would rather attack Jane Fonda than the president of Uzbekastan?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2006 @ 10:32am

151. But I cannot have a lot of respect for someone that praises Castro. Nope, can't do it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2006 @ 10:34am

152. Name something you support to eliminate terrorism...that ISN'T "nice".

     Posted by MASK 09/21/2006 @ 09:05am

     To this I would add (although I thought How about fighting them with every legal tool available? made my position fairly clear) using intelligence to foil terrorists plots (with legally approved methods), developing better relationships with the governments of countries where the terrorists come from (does Bush think that threatening the crazies and then ignoring them when they ask for a sit-down is really the best way to start solving our problems?), and in general try to live up to the American ideals that make America the best country in the world.

     Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

     You keep asking, I keep answering, and then you ask again. Are you obtuse, or an asshole?

     Posted by TURK33 09/20/2006 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person

     Do I need to give you a list of all the legal tools available to the US government?

     I believe that the US was completely justified in its attack in Afghanistan, so I'm for justified military action.

     I'm all for spying (wiretapping, etc.) as long as the law is followed, especially when those being spied on are American citizens. I, unlike the mis-administration, think the Constitution is more than just a list of suggestions.

     I'm all for capturing, charging, and punishing terrorists whenever and wherever possible, but I think following guidelines like the Geneva convention and the universal declaration of the rights of man is crucial if America is to prevail in what is a conflict of ideologies (we can't claim to be superior if we employ inferior techniques).

     Is that specific enough, or do you want actual military leaders that I approve of, specific terrorists that I agree shoul'd be captured, or other even more obtuse questions?

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/21/2006 @ 10:35am

153. Crabwalk, you DID say that, or do my eyes deceive me?

     CRABWALK,

     What makes you call Hugo Chavez a "mild lunatic"-TJ

     Because he meets with and gladhands Castro. I don't find him to be dangerous, like the neos seem to. So, a mild lunatic. Maybe not the best description, but all I got right now.

     Posted by CRABWALK 09/20/2006 @ 10:08pm | ignore this person

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 10:51am

154. September 21, 2006

     Quote of the Day

     "The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." – Mahatma Gandhi

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/21/2006 @ 11:18am

155. Posted by LJM 09/21/2006 @ 08:37am

     My three simple questions apparently aren't intelligible to you. I'll try to think of a way to rephrase them so that you can answer them.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/21/2006 @ 11:20am

156. yes, Ibble, like the Good Germans. "Oh we didn't know"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 11:38am

157. Crabwalk, I know where you stand, and I applaud most of your posts. don't you think it would have been helpful if SOMEONE in the US gov't would have talked with Castro some time in the last 40 years?

     the nations of OUR backyard have long felt the heavy hand of american imperialist policies, as well as numerous military interventions. is it any wonder that they would compare notes and confer?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 12:08pm

158. You would have no way of knowing this, but in my spare time I am something of a specialist in satanic linguistics. While many in the media and publishing industry have either laughed at or bent over backward to explain Bush's "awkward" verbal gymnastics, he is in fact the most remarkably eloquent practitioner of the tongue of Lucifer.

     Sure, a few years ago, he interspersed an interpretation of The Who's lyrics to "We Won't be Fooled Again" into the old dictum "Fool me once, shame on you..." and it was treated as yet another example of a Bush brain fart. But sometimes farts do smell sweet, even if sprinkled with sulfur. Look at the context, as he speaks of the need for the UN to confront Saddam. It was clear even as he and Powell were going through the motions that they gave not a rat's ass about UN participation. And he prefaces his remarks with "We're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place."

     Sunshine, butterflies, adorable blond children with lilting English accents, birds chirping, deer frolicking in the meadow. Yes, a peaceful place is a beautiful thing. But since the Fall of Man, it has never been part of God's desire to have us enjoy our time in "the world". There has to be enough yuckiness in our existences to warrant a sense of relief for those who go on to their great reward. So who wants "to make the world a peaceful place?" Not God, that's for sure. Strife is one of God's best tools to ensure worship and prayer directed upward. Peace is for hippies. Peace is for the devil.

     His subsequent and oft-quoted statement, "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again." is clearly out of the mouth of Lucifer. Confusion about origin (which is the true site of hell, after all: Tennessee or Texas--the debate rages and, here, Bush caught himself almost revealing that, yes, it is in fact Tennessee) and pronouns are hallmarks of satanic language. Who can possibly track the referential nouns of all those pronouns? Satan can. And what is he saying? Blaming us for our Fall, then ungrammatically slipping out the notion that the result of the Fall was not as he had hoped. And finally inciting all of us to join with him (perhaps, asking us, in so many words, to "Join Together with the Band") to fight the will of God as the Apocalypse approaches, which he at every moment brings closer thanks to his ironic roadmap for success, The Bible

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 1:02pm

159. I pity your children. ...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 8:28pm

     I'm thankful you don't have any.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/21/2006 @ 07:05am

     Ah, but I do, idiot.

     And I teach my son the value of logic as well as critical and independent thought, backed by facts over hyperbole.

     I also teach him to be wary of liars and fools.

     You should try it some time.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 2:11pm

160. Didn't you blast someone earlier for "defending" Watergate, while you continue to defend David Koresh?

     Did you Google "Kiri Jewel" yet?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 8:38pm

     I said I don't defend Watergate, you people shouldn't defend the Clinton Administration over their worst debacle, Waco.

     Let's suppose Koresh was the worst child molester in the world. Why were the feds involved? Koresh didn't violate any federal laws against child molestation, because barring transporting a child across state lines and federal employees, there aren't any federal laws against child molestation. This is an issue for the state of Texas. SO WHY WERE THE FEDS INVOLVED? Why was the ATF there? Why were delta force team members there in violation of the Posse Comitus Act?

     Why were the feds involved? They were manufacturing a publicity stunt trying to demonize gun dealers to generate political support for their gun agenda. Like I said, he wasn't accused of being a child molester until after the ATF agents were shot.

     If Koresh's crime was child molestation, the Texas Rangers would have picked him up in town, or on a morning jog and 85 people (74 women and children) would still be alive.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/21/2006 @ 07:17am

     Are you trying to make his child molesting the focal point of why the ATF was there? Are you genuinely this stupid?

     The ATF was there because of guns. You know what ATF stands for, right?

     You could have found that out on the net in about six seconds.

     And I don't know what you're talking when you lump me in with your nebulous "you people" "defending Waco".

     I have done no such thing.

     So, now that your avoiding the subject has fallen through, would you mind definitively telling the room why you continue to believe Koresh's words over a child's who directly claims he molested her?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 2:16pm

161. New Dawn,For the record, let me reiterate that I personally believe that anyone proven to have committed the acts you paint all deatinees with should be dragged into the courtyard and shot.

     Jawohl Herr Gauleiter.

     actually quite sad. I urge you to seek professional help.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 09:24am

     Oh, Johannes, what is sad is that you are now supporting men who can be PROVEN (since that's what I said) to be "illegal combatants, shooting at US soliders, and have pledge the destruction of the great Satan, USA". I neither defend nor support men proven to have done these things (though those proven to have done so are but a handful, and that was the point I made to MBB).

     I never said that the detainees are that, argued against that notion, in fact, but you clearly weren't paying attention at 8:28.

     And now, in your almighty moral and ethical superiority, you've determined that I need to seek professional help because I do indeed favor death for (proven) enemies of the United States, in apparent disagreement with you.

     Who the fuck do you think you are, Johanne?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 2:25pm

162. Johannes -

     Just looked up your German reference, calling me "Gauleiter".

     A Gauleiter was the party leader of a regional branch of the NSDAP (more commonly known as the Nazi Party) or the head of a Gau or of a Reichsgau.

     Stooping to calling me a Nazi is pretty low, Johannes, and I just lost all respect for you. You just proved yourself as bad as Liberty, Rio, Barry, and all of the others like them.

     Here's an idea. Go fuck yourself.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 2:30pm

163. My three simple questions apparently aren't intelligible to you. I'll try to think of a way to rephrase them so that you can answer them.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD

     Or you could continue to interject your posts with ad hominem rather than discussion until you elicit the response that you want which would allow you to avoid real discussion.

     I graduated from JR High 30+ years ago and at that time I left behind childish things so you are really wasting your time trying to push buttons or provoke.

     I answered your questions now how about you answering one.

     Which part of the Brian Ross info (as discussed on the O'Reilly program that you saw 2 times) of which he is 100% certain do you regard as bullshit?

     Posted by ljm at 09/21/2006 @ 2:30pm

164. Posted by CRABWALK 09/20/2006 @ 10:08pm

     Dang, CRAB....keep up that kind of talk, running down Brother Hugo and DARLA and ZERO will put you on their Ignore List!

     Posted by Mask at 09/21/2006 @ 2:31pm

165. new dawn, it is your rhetoric I object to, as you evidently object to mine. in your rhetoric you left out a crucial bit, a trial. my city was attacked twice. the first perps got a trial and are locked away. it is that which I support. if you do not like to be challenged, don't post.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 2:33pm

166. Posted by TURK33 09/21/2006 @ 10:35am

     Actually, TURK....that's fine.

     I was just "feeling you out" on your response to terrorism. See...some of the brethren of the Left here wouldn't even go for THOSE things.

     Ask around....support for invading Afghanistan (not Iraq) is pretty low among the Hard Left....Oh sure, "we just didn't like the speed at which it was done" gets thrown in (DARLA), but when pressured they won't issue any kind of DEFINITIVE statement supporting invading Afghanistan. (The MYTH that "everybody supported going into Afghanistan, just not Iraq" is just that. I remember quite well those who kept telling us that (no matter what the troop level) "The British lost there, the Russians lost there, we will lose there...Don't do it...negotiate with the Taliban!"

     only AFTER Iraq, did the sudden "Road to Damascus" change come in support of military intervention at all.

     Long story short....I agree with you. But in the "Tough Love" Scenario of dealing with terrorism, the "tough" before the "love"!

     Posted by Mask at 09/21/2006 @ 2:35pm

167. new dawn, we are getting a bit too far out here. the "dragged into the courtyard to be shot" pushed some buttons for me. that indeed seems like some quote by some Gauleiter to me. if you include due process, instead of what Bush is selling, no matter whom we "capture", then we indeed have just a disagreement about the death penalty. when someone shoots at the american troops who have invaded his country, I don't believe that is a capital offense. if you do, I suggest you dispense with the fuck you's and explain your views.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 2:40pm

168. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 2:33pm

     You have a narcissism complex.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/21/2006 @ 2:43pm

169. I answered your questions now how about you answering one.

     Posted by LJM 09/21/2006 @ 2:30pm

     You didn't. Saying you did doesn't magically make it so.

     If an administration that is torturing captives says to a journalist, "HEY, WE TORTURED THIS GUY AND WE USED THE INFORMATION WE GOT TO STOP A GIGANTIC TERRORIST ATTACK!!!" and that journalist then goes on the Bill O'Reilly show and says, "Hey, they tortured this guy and they used the information they got to stop a gigantic terrorist attack"- well, I wouldn't call that investigative journalism.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/21/2006 @ 2:51pm

170. Maasch, if you wish to make the personal acquaintance of one of "you people" during your announced visit to NYC, you will find me at an event at Federal Hall on friday october 6th at noon.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 3:06pm

171. new dawn, it is your rhetoric I object to, as you evidently object to mine. in your rhetoric you left out a crucial bit, a trial. my city was attacked twice. the first perps got a trial and are locked away. it is that which I support. if you do not like to be challenged, don't post.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 2:33pm

     new dawn, we are getting a bit too far out here. the "dragged into the courtyard to be shot" pushed some buttons for me. that indeed seems like some quote by some Gauleiter to me. if you include due process, instead of what Bush is selling, no matter whom we "capture", then we indeed have just a disagreement about the death penalty. when someone shoots at the american troops who have invaded his country, I don't believe that is a capital offense. if you do, I suggest you dispense with the fuck you's and explain your views.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 2:40pm

     Johannes -

     I have repeatedly "explained my views", and further, I did not say "fuck you", I suggested that you "go fuck yourself".

     You just relegated yourself to the far left wackjob section for me by calling me a Nazi. In fact, should you dare to ever do such a thing to my face (I'll give you my address), I will knock every last one of your teeth out. That's not a threat, that's a guaran-fucking-tee.

     Shut your hole and read what I've posted throughout this thread before you make ridiculuous statements like "if you do not like to be challenged, don't post" and "I suggest you dispense with the fuck you's and explain your views", let alone call me a Nazi. Who the fuck are you to tell people who can and cannot post, and why? How dare you ask someone who has repeatedly (on this very thread) explained their views to "explain their views or don't post"?

     Your willful ignorance puts you right up there with Rio, CPT, Maasch, MBB, and the like when you claim to not know that I have argued for trials. On this and other threads, I have repeatedly decried holding detainees without trials, yet you act like I have done no such thing.

     Here are some notable New Dawn quotes (from this very thread) that the sanctimonious stick in your ass has obviously blinded you to:

     "Will MBB decry claims against Koresh for being a child rapist because Koresh ended up dead before he could brought to trial for those alleged crimes? Be interesting to hear MBB argue for trials for those accused of crimes, then be asked to make the same argument for detainees..."

     and

     "Nice straw man, but a bullshit argument, just like the ones you've posited here defending David Koresh and excoriating all detainees as guilty without a trial."

     as well as

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 8:28pm ---- in its entirety. I can now see that you, like many other disingenuous posters here, excerpted the very last sentence I wrote and made hay of it. I suggest you read the rest.

     Calling me a Nazi was a new low for any poster here, and your unwillingness to categorically apologize for and retract the Nazi reference is reprehensible. Again, who the fuck do you think you are, Johanne?

     Let me say it again, in yet another way: If certain detainees can be PROVED (by a court of law, as I've previously argued) to be "illegal combatants, shooting at US soliders, and have pledge the destruction of the great Satan, USA", then they should be executed.

     You, Johannes, are a fringe lefty no better than the fringe righties here.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:00pm

172. What a shame - I thought you were a pretty decent dude.

     Calling me a Nazi...

     Reprehensible.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:01pm

173. FRB said:

     You didn't. Saying you did doesn't magically make it so.

     If an administration that is torturing captives says to a journalist, "HEY, WE TORTURED THIS GUY AND WE USED THE INFORMATION WE GOT TO STOP A GIGANTIC TERRORIST ATTACK!!!" and that journalist then goes on the Bill O'Reilly show and says, "Hey, they tortured this guy and they used the information they got to stop a gigantic terrorist attack"- well, I wouldn't call that investigative journalism.

     We can't have a real discussion if you are blowing smoke. If you had seen the program like you claim (twice) then you would know that Ross didn't get his info from the administration.

     Let me know when you are ready to have an honest discussion.

     Posted by ljm at 09/21/2006 @ 5:05pm

174. Posted by TURK33 09/21/2006 @ 10:35am

     Hear, hear.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:13pm

175. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

     Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particularly concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil".

     The law states:

     "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

     Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:24pm

176. Apology or further reprehensible behavior.

     Ball's in your court, Johannes.

     Or are you trottel? Reaktionär? Irre? Or just an arschloch?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:29pm

177. If foriegn troops invaded the United States of America, overthrew the current (or any) administration, everyone here can damned well bet a finger that I would shoot at the invaders.

     Guess that would make me an "insurgent". Or is that a "patriot"?

     Or would I be labeled "a terrorist"?

     And by whom?

     And if I was captured by the invading forces, would the invaders give me a trial?

     Just something I was thinking about.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:50pm

178. If you guys take one step and then return to your monitor, you will see an incredibly infantile bunch of bickerers bickering about nothing. It's one thing to engage someone when you disagree. Quite another thing to continue the discussion even after you have determined your adversary not to be capable of coherent responses. What does continuing a conversation with someone incapable of the most basic aspects of civil debate make you other than an enabler of someone else's idiotic or insane behavior?

     This just in, Nancy Pelosi calls Chavez a thug. Nice to see Pelosi join the crowd who has nothing better to do than gripe about someone who doesn't kiss our collective American ass. Thug. Nice choice of words from the least consequential Congressional leader in memory.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 5:50pm

179. this is worse than Bush inviting the dictator of Kazhakstan and gladhanding him? or worse than Rummy meeting with Saddam? or Bush branding other nations as "evil" hyperbole is not exactly unknown at the UN.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 09:34am

     never wrote, or said that. chimpy is a full fledged loony and dangerous to boot. He cannot even hold a candle to Chavez's oratory, only repeat sad, worn out platitudes. He can stand there and praise the UN human rights documents, but fails to even notice that he is peeing on them.

     Posted by CRABWALK 09/21/2006 @ 10:27am |

     Crabwalk, you DID say that, or do my eyes deceive me?

     CRABWALK,

     What makes you call Hugo Chavez a "mild lunatic"-TJ

     Because he meets with and gladhands Castro. I don't find him to be dangerous, like the neos seem to. So, a mild lunatic. Maybe not the best description, but all I got right now.

     Posted by CRABWALK 09/20/2006 @ 10:08pm | ignore this person

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2006 @ 10:51am --------------

     For what it's worth... I did say chavez is a mild lunatic. I never said he was worse than monkeyboy and GRRRMan meeting with the New Soviets, or the dictators of oil rich countries. Should we have a dialogue with Castro? Probably. But that is not the same as hugging and smooching the bastard like Chavez does. We should reserve that treatment for Lieberman.

     (Flash from the past.."OK, Don step up to President Hussein, smile. That's it! OK shake hands...good, good. OK, now mention how great it is to be in business together. good, good. Ok, now show some more teeth, that's it, smile. He's your buddy, everyone benefits. Turn to the camera. Good. Now one for the grand kids back home.

     All right! That's a wrap!")

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2006 @ 5:51pm

180. If you guys take one step and then return to your monitor, you will see an incredibly infantile bunch of bickerers bickering about nothing. It's one thing to engage someone when you disagree. Quite another thing to continue the discussion even after you have determined your adversary not to be capable of coherent responses. What does continuing a conversation with someone incapable of the most basic aspects of civil debate make you other than an enabler of someone else's idiotic or insane behavior?

     This just in, Nancy Pelosi calls Chavez a thug. Nice to see Pelosi join the crowd who has nothing better to do than gripe about someone who doesn't kiss our collective American ass. Thug. Nice choice of words from the least consequential Congressional leader in memory.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/21/2006 @ 5:50pm

     "an incredibly infantile bunch of bickerers bickering about nothing"

     "an enabler of someone else's idiotic or insane behavior"

     And here I thought it was perfectly acceptable to let someone know that what they said was reprehensible, hurtful, and wholly unnecessary, especially if they are someone whom you normally empathize with and understand.

     Methinks that too many here favor an echo chamber.

     I'm suddenly not so sure why I come here anymore.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 5:57pm

181. Sorry, New Dawn, but this page has become a virtual non-stop line of, well, bickering. I tend to use overly flowery language, 'cause I think it's fun. But when a discussion decends into who is what form of Nazi or why-do-you-say-that-I-never-said-that, I think somebody needs to blow a whistle.

     Plus, I'm a thug. Just ask Nancy.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 6:01pm

182. And I agree. It's this sort of nothingness that pushed me away for a month. Perhaps it wasn't a long enough time away.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 6:02pm

183. LJM, I am still waiting for the answers to the questions posed. I did not see the program, so could you enlighten me, if not Fromredbird?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2006 @ 6:07pm

184. And I agree. It's this sort of nothingness that pushed me away for a month. Perhaps it wasn't a long enough time away.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/21/2006 @ 6:02pm

     I said on another thread the other day that this cast of "usual suspects" on both sides doesn't change much, in their composition or their views, and that this is, after all, only another kind of echo chamber, even when folks disagree (since they almost always disagree about the exact same things in the exact same way).

     After the Nazi remark, I was so pissed off that my lady asked me why I come to the site.

     And I had to think about it.

     "Mental exercise," I finally said. "To challenge my own views and make me think about others'", I said. "Because some accusations and inferences shouldn't be allowed to just be flung out there like monkey crap at the zoo without reasoned challenge or refutation by way of facts," I said. "To know my enemy," I said.

     In retrospect, those all seem like valid reasons to continue coming here.

     What bothers me is that I really had to sit and think before I came up with those answers, considering this place in recent days. Maybe a year-long stint is all it takes to get everything this place (and other blogs like it, on both sides) has to offer.

     Now, I am sad.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 6:39pm

185. Now, I am sad.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/21/2006 @ 6:39pm

     Been there for a while. I'm sorry for my earlier posts, but one thing that happens here is enormous frustration. The band of conservatives that troll through here, as proud as fans of a championship sports team and as equally unimportant to the success of the group for whom they cheer, are able to sit back, think about nothing, and believe they reside in a paradise of their own creation. It's a grating thing, for sure. And then I get ticked off with the ensuing conversation after their thoughtless posts.

     Again, sorry. It's not you. It's me. :-)

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 6:50pm

186. You, I'll miss, TJ.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 6:57pm

187. "You'll see that my perceptions of risk are base on actual statistics regarding the incidence of "loss" and it seems your perceptions are based on your hatred of Bush."

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:55am

     Not so fast MBB. Up to 2001, damage caused by terrorism was not specifically excluded under most HO and Commercial policies. It is now...or seriously limited. It can only be extended by endorsement. You know this.

     You also know fully that actuarial stats don't mean a thing when it comes to rating the terror "risk". Your job, much like mine depends on historical patterns and extrapolation to current times.

     You are certainly pushing your point about the bush hating crap. Truth is you have nothing to base your "perception of risk", other than two internal events. That is not statistically relevant and you know it. You simply can not assess risk based on two events. Most insurers are farting in the wind when guessing what to charge for limited and endorsed terrorism coverage. This has nothing to do with bush.

     Posted by doumer at 09/21/2006 @ 7:41pm

188. Isn't it amazing that President Bush can mention the great Lebanese scholar and diplomat, Dr. Charles Malik, who authored the Human Rights Document when 1) The Bush administration sat back for a month and blessed Israel's unbelievable destruction of Dr. Malik's beautiful country of Lebanon. Human rights? Where were Lebanon's rights, Mr. Bush? Where were the human rights of the Lebanese people? We need to ask Mr. Bush who in his world deserves "human rights".

     Posted by Barbara Badre at 09/21/2006 @ 9:27pm

189. "Let me say it again, in yet another way: If certain detainees can be PROVED (by a court of law, as I've previously argued) to be "illegal combatants, shooting at US soliders, and have pledge the destruction of the great Satan, USA", then they should be executed."

     New Dawn: do you actually believe this? The "illegal combatants" I presume are those picked up in Afghanistan. None from Pakistan or anywhere else, were "shooting at US soldiers". Those picked up for "shooting at US soldiers" were presumably Tailban or Al Queda fighters defending their territory against what they perceived as an invasion. And indeed it was.

     They deserve to be executed? What makes them "illegal combatants" anyway? Were they not performing the duties of any militia/army worldwide in defending the "homeland"?

     Posted by doumer at 09/21/2006 @ 10:06pm

190. For fuck's sake.

     Doumer.

     PLEASE read my comments throughout this thread before you even post what you just posted.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 4:06pm...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 8:28pm...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/20/2006 @ 8:32pm...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/21/2006 @ 2:25pm...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/21/2006 @ 5:00pm (Ignore the Nazi stuff - irrelevant)...

     Posted by NEW DAWN 09/21/2006 @ 5:50pm...

     If I lose another liberal friend today who hasn't bothered to actually read what I've written, I will...

     for fuck's sake.

     I'm just about outtahere.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 10:31pm

191. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/21/2006 @ 5:50pm

     This IS a good post. But remember, even as stupid as the invasion was, it was more the post-invasion ineptitude and corruption that would have led you to become an insurgent in your analogy. Freed from tyranny only to have your freedom providers use your country as an socio-economic laboratory run by third-graders.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/21/2006 @ 10:46pm

192. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/21/2006 @ 10:46pm

     Hear freaking hear.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 10:55pm

193. New Dawn, I'm sorry that an unfortunate phrase elicidated(sic) such a hurtful attack by me. it was meant more satirical, in a kind of Hogan's Heros way. I beg your indulgence. we all resort to mindless attacks some time. I was recently compared to Sgt Schultz from that same comedy, and I believe I called another poster the anti christ. so i am ready to move on, hoping that in a future post i might again earn the respect of you and others.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2006 @ 11:02pm

194. Johannes, done. Peace.

     I appreciate the apology.

     Jason

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/21/2006 @ 11:16pm

195. You guys may already have touched on this, but have you heard all of the super things being said about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? On NPR, for example, Diane Rehm's guests where extolling his charisma, intelligence, and prowess. For the life of me I don't understand why so many lefties are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to compliment this piece of shit man. He is a certifiable nut case who is bent on destruction and fueled by visceral hate. Think of him as the superhuman version of Mel Gibson in his complete and utter contempt and disgust of the Jews. Think of him as the superhuman Pat Roberson in his psychotic religious fanaticism. How can the Left spit on and despise these two Americans and try their God's honest best to "like" Ahmadinejad? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

     I'm also about sick of hearing President Bush preface every comment about a Muslim country with "A great nation," and "A great religion," and "A great people." Something is very fishy about constantly complimenting someone or something like this. Imaging if every time I saw you I said "Hello, you're nose looks great today!" Before long, you'd be wondering what the hell was wrong with your nose. Great nations, great people, great anythings do not require a constant reassurance. Frankly, they don't deserve it. Since when is the breeding ground for the world's worst nightmare -lunatic muslim terrorists- worthy of being called a great anything, other than a great disappointment?

     Posted by Person at 09/21/2006 @ 11:19pm

196. ND/JR

     I'm glad you're both sticking around. You can't leave me here alone with the righties!

     Posted by brunowe at 09/21/2006 @ 11:23pm

197. Posted by PERSON 09/21/2006 @ 11:19pm

     As regards Mel Gibson- Amadinejad probably doesn't drink himself drunk, if at all. As regards Pat Robertson- Ahmadinejad obviously has a functioning brain.

     Is there any possibility that your attitudes toward Ahmadinejad and, apparently, all Muslims in general are wrong? Maybe others have the same problem and they're surprised to find that Ahmadinejad is saying sensible things when not being evaluated through the filter of a grossly prejudiced US news media.

     Did it ever occur to you that he never said what they said that he said or that he said something that was slightly but crucially different from the manner in which it was portrayed?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 02:00am

198. As regards Mel Gibson- Amadinejad probably doesn't drink himself drunk, if at all. As regards Pat Robertson- Ahmadinejad obviously has a functioning brain.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 02:00am | ignore this person

     Brilliant retort! You have shattered my position. Muslim nations are truly some of the greatest on earth. I will send my daughters to the madrasah at once. Thanks for the help!

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 07:07am

199. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 02:00am

     Brilliant retort! You left Person with no option but to respond with a sarcastic remark implying you had made overstatements rather than address his own generalizations.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 07:30am

200. I didn't generalize about anything. I said, very specifically, that I am sick of hearing Bush and other leaders and media types knocking themselves out to compliment muslims. Enough already. Muslims are the salt of the earth. Move on. And more specifically than that, hearing people strain to commend the Iranian president is mind blowingly offensive.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 07:39am

201. Don't you love how the Republicans pick nebulous opponents? War on Drugs, War on Terror, two "wars" with no real achievable goals other than allowing more restrictions of civil liberties - and they have the nerve to call themselves conservatives?

     The neocon Bush buttmonkeys want the current mess to be called the "War" on Terror, but they don't want the "enemy" to be treated like an enemy because they are not wearing uniforms. They want all the power that is associated with a condition of war, but none of the responsibilities that come with a condition of war (following the Constitution or Geneva conventions).

     There are rules of engagement for a reason, and when we are outraged at terrorists for not following them (as we should), we need to carry over that experience to our own actions. If it's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when we do it.

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/22/2006 @ 09:48am

202. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/22/2006 @ 07:56am

     Again with the clothes. Who knew Neo-Cons were such fans of "What Not to Wear"?

     As for civilian targets, if you believe targeted civilian casualties are a defining action of terrorism, then we await the first truly non-terrorist war. Targeting civilian populations has been standard procedure from the earliest wars to the current wars. Believe if you choose that WE don't target civilians. Blame it on clumsiness or brush it off as minimal in comparison to the good things we accomplish. Whatever.

     As for "hiding" among civilians, well, where are they going to live? Do they need to set up camp away from other people to be worthy of human and legal rights? Is this what it comes down to? Zoning?

     It is a pretty silly thing to set up "rules" for war--the most ghastly event humans are capable of--and then pout when others don't oblige us. And particularly galling when at every stage of these current wars we act in ways that we would not tolerate from other countries. If for no other reason, we should end our adventures because we are too embarrassed to continue.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 09:59am

203. Did it ever occur to you that he never said what they said that he said or that he said something that was slightly but crucially different from the manner in which it was portrayed?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD

     Please take a few moments, deploy google and discover the context of the comments. Then get back to us and dispel the "myth" of Ahmadinejad's comments. Tell us what he really meant.

     Posted by ljm at 09/22/2006 @ 10:46am

204. Did it ever occur to you that he never said what they said that he said or that he said something that was slightly but crucially different from the manner in which it was portrayed?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD

     Please take a few moments, deploy google and discover the context of the comments. Then get back to us and dispel the "myth" of Ahmadinejad's comments. Tell us what he really meant.

     Posted by LJM 09/22/2006 @ 10:46am

     Show me the comments you're referring to and I'll tell you what I think they mean. Am I supposed to guess what comments you're referring to? Oh, sorry . . . I asked a question and I know from past experience that you don't like questions.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 12:16pm

205. (Easiest prediction in the world. A new article by Mr Corn on this.....and two-three plugs for "Hubris" in it!)

     By Joel Seidman,Producer

     NBC News

     Updated: 2:36 p.m. ET Sept 21, 2006

     WASHINGTON - The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursday that if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certain classified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby can jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismiss the perjury charges against Libby.

     Judge Reggie Walton cannot automatically allow classified materials to be admitted at trial. He first must go through a series of closed hearings under CIPA regulations. CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, protects and restricts the discovery of classified information in a way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial. It also allows the government to propose a redacted version of a classified document as a substitution for the original, having deleted only non-relevant classified information.

     In his ruling this morning, the Judge Walton, has given a technical legal victory to Libby's attorneys concerning the admissibility of classified materials they want to present at trial for their defense.

     Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 12:22pm

206. As regards Mel Gibson- Amadinejad probably doesn't drink himself drunk, if at all. As regards Pat Robertson- Ahmadinejad obviously has a functioning brain.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 02:00am | ignore this person

     Brilliant retort! You have shattered my position. Muslim nations are truly some of the greatest on earth. I will send my daughters to the madrasah at once. Thanks for the help!

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 07:07am

     I can't see how my response did anything to encourage you to enroll your daughter in a madrassa. I was just encouraging you to evaluate the "Western" news media's overwhelmingly negative portrayal of Muslims and their representatives with a little circumspection.

     For example: the plan widely reported in the "Western" news media that Iran's parliament was going to require Iranian Jews to wear badges. It took a public statement from a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament to discredit that. That sort of fabrication doesn't make you even a little suspicious?

     Another example: doesn't it strike you as strange that the Catholic Pope quotes comments from a late 13th century Christian emperor equating Islamic culture with violence when it is the Christian "West" that has visited upon humanity thousands, if not millions, of times more violence than the Islamic world? The hypocrisy and ill intentions are palpable.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 12:39pm

207. Don't you love how the Republicans pick nebulous opponents? War on Drugs, War on Terror, two "wars" with no real achievable goals other than allowing more restrictions of civil liberties -

     Posted by TURK33 09/22/2006 @ 09:48am

     Their real objective is to make war on American society and it's foundational heritage of democracy. It's clear as day. They have more resentment of democracy than al-Qaeda and they are thousands of times more threatening to it.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 12:44pm

208. Did it ever occur to you that he never said what they said that he said or that he said something that was slightly but crucially different from the manner in which it was portrayed?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD

     A reasonable person would summise from your above comments that you were actually familiar with his controversial comments. More smoke blowing?

     Google can be very useful. You ought to give it a try but here you go:

     "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

     "Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."

     If you want the full context. Please feel free to investigate.

     Posted by ljm at 09/22/2006 @ 1:22pm

209. Posted by LJM 09/22/2006 @ 1:22pm

     He won't.

     In case you're not up-to-speed, FROMREDBIRD is our local spokesperson for Hezbollah and Hamas. He's as much as stated he wants Israel eliminated (Not "Israelis", just the nation-state...if you can believe that fine distinction!). He's an apologist for THE most outrageous and violent rhetoric coming out of Iran, the Palestinian Territories, southern Lebanon, etc.

     Fortunately, he represents only a tiny fraction of the American Left. Ari Berman (yes THAT one, of "The Nation") calls FRB types the "reflexively anti-Israel Left".....Governor Howard Dean has another word for them, same one he used against Iraqi Prime Miister Al-Maliki.

     Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 1:26pm

210. As for "hiding" among civilians, well, where are they going to live? Do they need to set up camp away from other people to be worthy of human and legal rights? Is this what it comes down to? Zoning?

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/22/2006 @ 09:59am | ignore this person

     Instead of hiding in elementary schools and private homes, terrorists could fight from holy places...dough! If I were a terrorist I would hijack a plane or lock myself in a daycare center.

     The attempt to equate us with them is so goddamn ass backward and upside down it's impossible to respond. If that's what you truly believe you are one fucked up puppy.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

211. Freebird said:

     "Show me the comments you're referring to and I'll tell you what I think they mean."

     I think he will. How can he back away from the above statement?

     Posted by ljm at 09/22/2006 @ 1:40pm

212. "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

     "Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."

     If you want the full context. Please feel free to investigate.

     Posted by LJM 09/22/2006 @ 1:22pm

     Why didn't you hyperlink the quotes if that's what they are? Are they quotes or your own reporting?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 1:49pm

213. Another example: doesn't it strike you as strange that the Catholic Pope quotes comments from a late 13th century Christian emperor equating Islamic culture with violence...

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 12:39am | ignore this person

     And then, low and behold, a real SHOCKER happened: Islamic violence immediately followed the Pope's comments! Wow! What a complete surprise!

     ...it is the Christian "West" that has visited upon humanity thousands, if not millions, of times more violence than the Islamic world?

     WHO GIVES A SHIT? Who gives a whit about Christians from previous centuries? If an American Indian slit your throat to avenge history, do you think the courts would care what happend to his ancestors? I guess we should expect to see Jewish suicide bombers in Berlin cafes any day now. Give me a fucking break.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 1:51pm

214. Instead of hiding in elementary schools and private homes, terrorists could fight from holy places...dough! If I were a terrorist I would hijack a plane or lock myself in a daycare center.

     The attempt to equate us with them is so goddamn ass backward and upside down it's impossible to respond. If that's what you truly believe you are one fucked up puppy.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

     The battlefield reporting that I saw during the most recent israeli invasion of Lebanon indicated that Hezbollah was inflicting high casualties on and fierce resistance against the israeli invasion from a well developed system of bunkers and tunnels. There were numerous articles referring to this.

     The numerous public statements coming from the israeli government and army and the israeli right-wing blogosphere in America that Hezbollah was "hiding" among civilians were statements that conflicted with the actual battlefield experience. It was fabricated to rationalize indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilians.

     Each and every one of israel's wars has centered around the startegy of punishing the whole population severely enough to weaken opposition to the israeli conquerors. It's effectiveness has been waning. So has the effectiveness of the lies about it. But there's no law that says you can't keep lying.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 2:00pm

215. Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 1:51pm

     You know, your angry, unreasonable hatred of an entire people and religion is quite evident.

     It's a very true saying that anger is always a second emotion. I think the true conflict lies within yourself. You're not a happy camper, that's for sure. Are you a Republican?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 2:04pm

216. Another example: doesn't it strike you as strange that the Catholic Pope quotes comments from a late 13th century Christian emperor equating Islamic culture with violence when it is the Christian "West" that has visited upon humanity thousands, if not millions, of times more violence than the Islamic world? The hypocrisy and ill intentions are palpable.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 12:39am

     WHO GIVES A SHIT? Who gives a whit about Christians from previous centuries? If an American Indian slit your throat to avenge history, do you think the courts would care what happend to his ancestors? I guess we should expect to see Jewish suicide bombers in Berlin cafes any day now. Give me a fucking break.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 1:51pm

     I was comparing the affinity for violence of Islamic culture vs. "Western" Christian culture. I didn't include any implication that past violence justifies current violence. You changed the subject for some reason, didn't you? And, you're getting resentful.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 2:16pm

217. Lying about what? What in the hell are you talking about? First off, terrorists fight from mosques all the time. It's like mosques are their favorite place to fight. I'm not saying its stupid, because you exploit any weakness you can, and our weakness is that we are decent humans. But it is cowardly.

     What possesses you equate the West with the Middle East, or us to Islamic terrorists? Do you honestly think we are the same? What world am I living in? Am I Kanue Reeves in the Matrix? The notion that any Middle Eastern nation is 1/100th of the West in any positive measure is dead wrong.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 2:26pm

218. If that's what you truly believe you are one fucked up puppy.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 1:39pm

     You're sweet, no matter what they say. Your thoughtful responses on this thread will give much to ruminate this weekend. Thank you, as always, for the cogency of your arguments.

     Fondly, One Fucked Up Puppy

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 2:35pm

219. As an aside, "comparing" things is not the same as "equating" them. Understanding the difference is crucial if you want to sound sensible. You do want to sound sensible, don't you?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 2:37pm

220. You're goddamn right I'm angry. I'm officially fed up with so much bullshit from the Left the world over that I cannot stomach any more. And this decrepit desire to elevate the enemies of the free world to our level, as though they are our contemporaries, has pushed me over the edge of toleration.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 2:38pm

221. I am not the least bit interested in understanding Islamic extremists. I haven't the slightest desire to consider their perspective or motives. The only thing that interests me about these people is counting the dead.

     I am not a Republican. I am a registered Libertarian.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

222. Why didn't you hyperlink the quotes if that's what they are? Are they quotes or your own reporting?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD

     You asked for the "comments." Try this. Cut and paste the comments into your Google or Yahoo search. You will then have access to many links from which YOU can choose. or

     you can continue to stall this way. I can give you some links and you can charge that they aren't acceptable because they a source that you believe is biased.

     Let's streamline this shall we. Neither one of us is getting any younger.

     Posted by ljm at 09/22/2006 @ 3:22pm

223. You do want to sound sensible, don't you?

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/22/2006 @ 2:37pm

     I am not the least bit interested in understanding Islamic extremists. I haven't the slightest desire to consider their perspective or motives. The only thing that interests me about these people is counting the dead.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

     Guess not.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 3:29pm

224. Will you be selling tickets to the boilover and bursting of your head, Person? Some here will want front-row seats.

     When do we start the bidding? (I got three-fitty.) ;)

     In all seriousness, though...

     You made a cogent point that shows you are indeed, thinking:

     "If an American Indian slit your throat to avenge history, do you think the courts would care what happend to his ancestors?"

     They might, depending on how good an attorney our Indian friend might secure to argue for the defense, but if your point is that killing over strictly historical differences - see the Hatfields and McCoys - dating back hundreds or thousands of years is wrong... I'd agree with you.

     So, since you're thinking along those lines, how do you feel about killing for a killing that happened, oh, say, yesterday?

     Stay with me here.

     Let's take a fictional character, Abdullah.

     Abdullah lives in a small, quiet town indirectly involved in the latest conflict; Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, wherever - pick your poison.

     Abdullah works a regular job at a market, isn't particularly politically active, but loves his country deeply. He does not support suicide bombings, Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other extremist of any stripe. He just lives his life. He is mostly a quiet fellow, keeps to himself, work and home and worship and a few friends.

     It just so happens that Abdullah also enjoys and sometimes even admires a great deal of American and Western culture - his son was even educated in a Western school, but he keeps that fairly on the downlow - the neighbors might talk, doncha know, and that can be dangerous these days.

     So, Abdullah lives three doors down from a house that houses someone's enemy. Abdullah doesn't even know the "insurgent" or "terrorist" or "person of interest" in the house, has never even met him.

     And someone uses an explosive device to decimate the house to dust and foundation.

     And Abdullah's wife and son, walking home from the market and crossing in front of the target house at just the wrong time, are evaporated.

     When Abdullah learns of their deaths, then runs home and gets his rifle, and comes back out in the street in his civilian clothes, filled with righteous indignation, and starts looking to shoot whoever just killed his wife and kid, be it an American soldier or a Taliban or Al-Quaeda fighter or any other extremist opposing Abdullah's own political or religious sect... When his brothers and uncles and cousins, similarly armed and clothed, join him and they all organize to kill the killers of their families, by accident or by design, by targeting or by "collateral damage"...

     Do you fail to understand that every bomb that kills two "bad guys" and three, four, or even five civilians just bred ten, perhaps twenty new angry and vengeful men?

     Are they evil, Person?

     And unlike the American Indian in your hypothetical, killing today for the sins of a past century, are they not shooting back for the sins of only yesterday? Every time an innocent person dies, by accident or by design, it breeds contempt. This is not calculus. And our current methods of smashing mercury with a hammer are undeniably creating scattered droplets.

     There has to be another way. A smarter way. A path of finite goals and milestones towards the butterflies-and-sunshine-and-democracy world we're supposedly trying to create with five-hundred pound bombs and hypocritical international demands.

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

     I am sick of leaning left and hearing the entire left vilified and lumped together as appeasers, pacifists, enablers, and cowards.

     I am none of those things.

     I do not support airplane hijackers, IED layers, suicide bombers, Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Chavez, Castro, Ahmedinijad, terrorism, torture, or any other extremist of any stripe.

     I also, however, do not paint every Muslim as a violent warrior for every passage in their Koran any more than I place faith in every line of any other holy book on the planet.

     I recognize the inherent hypocrisy of any religion that claims in every way to be a religion of peace, yet continues to foist its religious goals upon others by force. But I also know that many can separate ancient ideas and ideals, be they the Christian method of stoning people to death, abandoned for centuries, to the beheadings of infidels, still employed today by radical Muslim extremists, from modern, moderate, and mutually beneficial solutions to international problems and differences of policy and politics.

     What I, and many here argue against, Person, is your "side"'s tendency to argue and infer that all Muslims are terrorists. They are not, any more than all fruits are apples.

     Further, continuing to rhetorically paint an entire religion totalling a billion people into a corner as radical extremists bent on the domination of the entire earth sets us up against a larger enemy than we can handle, unless this is destined to truly be a clash of civilizations.

     I do not believe that it has to be that way.

     One billion Muslims. Are they all terrorists?

     Or do you admit to the existence of millions of Abdullahs?

     If you do, you must understand that for every moderate Muslim's family member that gets killed, regardless of how or by whom, three to five new civilian-clothes-wearing, gun-toting, vengeance-seeking enemies arise.

     If the United States were invaded, for no other reason than being a patriot - let alone if enemy bombs killed my family - I would take to the streets, in my civilian neighborhood, in my civilian clothes, and look at the invading forces as targets. To me, any patriot in any country should not court shame by doing the same. Are you not this kind of patriot? Would you not fight for your own country?

     And if we can agree on nothing else, Person, can we agree that we are never going to stamp out "terrorism" or "extremism" in their entirety with guns and bombs unless we can destroy every single human being with even the potential for extremism before they can commit an actual act?

     Many of us just believe that this "let's hit it with a rock" thing is poor warfare for this or any kind of enemy.

     Ask Sun Tzu.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 3:41pm

225. I am not the least bit interested in understanding Islamic extremists. I haven't the slightest desire to consider their perspective or motives. The only thing that interests me about these people is counting the dead.

     I am not a Republican. I am a registered Libertarian.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

     "Counting the dead"?

     Wow, dude, forget my last post to you. Reasoned consideration of humanity as a whole is obviously not your forte.

     Yea, death!

     (Did I really just read that?)

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 3:43pm

226. Lying about what? What in the hell are you talking about? First off, terrorists fight from mosques all the time. It's like mosques are their favorite place to fight. I'm not saying its stupid, because you exploit any weakness you can, and our weakness is that we are decent humans. But it is cowardly.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 2:26pm

     I'm trying to follow you here. So . . . israel is withdrawing from their latest bloodletting in Lebanon . . . because they're too humane to bomb the mosques where all the "terrorists" were "hiding"? You're making a joke, right?

     And . . . if mosques are one of the favorite places of Muslims to fight from, as you very questionably stated . . . doesn't that indicate that they're fighting in their own neighborhood? Who are they fighting against from their mosques? American and israeli tourists? No, actually they're fighting invading armies. Armies who chose to violently attack them where they live.

     PERSON, I think you're just a hater seeking justification for your own endemic violence.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 4:07pm

227. I am not the least bit interested in understanding Islamic extremists. I haven't the slightest desire to consider their perspective or motives. The only thing that interests me about these people is counting the dead.

     I am not a Republican. I am a registered Libertarian.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 2:45pm

     As I like to say- scratch five libertarians and you'll find three Republicans.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 4:09pm

228. you can continue to stall this way. I can give you some links and you can charge that they aren't acceptable because they a source that you believe is biased.

     Posted by LJM 09/22/2006 @ 3:22pm

     Rather than stalling I've been trying to get you to say something that you can back up. If you don't have enough courage to state your case based on your sources then you should just go away and stop embarrassing yourself.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 4:18pm

229. new dawn- I'm also a libertarian and i'm not interested in understanding muslim extremists either. That's why I don't understand why so many republicans want us to be involved in the affairs of middle eastern countries, particularly with our military. islam and america are like oil and water. it's counterinutitive of us to go there don't you think? why do I know the difference between sunni and shia? what is in the middle east that is worth risking another 9/11 for. obviously nothing, because nothing is worth having another 9/11.

     Posted by lester1/2jr at 09/22/2006 @ 4:39pm

230. besides, look what happens when they get the chance to vote: hamas, hezbollah, muslim brotherhood all gain power and legitmacy via democratic process.

     Iraq isn't going to be any more pro-west than it was under saddam. same with Iran. they can have ten regime changes, they will never find an iranian who has legitamcy AND is pro western. the person doesn't exist. it's game over. sorry to all our allies in planet arabia. but please lose our number

     Posted by lester1/2jr at 09/22/2006 @ 4:42pm

231. Pot Calling Kettle Black Award for the Week---

     "PERSON, I think you're just a hater seeking justification for your own endemic violence."-----Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 4:07pm

     Ask him about Israel and Hezbollah and see how he justifies hate and violence!

     Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 4:44pm

232. well i see the republicans here have been up to their usual tricks--defending torture, upholding child abuse by pedophiles, supporting treason, and taking little potshots at David Corn for having the effrontery to promote his new book--i guess they hate capitalism too! nice work, traitors!

     Posted by pretzel at 09/22/2006 @ 5:11pm

233. You guys miss my point almost completely. From the very beginning I said that it chafes my ass to hear Bush preface every statement about a muslim nation with "They're great!" It just gets old after a while. Do you hear him saying how great Europe is every chance he gets? I'm just sick of all this mushy effort to convince the muslims of the world that we think they're O.K. Why should they give a shit what we think of them? Is it going to make their day to know that I respect their fucked up culture?

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 5:26pm

234. Person,

     You did make other points. But on this one, it's no different than the chuckleheads in Congress referring to each other as "my friend" or "my esteemed colleague" when there is no hint of friendship or esteeming or collegiality.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/22/2006 @ 5:29pm

235. You guys miss my point almost completely. From the very beginning I said that it chafes my ass to hear Bush preface every statement about a muslim nation with "They're great!" It just gets old after a while. Do you hear him saying how great Europe is every chance he gets? I'm just sick of all this mushy effort to convince the muslims of the world that we think they're O.K. Why should they give a shit what we think of them? Is it going to make their day to know that I respect their fucked up culture?

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 5:26pm

     Would it "make your day" for someone to tell you that you are a barbarian scum with a "fucked up" culture, even if you were a moderate? Would it make your day for someone to call you "treasonous", a "traitor", or a "terrorist" for practicing nationalism?

     Would it make your day for someone to invade your country, overthrow your government (for better or for worse), then let you live without electricity and clean water for five years?

     Would you seek a more effective solution?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 6:13pm

236. Never mind.

     Another unchanging merry-go-round.

     sigh....

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 6:13pm

237. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/22/2006 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person

     Try this on for size: Let's say Tyron lives in south central L.A. in a neighborhood notorious for drug traffic. He's a good guy just like your character. It turns out that Tyron's neighbor is a big time drug King Pin. One night the cops raid the neighbor's house and a gun fight ensues. A stray police bullet happens to strike and kill Tyron's child who is unwittingly playing in the yard.

     Who should Tyron be angry with? The cops or his neighbor? I would say he should direct his anger toward his neighbor who brought the situation into his back yard.

     Your fictional character, Abdullah, should direct his anger toward the criminal in his neighborhood. He should ask himself a question: Why is my neighbor engaging in clearly dangerous activities in my back yard?

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 6:19pm

238. Most excellent, Person. You followed my hypothetical to a "T".

     I woud immediately argue in a knee-jerk way that South Central L.A. (which I know fairly intimately as a veteran of living in L.A.) is not the same as an Iraqi war zone in any way beyond occasional gunfire - no five-hundred pound bombs, for instance, no strategic, coordinated initiatives by terrorists, insurgents, or military forces, but I would be being obtuse if I didn't get your point.

     Let's continue the discussion, civilly.

     In Iraq, for instance, what if the "criminal in his neighborhood" is interpreted by Abdullah as the maker and deliverer of a five-hundred pound bomb? And what if Abdullah never asked Americans or Al-Quaeda into his country in the first place, but the arrival of one inevitably begat the arrival of the other?

     Who should he be angry at then?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 6:55pm

239. My point is that poor Abdullah (and there are indeed millions of him, misguided though you may deem them) is in the muddy middle. When his relatives are killed, by accident or by design, he may feel compelled to take up arms.

     And invading a country to mold it to the "acceptable" terms of a foreign power (which both America and Al-Quaeda have undeniably done) is a rightfully unfamiliar and dangerous road that should be travelled slowly, thoughtfully, and carefully, if at all. Dangerous curves ahead, the sign said. We all saw it. This administration has charged on through the fog with the pedal down and the headlights on high beam, obscuring everything more than three feet in front of them.

     My point is that the current way is not working.

     My point is that all Muslims are not extremist any more than all fruits are apples, and to decry any semblance of civility or understanding about the people as a whole (in order to better identify the extremists in their midst) and only discuss them in terms of their "fucked-up" culture will do absolutely nothing to stem reciprocal hatred and contempt and resentment.

     By some estimates, there were over 6,000 deaths in Iraq over the last couple of months.

     How many vengeful relatives? How many as angry at us as at Al-Quaeda? What is 6,000 times two or three or five angry relatives per death?

     Call it what you will - civil war, terorism, internal strife, the birth pangs of a new democracy - this is not going well.

     Who, Person, should Abdullah be angry with?

     Who should the American people be angry with for American military deaths in Iraq since the stunningly successful invasion and "Mission Accomplished"?

     Formerly moderate yet undeniably nationalistic Iraqis who never wanted American tanks in their streets in the first place any more than they did Al-Quaeda terrorists? Al-Quaeda itself, who didn't show up in force until we advertised young American soldiers as targets within driving distance of their caves and holes?

     Maybe just a little tiny bit, a wee bit, a smidgen of the blame lays with the administration that took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, in favor of invading a limp-dicked Iraq, to the tune these days of the largest opium production and subsequent terrorist funding effort in Afghanistan's history, and the continuing mystery of the whereabouts of the biggest Islamic extremist figurehead in recent memory, Osama Bin Laden?

     Or all of the above?

     (I really don't want to hear about Clinton and bygone days, I want to hear about the here and now, about the people who can do something about it today)

     Retort?

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/22/2006 @ 7:19pm

240. You guys miss my point almost completely. From the very beginning I said that it chafes my ass to hear Bush preface every statement about a muslim nation with "They're great!" It just gets old after a while. Do you hear him saying how great Europe is every chance he gets? I'm just sick of all this mushy effort to convince the muslims of the world that we think they're O.K. Why should they give a shit what we think of them? Is it going to make their day to know that I respect their fucked up culture?

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 5:26pm

     Well, tell me if it makes your day that Ahmadinejad respects your fucked up culture. Once I get that answer I will proceed to extrapolate and try to formulate an answer to your question:

     Iranians "highly regarded" the people of the United States as they did all people around the world, he said. "Many people in the United States believe in God and they believe in justice."

     http://tinyurl.com/jydqs [LIKE THIS, L.J.M.]

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 8:03pm

241. Talking with an Indian living in London a few days ago about why Muslims hate the West. He said, "Study what Islam did in India and you will see it is not only the Christian West that is in Islam's focus".

     Quite an eye opener. Suggest this is a very instructive history to read. The following is just an overview by an outsider. Check out some of the Hindu sources and you may begin to realise Islam has as much a problem with the existence of polytheism as it does with the prosperous existence of the so called "Christian West" and Judaism. While balance must be maintained, it is instructive to be aware that Islam in some of its manifestations, whether nationally or in its sects, has unfinished business with "false" religions:

     Islam's Other Victims: India By Serge Trifkovic FrontPageMagazine.com | November 18, 2002

     Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic.

     The fundamental leftist and anti-American claim about our ongoing conflict with political Islam is this: whatever has happened or does happen, it's our fault. We provoked them into it by being dirty Yankee imperialists and by unkindly refusing to allow them to destroy Israel. But two things make crystal clear that this is not so:

     1. The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries.

     2. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America.

     This is why the case of Moslem aggression against India proves so much. Let's look at the historical record.

     India prior to the Moslem invasions was one of the world's great civilizations. Tenth century Hindustan matched its contemporaries in the East and the West in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Indian mathematicians discovered the number zero (not to mention other things, like algebra, that were later transmitted to a Moslem world which mistaken has received credit for them.) Medieval India, before the Moslem invasion, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Its sculptures were vigorous and sensual, its architecture ornate and spellbinding. And these were indigenous achievements and not, as in the case of many of the more celebrated high-points of Moslem culture, relics of pre-Moslem civilizations that Moslems had overrun.

     Moslem invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. (Sound familiar?) Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men -- it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal -- and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected:

     "It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."

     In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.

     The significance of these events lies not just in the horrible numbers involved, but in the fact that the perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. (And one may note that Christianity has grown up and no longer preaches crusades. Islam has not. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.)

     Qasim's early exploits were continued in the early eleventh century, when Mahmud of Ghazni, "passed through India like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging, and massacring," zealously following the Koranic injunction to kill idolaters, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of his life.

     In the course of seventeen invasions, in the words of Alberuni, the scholar brought by Mahmud to India,

     "Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems."

     Does one wonder why? To this day, the citizens of Bombay and New Delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore, live in fear of a politically-unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan that unlike India (but like every other Moslem country) has not managed to maintain democracy since independence.

     Mathura, holy city of the god Krishna, was the next victim:

     "In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted." The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground."

     In the aftermath of the invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.

     In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."

     Moslem invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying, as an Indian commentator put it, the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Moslem Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad's injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." (Not that being "of the book" has much helped Jewish and Christian victims of other Moslem aggressions, but that's another article.)

     The mountainous northwestern approaches to India are to this day called the Hindu Kush, "the Slaughter of the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. The slaughter in Somnath, the site of a celebrated Hindu temple, where 50,000 Hindus were slain on Mahmud's orders, set the tone for centuries.

     The gentle Buddhists were the next to be subjected to mass slaughter in 1193, when Muhammad Khilji also burned their famous library. By the end of the 12th century, following the Moslem conquest of their stronghold in Bihar, they were no longer a significant presence in India. The survivors retreated into Nepal and Tibet, or escaped to the south of the Subcontinent. The remnants of their culture lingered on even as far west as Turkestan. Left to the tender mercies of Moslem conquerors and their heirs they were systematically destroyed, sometimes--as was the case with the four giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in March 2001--up to the present day.

     That cultivated disposition and developed sensibility can go hand in hand with bigotry and cruelty is evidenced by the example of Firuz Shah, who became the ruler of northern India in 1351. This educated yet tyrannical Moslem ruler of northern India once surprised a village where a Hindu religious festival was celebrated, and ordered all present to be slain. He proudly related that, upon completing the slaughter, he destroyed the temples and in their place built mosques.

     The Mogul emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of Moslems in India: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1542-1605), when he ordered that about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitod. But Akbar's acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Moslems, and his interest in other faiths were not a reflection of his Moslem spirit of tolerance. Quite the contrary, they indicated a propensity for free-thinking in the realm of religion that finally led him to complete apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices. This is a pattern one sees again and again in Moslem history, down to the present day: whenever one finds a reasonable, enlightened, tolerant Moslem, upon closer examination this turns out to be someone who started out as a Moslem but then progressively wandered away from the orthodox faith. That is to say: the best Moslems are generally the least Moslem (a pattern which does not seem to be the case with other religions.)

     Things were back to normal under Shah Jahan (1593-1666), the fifth Mogul Emperor and a grandson of Akbar the Great. Most Westerners remember him as the builder of the Taj Mahal and have no idea that he was a cruel warmonger who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Moslems in less than thirty years. Taking his cue from his Ottoman co-religionists, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relations except one who escaped to Persia. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem, but nevertheless indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. During his reign in Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire." Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.

     These massacres perpetrated by Moslems in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao's devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India.

     There are several reasons for this. In the days when they ruled India, the British, pursuing a policy of divide-and-rule, whitewashed the record of the Moslems so that they could set them up as a counterbalance to the more numerous Hindus. During the struggle for independence, Gandhi and Nehru downplayed historic Moslem atrocities so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Moslem unity against the British. (Naturally, this façade dissolved immediately after independence and several million people were killed in the religious violence attendant on splitting British India into India and Pakistan.) After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by ideology, suppressed the truth about the Moslem record because it did not fit into the Marxist theory of history. Nowadays, the Indian equivalent of political correctness downplays Moslem misdeeds because Moslems are an "oppressed minority" in majority-Hindu India. And Indian leftist intellectuals always blame India first and hate their own Hindu civilization, just their equivalents at Berkeley blame America and the West.

     Unlike Germany, which has apologized to its Jewish and Eastern European victims, and Japan, which has at least behaved itself since WWII, and even America, which has gone into paroxysms of guilt over what it did to the infinitely smaller numbers of Red Indians, the Moslem aggressors against India and their successors have not even stopped trying to finish the job they started. To this day, militant Islam sees India as "unfinished business" and it remains high on the agenda of oil-rich Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are spending millions every year trying to convert Hindus to Islam.

     One may take some small satisfaction in the fact that they find it rather slow going.

     Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. This article was adapted for Front Page Magazine by Robert Locke.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/22/2006 @ 9:28pm

242. Well, tell me if it makes your day that Ahmadinejad respects your fucked up culture.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 8:03pm | ignore this person

     The answer is that I'm indifferent to what the hell Akmud, Rackmad, Steve, or anyone else thinks about me. You explain to me why I should give a rat's ass about the opinion of any Iranian or Nebraskan or Eskimo?

     By the way, my fucked up culture has ushered in an age of prosperity, health and peace greater than any that mankind has ever known. Our ancestry back to the amoeba could never dream of the lives you and I live. As an understatement, Muslim countries are behind the times in this respect. Oh about two hundred years or so.

     Posted by Person at 09/22/2006 @ 11:02pm

243. Islam's Other Victims: India By Serge Trifkovic FrontPageMagazine.com | November 18, 2002

     Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic

     Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. This article was adapted for Front Page Magazine by Robert Locke.

     Posted by LRJONES4 09/22/2006 @ 9:28pm

     Your list of those who have published a racist and fascist like Trifkovic speaks poorly of them rather than well of Trifkovic. Trifkovic was an advisor to those who committed the genocidal slaughter of Muslim men, women, and children at Srebrenica in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They murdered children as young as two years old and old men were found in the pits with their walking canes still in their hand. This is who CNN chooses as an "expert" on the Balkans and, of course, he has lots of deliciously unbiased commentary about Muslims, in general, to contribute, doesn't he? Go visit some of his best friends at dixie.net everyone. You can buy your Confederate flags there. The nazi flags are out of style now, you know.

     The Foreign Policy Editor of Chronicles, the journal of the Rockford Institute, is Serge (Srdja) Trifkovic, who recently appeared on CNN as an expert on the Balkans. Trifkovic was a long-time spokesman for ultranationalist Serbian causes and an advisor to the government of the Republika Srpska, whose president, Radovan Karadzic, was indicted for genocide by the International Tribunal in the Hague.

     The Chronicles Web page on Kosovo includes every possible Belgrade position, from the claim that the horrific atrocities at Racak were a hoax, to the claim that Albanians in Kosovo were fleeing NATO bombs, that the Bosnian Muslims slaughtered themselves, etc.

     Key leaders of the Rockford Institute are its chairman, David Hartman, who is also Chairman and CEO of Hartland Bank in Austin; and Dr. Thomas Fleming, who is president of the Institute and editor of Chronicles. Fleming is also a member and writer for the League of the South. Here is a recent statement from the League:

     League of the South Political Commentators condemn NATO Intervention in Yugoslavia

     Find out why your tax dollars are being squandered in an immoral and ill-advised act of aggression against Yugoslavia in a must-read op-ed piece in Chronicles magazine by Dr. Fleming and Dr. Srdja Trifkovic. Dr. Tom Fleming is a national board member of the League of the South and Editor-in-Chief of Chronicles, while Dr. Triokovic is a frequent contributor to Chronicles.

     The League of the South can be found through its web site, DixieNet (www.dixienet.org). In the same page cited just above, Thomas Fleming gives a long harangue against the NATO operation for "attacking a sovereign, Christian, European nation that we are not at war with."

     http://citycellar.com/BalkanWitness/sells2.htm

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 11:14pm

244. By the way, my fucked up culture has ushered in an age of prosperity, health and peace greater than any that mankind has ever known.

     Posted by PERSON 09/22/2006 @ 11:02pm

     Yeah, for you, moron. Not for the fifty to one hundred thousand Iraqis that we recently murdered for reasons of pure bloodlust.

     For you, of course, they don't count as the same type of blessedly admirable human being you are because "they are 200 years behind us", in your estimation.

     Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 11:22pm

245. I have used the term "new Jews" here before and about three weeks ago I came across someone else using the term:

     "Muslims are the new Jews," said Paul Silverstein, an anthropology professor at Reed College in Oregon who studies the intersection of race, immigration and Islam. "They're the object of a series of stereotypes, caricatures and fears which are not based in a reality and are independent of a person's experience with Muslims."

     That narrow prism has been exaggerated by many factors, such as antagonism toward Islam among some evangelical Christians, who have described Islam as "evil" and have viewed the war in Iraq as an opportunity for conversions.

     ARTICLE [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 11:47pm

246. Rather than stalling I've been trying to get you to say something that you can back up. If you don't have enough courage to state your case based on your sources then you should just go away and stop embarrassing yourself.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006

     Still stalling.

     It isn't my case. I take Ahmadinejad's words at face value. You are the one that believes he is either misunderstood or even more incredible that he never actually said the things that Aljazerra and The Washington Post are giving him credit.

     I'll make this real easy for you to make good on your promise to tell us what you think Ahmadinejad really meant.

     http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9898

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR200512 1402403.html.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 12:23am

247. For the literalist from yesterday:

     Though Israel bombed Lebanon, "it doesn't seem to have created concern among American politicians. But when somebody questions or criticizes the Zionist regime, there is so much reaction," Ahmadinejad said in an interview Wednesday with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

     "Given the massacres committed by Israel ... should they not be subject to criticism? Should nobody complain?" (Watch Ahmadinejad discuss Israel, Holocaust, Bush -- 14:28)

     Asked if he believes Israel has no right to exist -- something Ahmadinejad has said in the past -- the Iranian leader responded, "I say that it is an occupying regime."

     The Palestinian "nation" as a whole -- including Jews, Christians and Muslims living there and 5 million displaced refugees -- should be able to vote to decide "what its fate should be."

     For those of you who did not do too good in creative writing or anything vaguely artistic, "wiped off the map", the phrase enjoyed by our conservative brethren, is evidence of a plan to nuke the country if not the very land of Israel out of existence. Going not terribly far beyond this absurdity is a more likely interpretation of the phrase: eliminating the legitimacy of a Zionist nation which is supported in its efforts to suppress the Palestinians and other Muslims in the region by the US and the West out of guilt from WWII and, more recently, a Da Vinci Code-esque reading of The Bible from the nitwits who have been running this country for a while. Beyond that, what is the basis for our support not just for Israel's existence, which is fine and all that, but for its regional supremacy?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 12:57am

248. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:14pm

     I was not aware of Serge Trifkovic's strongly pro-Jewish, pro-Serbian and anti-Islamic stances when I posted that piece but if you were not a classical McCarthyite, who regularly smears by association, (unfortunately also too often the modus operandi of the Nation and many of the posters to this site. ( must be an American propensity?)) you would have dealt with the more substantive issue he addresses, which was the centuries of barbaric Islamic conquest in India, by means that we see certain elements of Islam still using in places like Iraq and Afghanistan as well as parts of Africa and of course Kashmir and India. That of course does not exhaust the contemporary list of countries where these religiously inspired atrocities occur.

     If you are unable to separate the message from the messenger here is an Indian source. If you find prejudice still hinders you there are plenty more sources telling the same history:

     The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities (Ghazanavi to Amir Timur)

     www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/23/2006 @ 01:04am

249. LR,

     I suspect the same issue of objectivity will come up when dealing with an Indian source speaking against Muslims as it did with Trifkovic. And it does matter, as you must be aware.

     But disregarding the messenger and taking the message leaves us with what as a plan for action? Muslims do not play well with Europeans and Americans. Muslims do not play well with Asians outside of southwestern Asia. We can even assume that given a chance, they would not play well with your little continent or South America. Then...?

     Are we still not left with the same quandry? To engage with acts of war or by what we consider more civilized methods of working through problems: exchanges of economic capital and discussions of our conflicts.

     Yes, it is easy for some of us to point to mistakes, missed opportunities, or downright horrible decisions made by our leaders in this arena over recent decades (or more). But the issue is what do we do about the problems now. And our actions over the last 5 years have not changed the picture even a little bit, unless we discuss loss of life and wasted American tax revenues.

     So fine. It's their fault, not ours. What are we going to do about it?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 01:18am

250. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/23/2006 @ 01:18am

     TJ,

     Think this is where I came in months ago; objectivity is not the issue with the history. Those "facts" are confirmed by a variety of independent sources. Trifkovic is without doubt an expert in this area. It was his broader analysis of Islam which may have subjective elements. Will try to get time and a computer sometime later in the day to respond to the issue you raise.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/23/2006 @ 03:36am

251. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:22pm

     Yeah, for you, moron. Not for the fifty to one hundred thousand Iraqis that we recently murdered for reasons of pure bloodlust.

     For you, of course, they don't count as the same type of blessedly admirable human being you are because "they are 200 years behind us", in your estimation.

     Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     Anybody ever wonder why the right says the left hates America?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 08:08am

252. Mr. Corn,

     I take it we're done with Plamegate now?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 08:10am

253. Posted by BARRY25 09/19/2006 @ 5:58pm

     You children are soooo funny with your ignore button. I don't think I have ever seen a conservative use that button on this blog, yet it is widely used by the tolerant, free-speech, everyone should have a voice, open to new ideas, progressive ( ha! ) liberals! Bonafide hypocrites!

     I have three people on my ignore list: RESE, PLUNGER, and WILL C. RESE and PLUNGER for obvious reasons. WILL C jumped the shark when he started claiming that OJ was innocent.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 08:13am

254. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/19/2006 @ 5:03pm

     Now we have the holy trinity of evil, Bush, Blair and the Pope.

     Anybody notice just a teensy, weensy bit of distortion in Frank's world view?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 08:15am

255. Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person

     You had better be typing this shit from a hut in the third world. Since I'm sure you are probably sitting in your comfy house on a comfy street in comfy middle America, all I have to say is Fuck You, Red. You goddamn shit brick. Leave now. Get the fuck out of here. This rotten place is no place for an angle like yourself.

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 08:20am

256. Stick you your guns, Red, and become the next Richard Reid or John Walker Lynn. If you're not the fightin' sort, at least throw a few bucks to your local Hamas, PLO, or Al-Queda fund raiser. It's time the West was knocked down a notch or two, wouldn't you say?

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 08:34am

257. Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 08:20am

     Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     You had better be typing this shit from a hut in the third world. Since I'm sure you are probably sitting in your comfy house on a comfy street in comfy middle America, all I have to say is Fuck You, Red. You goddamn shit brick. Leave now. Get the fuck out of here. This rotten place is no place for an angle like yourself.

     You sound surprised. Actually, this type of sentiment is the premise of most of what the lefties post here, it's just that some of them have learned to sound a little more restrained than others. Most of them learned this stuff in college, from some nutbrain social sciences muttonhead with a slip of paper that says dey's edjicated, the quest for attainment of which amounts to about 99 percent of their total life experience. And yes, you can be sure that REDBIRD is typing this from some safe corner of the America that feeds him, clothes him, shelters him, protects him, and changes his diaper.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 08:34am

258. The WAPo link doesn't seem to work apparently it was too long for posting here but you can easily find it with google. Just search "Washington Post holocaust myth Iran"

     Iran's President Calls Holocaust 'Myth' in Latest Assault on Jews

     By Karl Vick Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, December 15, 2005; Page A01

     ISTANBUL, Dec. 14 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II a "myth," bringing a new cascade of international condemnation onto a government that is increasingly viewed as radical even within Iran.

     "They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in an address carried live on state television.

     The speech in the Iranian city of Zahedan echoed the president's remarks at a conference of Islamic nations in Saudi Arabia last week, when he suggested that if Europeans established Israel out of guilt over the Nazi campaign, the country should be carved out of Europe.

     But Wednesday was the first time Ahmadinejad declared that the Holocaust had not happened, and the assertion served to further undermine Iran's efforts to persuade other countries that it can be trusted with its nuclear program.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 08:39am

259. Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 08:39am

     But Wednesday was the first time Ahmadinejad declared that the Holocaust had not happened, and the assertion served to further undermine Iran's efforts to persuade other countries that it can be trusted with its nuclear program.

     I'm not sure that statement will change a lot of minds in France and Russia. Ahmahfrigginidjut probably got the idea from them.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 09:46am

260. What a rotten way to start a weekend, with a thread on human rights taken over by a trio of right wingers. Certainly this is cruel and degrading treatment for us pathetic lefties.

     PERSON,

     Gotta love the liberal editing policies on this site. Thanks for making the most of it and forcing me to keep the kids away from the screen. The English dictionary is large. Try using words that don't have (vulgur) in their definitions.

     PONTIFICUS,

     Uh....

     LJM,

     Not a translator, but I wonder if by "myth" Ahmadenajid might not have meant it as "religion" rather than "fiction". Look up the word. We have chosen definition number three in my dictionary to interpret him as saying the Holocaust was fiction. The first two definitions in my dictionary relate to a story or group of stories, based somehwat on history that involve religion, used to unite a group of people.

     Perhaps Iran/Farsi does not have the false division between myth and religion that we have made in this country to distinguish beliefs of civilized folk and those of primitive peoples.

     Certainly if the Old Testament were still a work in progress, the Hitler period would have at least 4 chapters devoted to it, culminating in the return to the promised land in the 5th chapter. One wonders why all people who have suffered stunning levels of devestation and genocide have not been granted their own space to set up a new country.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 09:55am

261. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/23/2006 @ 09:55am

     I think you mean 'devastation'.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 09:58am

262. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 09:58am

     Uh....

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 10:01am

263. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/23/2006 @ 10:01am

     Uh....

     I think you mean 'Duh'.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:03am

264. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/23/2006 @ 09:55am

     One wonders why all people who have suffered stunning levels of devestation and genocide have not been granted their own space to set up a new country.

     It's because they're Jews! Oops, I mean neocons.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:05am

265. TJ,

     I am willing to grant your oft-repeated contention that you are incredibly intelligent, so I'd like to hear your views on some of your fellow posters theories such as:

     Will C - OJ was innocent, and only the jury (in the criminal trial, not the civil trial where he was found responsible) is fit to judge that fact because only they saw 'all the evidence'

     Frankgrits - the most evil three people in the world are Bush, Blair, and the Pope

     Sal - Bush bombed the World Trade Center because it gave him the opportunity to be a dictator until 2009, when his term is up

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:59am

266. Oh, I almost forgot FROMREDBIRD, who finds much in common with Western Civilization and a serial murderer:

     Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     Perhaps you can disabuse me of the notion that all of these good folks are your ideological fellow travelers.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 11:02am

267. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:59am

     Don't remember claiming to be "incredibly intelligent". remarkably intelligent or incredibly brilliant brilliant, yes. Incredibly intelligent, no.

     I remember seeing OJ come up in a discussion this week and I scrolled quickly past. No offense, but I'm not sure how OJ relates to anything on this site and I'm not interested in reading the transcript of Will's opinion on his guilt or innocence. I just don't care.

     I also don't recall Frank's list of worst persons in the world (excepting PERSON, of course, who is clearly the worst PERSON in the world). If he did put these three at the top, I would strongly disagree. Tony Blair is not significant enough a fella to rate such a ranking. I'd barely put him in the top 10.

     I have no idea who "Sal" is. Again, if your presentation of his ideas is accurate, I would have to disagree. The WTC was bombed by Israel. Bush bombed the Pentagon.

     Hope this installment of Ask an Incredibly Intelligent Leftie has answered your questions. Now stay tuned for Backyard Makeover with George W. Bush. This week George takes on that pesky brush that threatens the gentility of his country lifestyle.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 11:15am

268. TJBEHRENS1 said: Not a translator, but I wonder if by "myth" Ahmadenajid might not have meant it as "religion" rather than "fiction

     Well he didn't say religion. You think he meant "myth" in the Jung sense. I really doubt that Ahmadenajid is familiar with Jung or Joseph Campbell.

     Either way he obviously doesn't give the "myth" much value.

     Halocaust denial is rampant in the Middle East.

     As far as creating a country for people who were victims of mass persecution due to their race or religion. It is as good a reason as any other reason and better than most in history.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 11:23am

269. I meant myth in the Webster's sense.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/23/2006 @ 11:34am

270. I take Ahmadinejad's words at face value. You are the one that believes he is either misunderstood or even more incredible that he never actually said the things that Aljazerra and The Washington Post are giving him credit.

     I'll make this real easy for you to make good on your promise to tell us what you think Ahmadinejad really meant.

     http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9898

     Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 12:23am

     How do you like that? LJM finally decided to lower himself enough to specify what he's talking about. From your al-Jazeera link:

     President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Wednesday for Israel to be "wiped off the map, saying it is a "disgraceful blot", reported The Associated Press.

     The Iranian President was addressing thousands of students at a "World without Zionism" conference . . .

     First of all, this isn't from al-Jazeera. It's from AP, republished by al-Jazeera.

     What does it mean to you? Do you consider wiping a political boundary or name off a map the same thing as eradicating Jews from the face of the earth? It doesn't to me because Congressional boundaries were realigned by the Republicans and I didn't notice any corpses in my own district. Maybe you had a different experience.

     If the intention was the extermination of Jews why wouldn't he put it the second way? I don't see any good reason to give an interpretation to it other than what it says in plain English. It's also noteworthy that it was a "World Without Zionism" conference, not a "World Without Jews" conference. I think that you choose to assume that his words mean what you want them to mean rather than what they plainly say.

     That, however, still leaves out the question of whether or not AP reported his words accurately, doesn't it?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/23/2006 @ 12:13pm

271. Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person

     You had better be typing this shit from a hut in the third world. Since I'm sure you are probably sitting in your comfy house on a comfy street in comfy middle America, all I have to say is Fuck You, Red. You goddamn shit brick. Leave now. Get the fuck out of here. This rotten place is no place for an angle like yourself.

     Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 08:20am | ignore this person

     Stick you your guns, Red, and become the next Richard Reid or John Walker Lynn. If you're not the fightin' sort, at least throw a few bucks to your local Hamas, PLO, or Al-Queda fund raiser. It's time the West was knocked down a notch or two, wouldn't you say?

     Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 08:34am

     Why don't you have sex with yourself? You might have a better attitude afterwards. Or, maybe that hasn't been working?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/23/2006 @ 12:16pm

272. Why don't you have sex with yourself? You might have a better attitude afterwards. Or, maybe that hasn't been working?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/23/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person

     What a smack to the face. This punishing comment will haunt me all weekend.

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 12:32pm

273. Did you take a break from loathing your home and fellow citizens long enough to watch the Grey's Anatomy season premier the other day? Very touching. Dr. McDreamy finally said "I love you."

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 12:37pm

274. Redbird,

     Those points of view were Aljazeera and WaPo's not mine. I made the comments available to you to interpret. They were always available to you through a google search if you needed more context.

     Other than saying that I believe that the Iranian Prez used the word "myth" in the perjorative, I have not offered my point of view.

     Equating changing congressional boundaries to eliminating Israel seems a bit irrational.

     I don't believe WaPo or Aljazeera suggested that Ahmadinejad wanted to exterminate all Jews, he just wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and he wants to develop a nuclear capacity. Perhaps he's harmless.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 12:39pm

275. Anybody ever wonder why the right says the left hates America?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 08:08am

     Wonder? Why? Seems pretty clear: They like simple, blanket, bumper-sticker statements, especially ones that demean others and shove them into manageable little sound bites.

     A better question is if anybody ever wonders how this board always manages to draw at least one right-leaning asshole a day who throws whitewash and blankets over the entire nebulous "left"?

     Ever wonder if this person actually reads the thread before commenting, or just skims until he finds someone to libel?

     Ever wonder if they notice or even care that many on the nebulous "left" often offer reasoned discussion?

     Just gotta have someone to demonize, and it's funny that they don't even recognize - they spend more time here vilifying their own fellow Americans on the left than they do everyone else, even those they say have pledged to eradicate us.

     Ponitifitard - I don't think everyone "right" or Republican is an asshole.

     You, well...

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/23/2006 @ 2:34pm

276. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/23/2006 @ 2:34pm

     A better question is if anybody ever wonders how this board always manages to draw at least one right-leaning asshole a day who throws whitewash and blankets over the entire nebulous "left"?

     An interesting point you raise, ND. You say it's not fair to lump everyone on the left together, and yet, many times I have heard the refrain "We're half the country, asshole!" on this board, possibly even from you. Then when I point out the loose screws in the heads of several of your ilk, all of the sudden you're a bunch of independent idealists who are in no way related to each other. Is it really possible to have it both ways? Surely all of you have much in common, for example I'd be willing to bet that Will, FROMREDBIRD, SAL, NEW DAWN, TJBEHRENS, etc all voted for Kerry or someone to the left of him the last election.

     Just gotta have someone to demonize, and it's funny that they don't even recognize - they spend more time here vilifying their own fellow Americans on the left than they do everyone else, even those they say have pledged to eradicate us.

     Ahem...it is the right that needs someone to demonize? Do you have any idea just how hypocritical that sounds?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 3:47pm

277. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/23/2006 @ 2:34pm Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:22pm

     Actually, before you jumped in and started hollering, ND, this is the statement from FROMREDBIRD that we were discussing, and which TJ elided:

     Yes, an astoundingly advanced culture and one that someone like you can be rightly proud of. Which is contributing evidence to the theory that an entire culture could have the same psychology as an individual serial murderer.

     I would certainly associate a person who finds a parallel between our culture and a serial murderer to be someone who at least borders on loathing it. We weren't demonizing FROMREDBIRD, simply discussing his statement which indicates he hates his own culture.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 3:58pm

278. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/23/2006 @ 11:15am

     I remember seeing OJ come up in a discussion this week and I scrolled quickly past. No offense, but I'm not sure how OJ relates to anything on this site and I'm not interested in reading the transcript of Will's opinion on his guilt or innocence. I just don't care.

     Well, I guess this is where you and I differ. IF someone I know believes in a patently absurd idea, I tend to believe their reasoning is suspect in general. If someone says, for example, that they were recently abducted and released by space aliens, I would tend to think twice about any idea they expressed because I have reason to doubt their basic rationality.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 4:14pm

279. Making ‘tortured' definitions up as you go while only really worrying about creating the right ‘tortured' marketing images up just before another election in November with ‘tortured' election voting machines to say what you want them too. With no 'real' conservative belief system, except for ‘tortured' bloody profits for the rich-- as the rich get richer and the middle class and poor get even poorer. Is it really that far a stretch to conceive of the fact that the hsuB admin's deceitful fascination for dismantling a butterfly one wing at a time also applies to everyone of us and every single thing we do-- not just Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, 9/11, our Constitution, education, social security, health care, our economy, energy, pollution, privacy, security, … but most of all, our perception of the truth and our freedom.

     Is this what our congress has agreed to let the hsuB admin to do to us too:

     http://clearharmony.net/articles/200406/20143.html

     hsuB= the Torture President, the worst president in US history.

     I think the public need to see the pictures of what the proposal to change the Geneva Conventions says is permissible torture and then put pictures of their kids in uniform in those positions-- that'll shock them into reality. Wake up folks-- this hsuB admin is putting your kids and all our future troops at greater risk of being mutilated and having a very painful and excruciatingly horrible death.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 4:22pm

280. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 4:22pm

     hsuB= the Torture President, the worst president in US history.

     Worst president in history? I believe that would be Jimmy Carter.

     President most hated by the left? Perhaps, but it would be a tight race between Nixon and Reagan and whichever Republican gets elected next to the Presidency.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 4:37pm

281. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 4:37pm

     Funny that Carter won after Nixon got impeached just like what would happen to hsuB if the repubs in congress had any balls. The repubs in congress are the weakest limp wristed do nothing but take kick backs from lobbists in history which makes sense the hsuB is the most incompetant and corrupt and thus the reason you love them. You must love incompetance and corruption. Are you being paid by the GOP to be here on the blog spewing BS like the reporters were in Florida to write just negative stories about Fidel as a distraction? Pontificus distractus?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 5:00pm

282. Pontificus -

     I don't speak for Redbird, nor does he speak for me. Nor does either of us in any way represent every single thing to the left of middle (which with you has often seemed pretty far to the right).

     When reading what others write on a blog board, it is a good idea to regard individual opinions as what they are - individual opinions. This is different than when outside sources are commented on or excerpted; nationwide poll results, for instance, representative of grouped opinions, e.g. the "left", rather than individual ones, say Redbird's, or my own.

     It's up to you, Pont, to separate individual's opinions from those of his entire "side". For instance, when Barry starts using hateful homophobic speech, I don't lump you in with him or call what he's doing "right" or Republican. I call it idiotic and only worthy of an asshole.

     When I pondered the unfortunate but highly possible possibility that you might also be an asshole, it was because even as I pondered, your posts repeatedly continued to use the mindless blanket statement, "the left", and I had to consider the possibility really hard.

     You bring up Kerry, for instance, and your logic implies (to you, anyway) that you are better, stronger, smarter, and faster (insert bionic sound here to portray the leap of logic - neh-neh-neh-neh) than anyone who voted for Kerry for any reason. That right there is enough "left" for someone to earn your contempt. No further distinctions need apply.

     And yes, I voted for Kerry. But you seem to not care why anyone who did, did. Psst -- here's no secret: It certainly wasn't because I hate my country.

     I find it disturbing and sad when, to anyone, anywhere, the "why" of things can mean absolutely nothing.

     Pontificus, I'm a socially left-leaning, fiscally conservative moderate in general, to put semi-fine points on it. Would you mind taking those self-imposed labels of mine and telling the room a little bit about my politics, what I believe in, who I support?

     Here's the catch, though: I'm not interested in what you think about me, what you'd like to imply, I'm interested in what you know and have heard me ever argue or say.

     Give me some meaty stuff as to why you should dislike me. I can take it.

     Simply calling me, or anybody else "left" isn't really cutting it any more.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/23/2006 @ 6:05pm

283. Oh yeah, didn't Carter try to get the US off of oil dependence? And wasn't Reagan that cut that deal witht he Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election? And wasn't it hsuB's daddy that as vp to be had the deal with the Saudis to up the oil costs going into the election to doubly screw Jimmy? No wonder the far right neosans hate Carter, he's a victim of their evil doings and that's the main item the neosans hate list-- are the victims of the world.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 6:17pm

284. the neo cons are the new KKK. muslim bashing is the new rascism.

     Posted by lester1/2jr at 09/23/2006 @ 6:56pm

285. The neosans started the manipulation a long time ago to get where we are today:

     http://www.politicalfriendster.com/ showConnection.php?id1=175&id2=2

     http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104

     This has all happened before, but in reverse. It started with the fall of the Shah of Iran in January 1979 and ended 20 months later with the defeat of Jimmy Carter. For those not old enough to remember the "gas crisis" that accompanied the lead-up to the 1980 elections, the only thing that went up faster the price of a gallon of unleaded regular during that period was the volume of media hysteria about an oil shortage that didn't really exist. In fact, there was plenty of supply on hand inside the U.S., much of it just didn't reach the consumer in the way it normally does. The actual shortages occurred on the retail gasoline market, as refiners held onto crude stocks and supplies of refined product were withheld by U.S. distributors. Some may remember the network news footage of oil tankers sitting low in the waterline anchored outside of the 12-mile limit. The sense of crisis was compounded by alternate-day rationing schemes that had drivers lined up for gas before dawn. It's remarkable how different the mood is today, despite a global supply situation that is tighter today than it was 25 years ago. Today, no panic, no problem.

     http://www.williambowles.info/guests/gas_pump.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 7:03pm

286. "But disregarding the messenger and taking the message leaves us with what as a plan for action? Muslims do not play well with Europeans and Americans. Muslims do not play well with Asians outside of southwestern Asia. We can even assume that given a chance, they would not play well with your little continent or South America. Then...?

     Are we still not left with the same quandry? To engage with acts of war or by what we consider more civilized methods of working through problems: exchanges of economic capital and discussions of our conflicts.

     Yes, it is easy for some of us to point to mistakes, missed opportunities, or downright horrible decisions made by our leaders in this arena over recent decades (or more). But the issue is what do we do about the problems now. And our actions over the last 5 years have not changed the picture even a little bit, unless we discuss loss of life and wasted American tax revenues."

     TJ

     If we could isolate and insulate the rest of the schoolyard from naughty children who can't or won't play by the schoolyard rules then perhaps they could be sent to such a place and be improved through "discussion". However as the schoolyard now has no such places it may be necessary to remove the naughty ones from the schoolyard altogether. One reason for this extreme measure is that they keep telling the schoolyard supervisors that the layout of the schoolyard is not according to the will of their leader. He seems to be a nasty sort of person, by their accounts, and has never been in the schoolyard anyway but has conveyed to them that its present layout is an affront to his person and must be changed. The leader has also told them that only naughty children will be allowed into his soon to be reconstructed playground. He, so the naughty children say, has invited any of them who wish to help him, with his project of creating a perfect playground, to join him. There is a rumour that the nice children can stay in his playground only if they are prepared to become naughty because only the naughty ones will ever become inhabitants.

     Though the supervisors would love to see the naughties become niceies they in their wisdom have decided that the incorrigibly naughty children will be excluded from the playground altogether. It seems this, among other considerations, is because of the fear that the schoolyard may be permanently closed if these naughty children are allowed to remain in it.

     One thing the supervisors keep saying is that he has been telling others, who are also on speaking terms with him, that the naughty ones misunderstood what he said and that the playground is for all the kids. For some reason that gives them hope that the playground may be able to continue more or less in its present form.

     I'm sure the supervisors would welcome any practical suggestions for maintaining the integrity of the schoolyard.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/23/2006 @ 7:19pm

287. I think the public need to see the pictures of what the proposal to change the Geneva Conventions says is permissible torture and then put pictures of their kids in uniform in those positions-- that'll shock them into reality. Wake up folks-- this hsuB admin is putting your kids and all our future troops at greater risk of being mutilated and having a very painful and excruciatingly horrible death.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006

     The problem is, of course, that this enemy is not in uniform and does not adhere to the Geneva convention or any other convention of warfare or human decency.

     The truth is that those in charge of protecting us will use methods that work, regardless of convention, to obtain information that ensures our safety. I sleep better knowing that and I have a son in uniform. I know that he likely benefits more than most of us from the information gathering of intelligence agencies.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 7:22pm

288. Jones, my atrocity is bigger than your atrocity.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/23/2006 @ 7:45pm

289. LJM,

     Sounds like your argument is to still do the commercial just not in uniform? And then the rest of my argument is that the gov will not have a moral reason why to stop at supposed terrorist when they've already torture non-terrorists by mistake. That terrible criminal Joe public is next... and I do pray your son does not get captured by either our enemy or our own government as there are now no reasons to suspect that we as a nation than torture has any moral high ground to ask friends that are friends of our enemies to intercede... Perhaps our soldiers and CIA ops will all start carrying quick acting poison in case they are captured? If so, now what's the difference between that and buying into drinking Jim Jones' cool-aide?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 8:28pm

290. When we buy into allowing our nation to torture, our souls and reason are already dead-- as only cowards buy into torture while it is already proven not to work as the tortured will say anything for the torturing to stop. But it is better, politically, that cowards of the cowards in office 'do' feel safer.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 8:35pm

291. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 5:00pm

     The repubs in congress are the weakest limp wristed do nothing but take kick backs from lobbists in history which makes sense the hsuB is the most incompetant and corrupt and thus the reason you love them. You must love incompetance and corruption.

     And for this reason I should vote for weak, limp-wristed, corrupt Democrats instead? At least the Republicans talk a good game, the idea that Democrats like Conyers, Harkin, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Reid might actually be in charge of my country's safety makes me afraid, very very afraid...

     Are you being paid by the GOP to be here on the blog spewing BS

     Yeah, I get paid by Karl Rove. Only thing is, I can't seem to get my checks.

     like the reporters were in Florida to write just negative stories about Fidel as a distraction?

     Oh, so that's poor Fidel's problem? Bad press, coming from reporters who are paid to write bad stories? And all those people swimming the straits of Florida, why they're just health nuts?

     Dude, you are case in point of why I have such contempt for the left.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:00pm

292. Yeah, I get paid by Karl Rove. Only thing is, I can't seem to get my checks.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:00pm

     Ok, either you do or you don't. But then neo-sans like both ways.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 10:12pm

293. Dude, you are case in point of why I have such contempt for the left.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:00pm

     Too smart for you? You must be pretty dumb to be scared of me.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 10:14pm

294. And for this reason I should vote for weak, limp-wristed, corrupt Democrats instead?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:00pm

     So you agree that the congressional repubs are weak, limp-wristed and corrupt.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 10:16pm

295. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 10:16pm

     So you agree that the congressional repubs are weak, limp-wristed and corrupt.

     No, I agree that in general, politicians are weak, limp-wristed and corrupt. It's just that some of them (Republicans, in general) try to hide it, and others (Democrats, in general) don't.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:20pm

296. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 10:16pm

     Hey, let's talk about Fidel. Do you think all those bad, nasty stories about him are false stories planted by people who are paid to make him look bad?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:23pm

297. Posted by NEW DAWN 09/23/2006 @ 6:05pm

     Here's the catch, though: I'm not interested in what you think about me, what you'd like to imply, I'm interested in what you know and have heard me ever argue or say.

     Give me some meaty stuff as to why you should dislike me. I can take it.

     Simply calling me, or anybody else "left" isn't really cutting it any more.

     Look, I've had good friends who are liberal, perhaps even leftist. I can tolerate disagreement, what I can't tolerate are people who are fucking crazy, like those who believe OJ was framed or that Bush destroyed the WTC, or those who demonstrably hate the country that spawned and protects them, or people who admire Fidel Castro. I'm not going to be kind to them, because I feel they don't deserve such common courtesy. But even you have to admit that of those on the left here, these make up quite a large, perhaps even majority percentage. Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart from the sane ones, but as you can see from my questions to TJ, I have been making an effort. I am civil, if not always reverent to people like HMAN, who I do believe have good intentions and integrity. If some sane people are caught in the crossfire, otherwise, I apologize, but people should make themselves known. If BARRY had said something offensive, which I haven't heard him say, I would probably say something to him as well, even if I do agree with him on most things.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/23/2006 @ 10:41pm

298. HSUB,

     I abhore torture and do not condone it. What I am saying is that there are people in charge of perserving our safety who are prepared and trained and will do whatever needs be done to preserve our safety.

     No government should condone torture but given the right circumstances it will happen. I'm certain that most Americans could envision those circumstances.

     Methods regarded as torture like waterboarding have been very effective at getting information from terrorists. Everyone breaks. Thousands of Americans have suffered through waterboarding in their intelligence and military training.

     I am horrified by the idea of waterboarding but I am more horrified by the thought of the thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles that would likely killed hundreds of people.

     Posted by ljm at 09/23/2006 @ 10:50pm

299. Wake up folks-- this hsuB admin is putting your kids and all our future troops at greater risk of being mutilated and having a very painful and excruciatingly horrible death.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person

     First, I love the hsuB. That is way looc, and indeed very revelc! I also really like Amerika. Consider it.

     Second, terrorists do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our "kids" are already at risk of having their beheading viewed on the internet. For instance: Illustration [wizbangblog.com]

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 10:51pm

300. which makes sense the hsuB is the most incompetant and corrupt and thus the reason you love them.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person

     Ah, another classic favorite! It has never been explained to me how, on the one hand, hsuB can be retarded and, on the other hand, he can single handedly steal Iraq's oil, dupe us into a war, convince Supreme Court Justices to rule in his favor, rig national elections, bomb the New Orleans levees... the list of achievements is enormous!

     If a retarded, alcoholic, good time frat boy, cowboy, illiterate person can do all this, just imagine the damage he could inflict if he were of average intelligence. Hugo Chavez could learn a thing or two from hsuB, I'd say.

     Posted by Person at 09/23/2006 @ 11:03pm

301. Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 10:51pm

     Was Nick Berg wearing a uniform? I mean, before he was kidnapped and executed. Well, you know what you guys say 'bout that: if you're not dressed to kill, then watch your ass!

     Wasn't someone speaking of moral relativism recently? Oh yes, I was and so was LL. And now we have a new example. Thanks for your participation, PERSON. Maybe you're not the worst PERSON in the world after all since you actually have a purpose.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/24/2006 @ 12:30am

302. Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 10:51pm

     As mom always used to say of some of my friends, "just because they eat shit-- are you". No mom...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 01:17am

303. If a retarded, alcoholic, good time frat boy, cowboy, illiterate person can do all this, just imagine the damage he could inflict if he were of average intelligence. Hugo Chavez could learn a thing or two from hsuB, I'd say.

     Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 11:03pm

     Yes, I see why you so admire him.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 01:18am

304. I agree that in general, politicians are weak, limp-wristed and corrupt. It's just that some of them (Republicans, in general) try to hide it, and others (Democrats, in general) don't.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:20pm

     So you're saying that at least repubs are good liars and dems are just so honest that it's pitiful?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 01:22am

305. Hey, let's talk about Fidel. Do you think all those bad, nasty stories about him are false stories planted by people who are paid to make him look bad?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:23pm

     I'm sure some are true and then other might be a little exaggerated and then others lies. However it may be several more years before any of them can be verified one way or the other and it becomes a mere distraction to ponder what little affects the US as there are bigger fish to fry. Some even here in the USA.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 01:27am

306. I am horrified by the idea of waterboarding but I am more horrified by the thought of the thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles that would likely killed hundreds of people.

     Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 10:50pm

     Is that the terrorist attack that the Bush administration told you they secretly thwarted by secretly torturing someone?

     Very perceptive, LJM. Now I understand better why you keep saying that an article by the Associated Press is by al-Jazeera.

     And to think I spent most of the day with friends when I could have stayed here reading your pearls of wisdom.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/24/2006 @ 01:34am

307. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:41pm

     A fair enough response, and one I knew you had in you

     In the future, as a personal favor (that you by no means owe me), would you please try addressing individuals as individuals instead of continuing to say "the left", and I'll try to forgo addressing you as "Pontifitard", "Dimwitticus", "Pontifitwit", "Retardicus", etc.

     I actually find you interesting when you offer logic over hyperbole.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/24/2006 @ 01:34am

308. which makes sense the hsuB is the most incompetant and corrupt and thus the reason you love them.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/23/2006 @ 10:14pm

     Ah, another classic favorite! It has never been explained to me how, on the one hand, hsuB can be retarded and, on the other hand, he can single handedly steal Iraq's oil, dupe us into a war, convince Supreme Court Justices to rule in his favor, rig national elections, bomb the New Orleans levees... the list of achievements is enormous!

     If a retarded, alcoholic, good time frat boy, cowboy, illiterate person can do all this, just imagine the damage he could inflict if he were of average intelligence. Hugo Chavez could learn a thing or two from hsuB, I'd say.

     Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 11:03pm

     Without you around no one would be aqble to figure out how Mussolini got the trains to run on time and turned Italy into a permanent fascist state.

     Oh, wait . . . the second one didn't work, did it? That explains how Mussolini cleverly got himself hung from the ankles in the town square.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/24/2006 @ 01:39am

309. Posted by PERSON 09/23/2006 @ 11:03pm

     How long will it take the idiot "leftists" to wake up and realize that trillion dollar deficits, debts that stretch further than the eye can see, and squandered, wasted world stature are the work of a genius?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/24/2006 @ 01:42am

310. I am horrified by the idea of waterboarding but I am more horrified by the thought of the thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles that would likely killed hundreds of people.

     Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 10:50pm | ignore this person

     If you're talking about this:

     http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2920

     There wasn't anything remotely having to do with using torture-- just police work and luck.

     And this other one mentions only foreign wire tapping surveillance, which has always been legal, but mentions nothing of torture:

     http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/ FC1960CF-C590-4B59-B804-2D9EE99CCCF2.html

     So what are you talking about?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 01:43am

311. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/23/2006 @ 10:41pm

     Someday, if you'd like, we can even discuss O.J.

     I happen to think he murdered his wife.

     But I lived in L.A. at the time of the murders, have been to the murder scene and seen the photos, followed the trial in its entirety daily, have read seven books on the subject and even met and chatted with Marcia Clark in line at the grocery store as she struggled to restrain her three little monster-- ahem, adorable young children (which clearly makes me an expert - hee hee hee, nudge nudge, wink wink).

     Did you know that in the in the limited space (I've stood in it) in which Ron Goldman was brutally beaten, slashed, stabbed, and finally killed, it would have been very difficult for a single assailant to have committed the crime and suffered only a scrape and a small finger cut. Two big healthy men like Ron and O.J. would have banged each other against steel bars about a hundred times wrestling over the knife.

     At the very least, an accomplice helping to hold Ron is quite feasible. Not by any means evidence of innocence, but certainly interesting from an upclose perspective, and worth discussion.

     Every friend of mine in law enforcement has questions about Fuhrman, the blood collection, the murder scene... I have many of those friends, having passed L.A. county police department testing while pursuing a position there a decade ago, as well as having studied law enforcement in two other states), and even they still discuss the case. And they know more about the case than either you or I, bet on that.

     And some even agree that evidence and testimony was handled terribly, as much a disgrace to the integrity of the police department and the district attorney's office as were several defense arguments and clear playing on both sides of the race card.

     Blah blah blah...

     What I'm saying is this: Did I just sound like a wackjob conspiracy theorist defending O.J. Simpson to you? Or did I sound like I was just discussing something you might disagree with?

     I don't see any reason not to discuss politics in the same manner if we can help it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 09/24/2006 @ 01:54am

312. Equating changing congressional boundaries to eliminating Israel seems a bit irrational.

     Why? Because israel would never participate in an election in historic Palestine in which all Palestinians are enfranchised? There's nothing irrational about that. It was done in South Africa and there was no mass slaughter of whites as all the supporters of Apatheid argued there would be.

     I don't believe WaPo or Aljazeera suggested that Ahmadinejad wanted to exterminate all Jews, he just wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and he wants to develop a nuclear capacity. Perhaps he's harmless.

     Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 12:39am

     I have to keep reminding you that you are attributing an article to al-Jazeera that is from AP and reprinted by al-Jazeera.

     Ahmadinejad DID NOT say, "wipe israel of the face of the EARTH". Why do you insist on changing his word "MAP" to EARTH"?

     Iran also has every right under international treaty to develop nuclear power. I wonder that you're so concerned about Iran's ability to possibly develop nuclear power while we don't hear a squawk out of you about israel's 200+ nuclear WEAPONS?

     By the way, if Muslims are so backward, as you've been expounding on earlier, why have we found it necessary to militarily stop them from developing nuclear power? So that we can later say that they're backward?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/24/2006 @ 01:57am

313. I am horrified by the idea of waterboarding but I am more horrified by the thought of the thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles that would likely killed hundreds of people.

     Posted by LJM 09/23/2006 @ 10:50pm | ignore this person

     If you're talking about this:

     http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2920

     There wasn't anything remotely having to do with using torture-- just police work and luck.

     And this other one mentions only foreign wire tapping surveillance, which has always been legal, but mentions nothing of torture:

     http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/ FC1960CF-C590-4B59-B804-2D9EE99CCCF2.html

     So what are you talking about?

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/24/2006 @ 01:43am

     THAT'S what he's talking about? To back up his efficacy-of-torture theme? Laughable.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/24/2006 @ 02:02am

314. Maybe you're not the worst PERSON in the world after all since you actually have a purpose.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/24/2006 @ 12:30am | ignore this person

     I have a purpose? Whew! I need to tell my wife.

     Posted by Person at 09/24/2006 @ 07:39am

315. Well, you know what you guys say 'bout that: if you're not dressed to kill, then watch your ass!

     Wasn't someone speaking of moral relativism recently...

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/24/2006 @ 12:30am | ignore this person

     I don't get it. What am I doing? And I'm not really sure what you mean by the "dressed to kill" comment. Part of being an Islamic terrorist is that you target civilians. It's in the terrorist DNA. You target the military and government, too, of course, but common pedestrians are a staple in the Islamic terrorist diet.

     Posted by Person at 09/24/2006 @ 08:04am

316. "I abhore torture and do not condone it."

     you are also a liar, as the rest of your post does just that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 08:13am

317. "One wonders why all people who have suffered stunning levels of devestation and genocide have not been granted their own space to set up a new country."

     this hints at a lack of understanding of how Israel came about. I recommend "Palestine and the arab israeli conflict" by Charles D. Smith.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 08:37am

318. Johannesrolf,

     The freedom and safety, that you and I enjoy everyday was made possible because many people had to endure horrifying things. No matter what politicians do it is going to continue.

     The truth is - "We can't handle the truth."

     We can make ourselves feel better about the reality and nature of the world by passing laws designed to create order. And we should but it doesn't change that reality or modify the nature of the world or its inhabitants outside our jurisdiction.

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 09:08am

319. ljm, a very bleak worldview

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:13am

320. Methods regarded as torture like waterboarding have been very effective at getting information from terrorists.

     this is definitely in dispute. the information is more often than not useless, as professionals have reported. it has also been reported that arabs have been tortured while there weren't any arabic speakers in the room, so the desperate cries of the victim weren't even intelligeble.(sic)

     you might try looking at this issue from the victim's point of view.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:18am

321. "The freedom and safety, that you and I enjoy everyday was made possible because many people had to endure horrifying things."

     that may be true, but it was not because people had to PERPETRATE horrifying things.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:26am

322. PERSON,

     It was late when I posted last night, so things might have gotten tangled in some sleepy synapses on their way to my typing fingers. What I was trying to refer to in a sarcastic way is this drumbeat from the right that we don't have to respect our "enemy" as we might in previous wars because they do not wear the proper clothes. We insist on calling this and that a "war" and then choose to ignore proper rules of engagement simply based on our enemy's choice of fashion. Seems a little fruity to me, and I'm one seriously artsy-fartsy kind of guy.

     It all comes down to this: are we battling soldiers or are we battling civilians. If they are soldiers they are due every right under the Geneva Conventions. If they are civilians then we need to ship every commander in the US military to The Hague to begin the war crimes tribunal. We like to think there is a third option: terrorist/enemy combatant. Bullshit.

     In the midst of this you post a link to a website in which I could view the beheading of Nick Berg, as evidence, I presumed, of their debauchery that distinguishes them from us. But Nick was an American with no fathomable purpose in Iraq and was clearly not part of our military. Why? Because he did not wear the proper clothing. Since he was not working nor a part of the military, why shouldn't the Iraqi insurgents identify him as an enemy combatant in the same manner we plucked people out of Afghanistan?

     We're playing their game when we fail to uphold the most basic of human rights. Maybe we don't stoop all the way to their level with videotaped beheadings, but from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to Haditha we are participating in the same contest through different means.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/24/2006 @ 09:37am

323. very fine TJ. I think the writers of the constitution were remiss in not including torture in the constitution. we are very fortunate to have the likes of Bush and Gonzales to make up for that omission, and enshrining torture into our system of juris prudens or rather juris crucio

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:43am

324. my question is do we torture before or after we determine guilt or innocence of the captive?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:44am

325. "Maybe we don't stoop all the way to their level with videotaped beheadings,"

     I saw videotape of an american marine executing a wounded Iraqi prisoner captive.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:46am

326. my question is do we torture before or after we determine guilt or innocence of the captive?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/24/2006 @ 09:44am

     We don't capture innocents, do we?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/24/2006 @ 09:52am

327. when we capture them, they become the worst of the worst.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 10:01am

328. OOPS, looks like the entire neo-con argument about Iraq is OFFICIALLY out the window.

     Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat By Mark Mazzetti The New York Times

     Sunday 24 September 2006

     Washington - A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

     The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

     The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

     An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

     The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one American intelligence official.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:27am

329. yes, and it has torn OUR country apart, and done worse for Iraq.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 10:31am

330. Ohhh, who knew, nobody could have nown,oohh, I'm afraid of he Boogeyman, we NEED to atack Iraq, nobody could have known someone would fly a plane into a building, nobody could have forseen a civil war..IDIOTS on the right.

     "The estimate's judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives."

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:32am

331. "More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of "D+" to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that "there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking."

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:34am

332. But JR, don't you know that it is The Left that is splitting the country with it's desire to have open guvt, abide by laws and established precedent, keep the GC in place like it has been for 50 some years?

     It's all Jane and Mikes fault, chimpy is doing the right things!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:38am

333. and remember, they broke no laws, but they want legislation to retroactively protect them from the laws they did not break, unheard of in American Jurisprudence. 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:41am

334. Inter Press Service Top CIA Expert Slams Bush Anti-Terror Actions by Jim Lobe

     WASHINGTON - The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) recently retired top expert on radical Islamists has strongly denounced the conduct of U.S. President George W. Bush's "global war on terrorism" and the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, which he said is "contributing to the violence".

     In an interview published this week by the online edition of Harper's Magazine, Emile Nakhleh, who retired at the end of June as director of the agency's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Programme, said that the Bush administration's tactics had "lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world" and its Middle East democratisation programme "has all but disappeared, except for official rhetoric".

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:48am

335. Last February, for example, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community's top Middle East analyst from 2000 until his retirement in late 2005, disclosed in Foreign Affairs magazine that the community had warned policymakers before the Iraq invasion that the war and occupation would "boost political Islam and increase sympathy for terrorists' objectives" and that a "deeply divided Iraqi society" would likely erupt into "violent conflict" unless the occupation authority "established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam (Hussein)."

     Pillar, as well as the Defence Intelligence Agency's former top Middle East analyst, Pat Lang, also accused the administration of distorting and politicising intelligence in order to build its case for going to war. In Pillar's words, "the administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made."

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:52am

336. mcain just said he lost in 2000 because chimpy was the better candidate! losing repect for The Maverik.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/24/2006 @ 10:54am

337. Joannesrolf

     I suppose if you don't consider dropping nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima horrifying then you might be correct.

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 10:57am

338. that may be true, but it was not because people had to PERPETRATE horrifying things.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF

     I suppose if you don't consider dropping nukes of the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima horrifying (just one example) then you might be correct.

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 11:00am

339. killing hundreds of thousands of civilians did nothing to make anyone safe and free. I have recently posted my thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagazaki in the context of the phrase "ground zero". I don't remember the thread.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 11:02am

340. We really don't care about global terrorism. It's the stuff that happens here--you know, the stuff that makes us cancel football games--that gets us where it counts.

     Nice to read Frank Rich's column this morning reporting changes at the Iraqi Museum that suggest the artifacts in Iraq, among the most important antiquities in the world, having survived Rumsfeld's looters are now being threatened by the Tali...sorry, the Iraqi government who would like the museum to ignore the country's pre-Islamic past. Since this is being conducted with out tacit approval, what we wait for is a similar reaction in American history museums that put into the closet all references to slavery, slaughters of Native Americans, political corruption and scandal, Franklin Pierce, and John Scopes. Museums should be the place wherein the government can tell its side of history to reassure us that all is just fine.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/24/2006 @ 11:10am

341. killing hundreds of thousands of civilians did nothing to make anyone safe and free. I have recently posted my thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagazaki in the context of the phrase "ground zero". I don't remember the thread.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/24/2006

     Dresden bombing?

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 11:40am

342. or

     the bombing of Hamburg

     the burning of Atlanta

     air strike on Libya

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 11:58am

343. Dresden bombing?

     Posted by LJM 09/24/2006 @ 11:40am

     i'm not sure I'm following you here. You're comparing actions in a declared war to those occuring after a use of force resolution?

     Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2006 @ 12:01pm

344. the burning of Atlanta

     air strike on Libya

     Posted by LJM 09/24/2006 @ 11:58

     burning atlanta didn't kill hundreds of thousands nor did the airstrike on libya

     Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2006 @ 12:04pm

345. I too are confused as to what is your point here. I am well aware of the dresden bombing as well as that of Tokio, Coventry, Schweinfurt and many others. I grew up in postwar germany. it is now clear that the bombing of civilian populations was useless in both the tactical and strategic sense. it was and is pure revenge. and speaking of revenge, it is also clear that our troops in Iraq are motivated by a sense of revenge for 9/11, as an overwhelming majority were brainwashed into thinking that Saddam was behind that attack. the BIG lie is how you get people to throw their life away.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 12:07pm

346. Good times...

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/24/2006 @ 12:08pm

347. ...and commit atrocities.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 12:09pm

348. hundreds of thousands of people do not have to die for defense action to be horrifying. Innocent civilians died when Sherman marched through Atlanta and in the air strikes on Libya.

     Many of the captured terrorist that have undergone interogation were captured in Afghanistan. Some of them fled to Iraq and were captured.

     You attempt to draw a destinction between a "declared war" and a war to enforce a resolution. It's all war and the lives of our military personnel is at stake regardless of its origins. To quote Sherman:

     "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.."

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 2:55pm

349. I am not familiar with your thoughts on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If faced with the intelligence that the Nazis were developing nuclear weapons and the potencial loss of about one million troops to invade Japan, what would you have done?

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 3:17pm

350. the story with Hiroshima and Nagazaki is not clear as you seem to think. many historians believe the nuclear attack was immoral and unnecessary. the japanese nation was willing, it seems, to commit national suicide to defend their country and most of all their emperor. once they were given assurances about the emperor, they surrendered. Japan had been carpet bombed for some time, the airforce had run out of targets. the nuclear bombings were different only in degree, no one knew what kind of weapon it was, the firebombing of Tokyo claimed more lives. the whole idea of unconditional surrender has been taking a beating by many historians, who believe that this demand was responsible for prolonging the war in both Europe AND japan.I believe the targeting of civilian populations is a war crime, and the bombing of civilians in WW2 were war crimes. the US has never come to terms with these issues. did you know that Truman claimed that Hiroshima was targeted because it was a purely military target with relatively few civilians. this very large lie gives me pause.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 3:33pm

351. Nagasaki and Hiroshima will always be controversial. My view is that by bringing an end to the war it saved hundreds of thousands of lives both Japanese and American. Truman reportedly believed that the death toll would have exceeded one million.

     I understand and appreciate your very human response to the horrors of war. I regret that it continues to be a fact of life.

     Thank you for the discussion.

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 3:58pm

352. Nagasaki and Hiroshima will always be controversial. My view is that by bringing an end to the war it saved hundreds of thousands of lives both Japanese and American. Truman reportedly believed that the death toll would have exceeded one million.

     I understand and appreciate your very human response to the horrors of war. I regret that it continues to be a fact of life.

     Thank you for the discussion.

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 3:58pm

353. I'm having a little trouble with my internet connection. I apologize for the double postings

     Posted by ljm at 09/24/2006 @ 3:59pm

354. maybe we can bring this back around to the issue of torture. it is ultimately un-american.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 4:07pm

355. I don't recall in my voluminous reading of WW2 history, that torture was US policy in either theatre of war.while the cruelty of the Japanese has been documented, it appears that the germans did not send their jewish US captives to concentration camps, but rather treated them like any soldier captives. of course they showed no scruples with their slavic captives.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 4:11pm

356. in regards to the bombing of civilian populations it is pertinent to note that the red army did not engage in the wholesale carpet bombing of civilians, and yet it was they who broke the back of the Nazi war machine.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 4:17pm

357. Posted by LJM 09/24/2006 @ 2:55pm

     Hundreds of thousands of people do not have to die for defense action to be horrifying. Innocent civilians died when Sherman marched through Atlanta and in the air strikes on Libya.

     Which innocent civilians? Hoods army had left Atlanta and the city surrendered before Sherman's army occupied it. And the city was depopulated before it was burned. And if innocent civilians dieing is the focal point of your definition of horrible then in any given month more innocent civilians die in traffic accidents in US highways then died on 9-11. And that's been going on every month for the five years after 9-11. Yet you fight making cars safer, or roads safer, or putting cameras at stop lights and intersections

     Many of the captured terrorist that have undergone interogation were captured in Afghanistan. Some of them fled to Iraq and were captured.

     Why would they flee from Afghanistan to Iraq? Saddam was not a friend of al quada. And that guy from Canada was from, you know, Canada

     You attempt to draw a destinction between a "declared war" and a war to enforce a resolution. It's all war and the lives of our military personnel is at stake regardless of its origins.

     I can draw a distinction between a declared war and a measly use of force resolution in that we fought the declared wars in the last century without the president having to resort to secret prisons and attacks on the forth amendment. And this was against real enemies that could really hurt us. They weren't against guys that can only pull the occasional pyrotechnic stunt. And if our soldiers are in harms way, it's only because you conservative types insist on keeping them in harms way

     To quote Sherman:

     "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.."

     War is cruelty. But only a fool would think that occupation is. It's only the incompetence of the bush administration and its inability to differentiate between war and occupation that allowed a pretty straight forward occupation to devolve into an Iraqi civil war. And since we are not Iraqi, we're not a part of it.

     Yet you won't let us leave

     Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2006 @ 8:12pm

358. Jones, my atrocity is bigger than your atrocity.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/23/2006 @ 7:45pm

     So I've been told JR but current research indicates an inverse relationship exists between size and brain power so I no longer boast about it.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/25/2006 @ 01:46am

359. LJM wanders all over the place with marginally relevant snippets but his main theme seems to be to try rationalize "our" inhumanity by our own past practice or that of others.

     By that reasoning the nazis shooting Jews and their children in the back of the head and kicking them into trenchs was acceptable because the Mongols were no better.

     I'd say that he's a prime example of a civilizational failure.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 02:04am

360. Further evidence of civilizational failure. Apparently there was a constituency that couldn't stomach the Soldiers Creed.

     THE American army should scrap the Warrior Ethos, a martial creed that urges soldiers to demonstrate their fighting spirit by destroying the enemies of the United States at close quarter rather than winning the trust of local populations, according to senior US officers and counter-insurgency experts.

     Soldiers are instructed to live by the creed, which evokes the warrior spirit of the modern US army. It begins with the stirring vow, "I am an American soldier", and goes on to affirm that "I will never accept defeat. I will never quit . . . I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat".

     Admirable though this may be in the heat of battle, the Warrior Ethos's emphasis on annihilating the enemy is inimical to the type of patient, confidence-building counter-insurgency warfare in which America is engaged in the Middle East, according to Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, former director of operations to the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon.

     The Warrior Ethos replaced the Soldier's Creed drawn up in the post-Vietnam era which stated: "I am an American soldier . . . No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and the uniform."

     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2372122,00.html

     After personally murdering hundreds of white Arizona settlers Geronimo surrendered to General Miles. President Grant ordered Miles to turn Geronimo over to the state authorities of Arizona. Miles knew he would be lynched and he avoided doing this by a subterfuge. He later said that Geronimo was captured on the field of battle and that it would be dishonorable to kill him.

     A world of difference from todays armed forces which, in Iraq, has murdered captives after torturing them.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 02:17am

361. Can you say with certainty that the program that incarcerated and tortured this Canadian fellow didn't save 10 innocent lives? Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:22am

     Ok.

     Suppose that innocent Canadian guy knows you. Suppose he is tortured and the only way of stopping torture is for him to start naming names. And suppose, because he's innocent by definition and there are no names to name, he names a few people he likes the least. Can you say with certainty that one of the names won't be YOURS? Or, say, one of YOUR children's?

     Posted by vvvenus at 09/25/2006 @ 04:16am

362. "Methods regarded as torture like waterboarding have been very effective at getting information from terrorists."

     That may be so but could I suggest we make those terrorist bastards read one of Rese's posts. I'll bet you would find that method of torture far more effective than waterboarding. Anyway I know which one I would choose if I was a terrorist.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/25/2006 @ 04:38am

363. Well, MBB, Rio, it appears that your reasoning is faulty at best. The War on Teror is actually making it worse. You attempt to make the case that absolute perfection is the only other possibility, and that is bogus. Your Boyz are incompetent, face it. Anybody that says so is an appeaser or traitor in your eyes, bullshit and you should know it. The latest NIE should show you that the policies of chimpboy are failing. And now we will have retired military telling the truth:

     WASHINGTON - Retired military officers on Monday are expected to bluntly accuse Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

     ADVERTISEMENT

     "I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

     A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, is expected to assess Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

     "Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," said his testimony prepared for the hearing."

     Will you support these troops? or will you keep with the platitudes straight from Ron Mehlmans book of shit-talk?

     Results talk, BS walks, and we are on year 4 of BS.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:36am

364. i thought Chimpy listened to the Generals? More BS from Gods special Envoy to Earth.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:37am

365. This dynamic relationship between terrorism and our response to terrorism needs to be understood by the Left.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 07:51am | i

     You want to send a "message " to the terrorists, Tough Guy? How about rebuilding the 2 countries we invaded and occupied? How about finishing what we started? The only people responsible for the mess we are in are the people that sent our boys overseas, and those that voted for them. Don't blame everyone else for your shortcomings, belief in lies, and inability to admit mistakes.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:41am

366. "I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste

     GOT THAT, NEO'S? A General, a TROOP!, says chimpy mcflightsuit LIED!

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:46am

367. This dynamic relationship between terrorism and our response to terrorism needs to be understood by the Left.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 07:51am

     So what you're saying (through comparisons of terrorism with quantum physics and macroeconomics) is that basically we're fucked. According to your position, being nice won't work, and over aggression won't work. What a nice little quandary you've posited the US into. No wonder you're so scared.

     I happen to believe that there are ways to limit terrorism (I can't foresee any civilized or moral way to eliminate terrorism - some people are nuts, and barring sterilization or genocide, they will do nutty things): Intelligence gathering (of which legal and ethical means have been used successfully for years - there is even a rumor that there was good intelligence predicting some horrific plans to fly planes into American skyscrapers; too bad it never got to the "Decider"...or that the "Decider" couldn't be bothered to read a report on a subject that the preceding president, that adulterous liberal loon, had told the incoming administration might be their biggest issue); diplomacy (not pacifying the bad guys but working with other good guys to develop globally acceptable means to solving the problem); and military force when there is no other means (like in Afghanistan to find old what's his name).

     To rationalize torture as a necessary tool is to succumb to the terrorists. When you accept their techniques out of fear, they've won. Selling the soul of America for some misbegotten, fallacious theory of safety, well, that's too un-American for me.

     Posted by Turk33 at 09/25/2006 @ 08:50am

368. "The National Intelligence Estimate provides jarring confirmation that the disastrous policy in Iraq is a giant recruiting poster for terrorists," Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement.

     Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, acknowledged on CNN that "the war in Iraq has intensified Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism,"

     then there is Frist, with a hint of santorum left on his cheek..".But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, used language that echoed that of President Bush, saying that "either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country.""

     Does that mean anything? No.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:52am

369. 1: this report says at least 2 generals will speak, are you illiterate, too?

     2: have you missed Hoard, Zinni, Shinseki, Clark etc?

     3: are you intentionally obtuse or just blind?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:54am

370. "A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton,"....... in case you missed it the 1st time, World Famous Actuary.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 08:57am

371. I have to go away for a while, be back around 11:30 to read how the Left is bringing down America, and how only The Worst President in History can keep us safe from Saddams nukes, his links with Usama, how only torture can continue to keep America the moral standard for the world, how Rummy is doing good things, that there were no secret prisons. AKA, Fantasy Land of the Neo-cons.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 09:01am

372. It seems the Left demands a war conducted without mistakes. We differ in that I am resigned to the fact that there will be mistakes. There will always be mistakes in an aggressive fight. The two options are to never fight aggressively or to accept that there will be mistakes.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 07:27am

     See? Again someone on the right thinks there are but two options. How about this? Go into a war aiming for perfection, but realizing it won't be perfect--like following a business model in which the Board has grand goals that are slightly out of reach. But on occasion, maybe quarterly, maybe annually, maybe every three years, the Board has to re-evaluate their plan as some steps have been achieved, others still on the back burner, and others need to be trashed. A crucial part of this re-evaluation is to find out what has been a total cock-up so that repetition of such failures can be avoided. This is what we lack. It's not that we expect perfection. It's that we expect our leaders to prove to us that they are aware of problems and have a plan to avoid them. It's so incredibly simple, and it seems so incredibly out of reach--as if "accountability" is an unrealistic goal.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/25/2006 @ 09:21am

373. Mean things, such as removing Saddam, or letting it be known that you will torture barbarians, all other things being equal, reduces violent aggression. That is because for every one person who joins the Jihad because of US aggression, there are 10 who don't, but would have if the US projected weakness as a response to terrorism. Remember Bin Laden's allegory regarding the strong horse. If we respond to terrorism by treating it as nuisance to be addressed in a police fashion, that projects weakness and encourages more terrorism.

     That's absolute nonsense. You have no basis to believe that torture will reduced aggression rather than facilitate recruiting by insurgent and terrorist groups. Do you think that Abu Ghraib made our occupation of Iraq easier? If you're going to argue that 10:1 ratio of yours, do have any subsantiation or did you just pull that number out of your hat?

     Posted by brunowe at 09/25/2006 @ 09:35am

374. Will C,

     Pregnant women, invalids, and the seriously ill were forced to evacuate Atlanta. Many died in the process.

     Zarqawi and his bunch fled Afghanistan after the US led invasion and landed in Iraq.

     As for the torture debate. The truth is this - regardless of conventions or compromises those in charge of obtaining information will use methods that work to obtain that information if they believe that the information is vital to the safety of Americans.

     It is that simple.

     Nature and the nature of most of the humans in the world is at best completely indifferent to you. Many are outright hostile. They don't give a damn about convention.

     I wish it were different. It isn't.

     Posted by ljm at 09/25/2006 @ 10:50am

375. As for the torture debate. The truth is this - regardless of conventions or compromises those in charge of obtaining information will use methods that work to obtain that information if they believe that the information is vital to the safety of Americans.

     It is that simple.

     But torture doesn't work. Further, the issue isn't what some Americans will do but what ought they to do. We don't abrogate the criminal laws just because people still commit crimes and oughtn't to aborgate our adherence to Geneva just because some people will cross that line.

     Posted by brunowe at 09/25/2006 @ 11:17am

376. I have to go away for a while, be back around 11:30 to read how the Left is bringing down America, and how only The Worst President in History can keep us safe from Saddams nukes, his links with Usama, how only torture can continue to keep America the moral standard for the world, how Rummy is doing good things, that there were no secret prisons. AKA, Fantasy Land of the Neo-cons.

     Posted by CRABWALK 09/25/2006 @ 09:01am | ignore this person

     Crabwalk,

     That pretty much sums up the apologist position. Thanks for the chuckle.

     Once in a while I read through the stuff over at Redstate.....can't post there because they don't like debate. Anyway, apparently Bill Clinton did an interview with Wallace and Clinton pointed at or poked Wallace. I didn't see it and don't really care. Of course, the Redstater's are up in arms about Bill's pointing / poking. Someone then recalled that a short time ago GWB pointed "threateningly" in his interview with Matt Lauer.....of course, nobody at RedState even acknowledges that the two events might be similar!

     Posted by freedomplease at 09/25/2006 @ 11:33am

377. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/25/2006 @ 11:33a

     EGADS Man!. Are you saying that Clinton had the unmitigated gall to poke Williams clipboard! Damnation, what level those America haters won't stoop to. Gosh, next he probably pointed out that Sadsack had 8 months to oust Binladen, and did nothing, or that Bubba Oh, Really had ants in his pants when one helicopter got shot down in Africa, fighting terrorism. That Clinton should be ashamed of the disgrace he brought to the White House, putting his penis in that consenting adult womans mouth when he should have been stacking naked men up in pyramids and having them mimic men putting mens penis's in their mouths.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:45am

378. Bullshit! I know torture would work on me.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 11:44am |

     Well, thats good enough to set national policy by, regardless of what the Army Field Manaul says, or the FBI says.

     I want to pose a question to you and Rio, Darin, using your logic stream.

     If a terrorist has a nuke ready to deploy in your hometown, would it be OK for a gay man to interrogate him?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:48am

379. Ask a stupid question you get a preposterous answer. For the record, I'm not so stupid as to believe that gay men are more likely to be rapists than straight men.)

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 11:51am

     You went off on quite the tangent there, Darin. I never even thought that it would be a sodomization thing. My question, knowing your hatred of homosexuals and belief that they are second class (at best) citizens, and that they are banned from military service, is ; would it be ok for a known homosexual to save your life, or does your fear of terrorism override your fear of homsexuality? You seem willing to allow degrading behavior to get info, but unwilling to let faggots keep you safe.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 11:57am

380. on the new NIE;

     In a statement released Sunday, the White House said the characterization of the report in The New York Times "is not representative of the complete document." The White House did not release any specifics about the report, citing the fact that it was classified.

     Translation: "what you heard is wrong, but the truth is secret. Trust us, we would never lie about something so serious."

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 12:04pm

381. (Yes, I saw the Daily Show segment.)??????

     no cable. No JS. Sorry. He seems like a funny guy, though.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 12:06pm

382. How long since integration in the Army? I see lots of brown people serving alongside not-so-brown people. The moral seems fine. When should we start? Wait till the GWOT is over?

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 12:09pm

383. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/25/2006 @ 12:11am |

     Sorry, again. Dial-up connection. To download video here in the sticks takes hours, not minutes.

     Running away again...

     Crab.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/25/2006 @ 12:16pm

384. Can you say with certainty that the program that incarcerated and tortured this Canadian fellow didn't save 10 innocent lives? Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/20/2006 @ 10:22am

     What are you- braindead? The Canadian government found him innocent of any connection to terrorism. AFTER the Bush administration had him tortured. How could he have information that would save 10 innocent lives if he had no information? Is it really necessary to explain that? Is that why you come here? So someone else can think for you?

     One of the central issues of torture is the fact that innocent people WILL be tortured, just as happened to this innocent person. That's because a government cannot be trusted to not torture innocent people, most especially when everyone else in the world is blocked from any oversight of that government.

     The issue is NOT the torture of those who might actually be terrorists, which is how neo-fascists like you keep trying to frame the question. ("If someone was going to blow up the Sears Tower in five minutes don't you think . . .". Stupid and childish.)

     Another central issue is that torture is not the best way to obtain information from actual terrorists, as attested to by numerous people who are qualified to know. The imbecile protests of you and others that you are sure it would work are utterly asinine. If someone had captured and tortured fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 perpetrators they would still have found out nothing because they didn't know anything. If someone had captured and tortured the four who did know the entire plan all they had to do was make up a red herring story and al-Qaeda central would send another team to try again.

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/25/2006 @ 5:48pm

385. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/22/2006 @ 11:14pm

     I was not aware of Serge Trifkovic's strongly pro-Jewish, pro-Serbian and anti-Islamic stances when I posted that piece but if you were not a classical McCarthyite, who regularly smears by association, (unfortunately also too often the modus operandi of the Nation and many of the posters to this site. ( must be an American propensity?)) you would have dealt with the more substantive issue he addresses, which was the centuries of barbaric Islamic conquest in India, by means that we see certain elements of Islam still using in places like Iraq and Afghanistan as well as parts of Africa and of course Kashmir and India. That of course does not exhaust the contemporary list of countries where these religiously inspired atrocities occur.

     If you are unable to separate the message from the messenger here is an Indian source. If you find prejudice still hinders you there are plenty more sources telling the same history:

     The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities (Ghazanavi to Amir Timur)

     www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html

     Posted by LRJONES4 09/23/2006 @ 01:04am

     First of all, my friend, 90% of what Srdja Trfkovic writes is anti-Islamic hate material. He wasn't an advisor to Radovan Karadjic for nothing. Rather than direct opprobrium at me by accusing me of "McCarthyism" and employment of guilt by association I suggest you direct a small part of it at yourself for being so undiscriminating in your selection of "experts" to quote. The severely bigoted nature of Trfkovic is obvious from the article you posted. One could only gather from it that Muslims are the most ignorant, violent people that ever existed. A deviation of such amplitude from the mean would automatically excite skepticism in a thoughtful person.

     I have no intention whatsoever of pointing out all the falshoods and biases in the extensively long post that you were kind enough to post for us unrequested. You seem to think I should do that regardless of the fact that he's a vicious bigot and due to the fact that you feel I should discredit anything you post regardless of it's repugnant origins.

     Trfkovic's pretense that al-Kwarizmi's algebra was copied from the Indians is plainly asinine. The history of mathematics is well documented. al-Kwarizmi is considered the father of algebra because he systematized it and his methods are still in use to this day. Many peoples developed some algebraic operations including Greeks, Indians, and Chinese. It would be odd if it sprang from the forehead of one man and no one has ever claimed that it did. Trfkovic seems to be under the illusion that someone has claimed that or else he just can't stomach the central role played in it by a Muslim. The name algebra is derived from the Arabic title of al-Kwarizmi's treatise, by the way. I would think that a moderately educated person would know that.

     The Governor of Iraq, Hajjaj, that Trfkovic refers to was considered an apostate by other Muslims. He even mocked the Quran. He is hardly a good choice to use as an example of how Islam drives men mad with bloodlust. He would be a better example of the opposite.

     Trfkovic quotes from somewhere a supposed letter from Hajjaj to his lieutenant, Muhammad Qasim"

     "It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed.

     I suggest that anyone who is interested enough consult a Quran and they will see that the verse supposedly quoted by Hajjaj is not as Trfkovic portrays it. He has changed words and also omitted immediately adjacent sentences that invalidate the lie that he is attempting to pass off. There seems to be a cottage industry lately in rewriting the Quran to make it what bigots want it to be. I caught LVLIBRTY1 doing exactly that here:

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/allcomments?pid=123530&rpg=4 Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/23/2006 @ 11:41am

     two days ago. He chose to slink away when exposed.

     As a last note I will point out that the murderous Hajjaj brought to our attention by you was no more murderous than the current President of the United States. The only mitigating factor in the case of Hajjaj is that he passed across this earth about 1,400 years ago rather than in the modern, enlightened era. Pretty sad comparison, isn't it?

     Posted by fromredbird at 09/26/2006 @ 02:02am