Obama, Human Rights & the Chutzpah of Conservatives

"Does Obama Believe in Human Rights?" asks Bret Stephens in today's Wall Street Journal. According to Stephens, the answer is a resounding "no." Citing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on a visit to China earlier this year that human rights should not interfere with other pressing issues, Stephens writes indignantly, "It… takes a remarkable degree of cynicism – or perhaps cowardice – to treat human rights as something that ‘interferes' with America's purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them."

It takes a remarkable degree of cynicism – and chutzpah – for Bret Stephens to have written that sentence. This is the same Bret Stephens who, two years ago, in this tendentious column, defended the Bush administration against "inflated, imprecise and tendentious allegations of torture." Waterboarding, Stephens allowed, was unpleasant business, but did not "properly" qualify as torture.

Stephens is nauseated that the Obama administration is engaging regimes such as Burma. He does not bother to mention that the great Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi supports the administration's policy of engaging the junta running her country, or that human rights activists have long been divided over whether sanctions against Burma help or hinder the expansion of freedom. There is no inherent conflict between engagement and the promotion of human rights, just as isolating a country (see Cuba) doesn't necessarily hamper an authoritarian ruler's ability to stay in power and suppress political freedom.

Does this mean Obama's record on human rights has been perfect? Of course not. He has spoken forcefully – but acted otherwise – on indefinite detention and the treatment of detainees. He apparently refused to meet with the Dalai Lama in order not to rankle China's leaders. In this as on other matters, he has made it clear that he is a cautious realist, not a crusading idealist.

But those who pine for a more crusading figure should think back to the Bush era. They should also pause to consider whether any US President has ever made human rights the thing that defines America's purpose in the world, and whether - if Obama opted for such a course - it would be appropriate. As Stephen Walt usefully points out at the Politico, which invited various analysts to assess whether Obama is "punting" on human rights: "Of course he is. No U.S. President--not even Jimmy Carter--was ever willing to spend a lot of blood or treasure solely to advance human rights, and Obama isn't going to be the first. And given that the U.S. record on this issue looks has been tarnished by Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, forced rendition, "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture), extra-judicial killings (aka "targeted assassinations"), our reaction to the Goldstone Report, and the thousands dead as a result of the invasion of Iraq, I'd say a bit of humility on this front was probably in order."

Comments (126)

1. PRESS: "He has spoken forcefully – but acted otherwise.....He apparently refused to meet with the Dalai Lama in order not to rankle China's leaders."

   On how many issues, has The One "spoken forcefully – but acted otherwise"?

   On Magic's pulling the chicken shit of not meeting w/the Dalai Lama's, somebody went AWOL.....Richard Gere.

   China has Magic's balls and turned him into an imperial eunich bobblehead & Russia got his spine turning him to jello.....LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 10/20/2009 @ 6:24pm

2. I'll agree with Ms Press on one thing, we haven't had any president who really made global human rights violations a priority in their administration.

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 6:41pm

3. Posted by Happy at 10/20/2009 @ 6:24pm

   Hey Hap -

   Alfred called on the Bat Phone.

   He said the Bat Cave is filled with guano again and he needs you to shovel it out.

   He also said do remember to wear your respirator this time.

   Posted by skeletonman at 10/20/2009 @ 6:47pm

4. Well, there is a difference between a practicioner of falun gong rotting away in a cell waiting to have his kidneys harvested by prison officials and dunking a mass murderer's head under water until he reveals the names of people plotting to blow up a building in Los Angeles.

   Eyal Press seems to be drawing a moral equivalency between a Chinese dissident who probably protested for liberty or religion or against corruption and a 1st tier lieutenant in Al Qaeda. I do not see the equivalency, and thus do not consider Bret Stephens to be engaging in chutzpah.

   For that matter, I really don't see somebody like Khalid Sheik Muhammad as a "person". He's a creature.

   And the interrogation techniques used on KSM led to his divulging information that led to the arrests of something like 20 terrorists. At least 3 of which were trying to weaponize anthrax. Others were part of a cell trying to smuggle explosives into the U.S. Yes, a whole lot more people dead were it not for old KSM getting a good dunking.

   Probably more than a few people alive today because of that. Maybe even you. You never know.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:49pm

5. Well, there is a difference between a practicioner of falun gong rotting away in a cell waiting to have his kidneys harvested by prison officials and dunking a mass murderer's head under water until he reveals the names of people plotting to blow up a building in Los Angeles.

   Eyal Press seems to be drawing a moral equivalency between a Chinese dissident who probably protested for liberty or religion or against corruption and a 1st tier lieutenant in Al Qaeda. I do not see the equivalency, and thus do not consider Bret Stephens to be engaging in chutzpah.

   For that matter, I really don't see somebody like Khalid Sheik Muhammad as a "person". He's a creature.

   And the interrogation techniques used on KSM led to his divulging information that led to the arrests of something like 20 terrorists. At least 3 of which were trying to weaponize anthrax. Others were part of a cell trying to smuggle explosives into the U.S. Yes, a whole lot more people dead were it not for old KSM getting a good dunking.

   Probably more than a few people alive today because of that. Maybe even you. You never know.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:49pm

6. Human rights? Not when profits are concerned.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 10/20/2009 @ 8:31pm

7. "Citizen_Carrier," I tire of you making unsubstantiated claims that suit your own prejudices.

   If mere suspicion is enough to change a human being into a "creature" in the eyes of the law, then we really do live in a police state, don't we? Particularly if due process now includes torture.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 10/20/2009 @ 9:57pm

8. And the interrogation techniques used on KSM led to his divulging information that led to the arrests of something like 20 terrorists. At least 3 of which were trying to weaponize anthrax. Others were part of a cell trying to smuggle explosives into the U.S. Yes, a whole lot more people dead were it not for old KSM getting a good dunking. Probably more than a few people alive today because of that. Maybe even you. You never know.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   SOMETHING LIKE...

   AT LEAST...

   TRYING TO...

   MAYBE EVEN YOU....

   YOU NEVER KNOW...

   yes, that's 5 different uncertainties in 2 short paragraphs.

   DUNK AWAY!

   Posted by urmygyro at 10/20/2009 @ 10:00pm

9. .....remember to wear your respirator this time.

   Posted by skeletonman at 10/20/2009 @ 6:47pm

   You and SRJ have taken a decisive turn for the (fill in the blank) since The One assumed the throne......I take that as a good sign!

   Be sure to hold your nose while you hail your Messiah!

   PS: Guano is good shit! Here in the Southwest, we can't get enough of it any more......Carlsbad Cavern used to be filled with the stuff but Alfred got to it long ago....sigh!

   Posted by Happy at 10/20/2009 @ 10:27pm

10. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/20/2009 @ 6:49pm

    "For that matter, I really don't see somebody like Khalid Sheik Muhammad as a "person". He's a creature."

    Redefining a human being into something else is the very definition of moral hypocrisy. Thanks for providing such a good example of what the article is talking about.

    Example: The Chinese might argue that a member of Falun Gong is jeopardizing social stability with his/her practices, which could result in the death of millions - as happened in the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution under Mao.

    Once you start rationalizing targeting liberal bourgeois, "terrorists", people threatening "social stability" because they aren't human - you have lost your ability to talk about "human rights". Human has to mean more than "people I like".

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2009 @ 11:08pm

11. He said the Bat Cave is filled with guano again and he needs you to shovel it out.

    He also said do remember to wear your respirator this time.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/20/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    sounds like someone tied their fortune up in peruvian guano,lost it, and is now bitter about it.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/20/2009 @ 11:12pm

12. i appreciate American‘s Human Rights well。Human Rights is relative ，American is a developed country ，you may be able to talk about the Human Rights，however so many countries still are developing，The Economic basis decide Superstructure，where there no food，there is nothing，especial The human rights。excuse my poor English。

    Posted by exeter at 10/20/2009 @ 11:22pm

13. It's curious that WSJ mentions the Berlin wall anniversary, and says that Obama should build walls around other countries of the world, namely Iran, Sudan, Korea etc, and abandon the well spent diplomacy that Bush denied.

    IMHO first and foremost Obama should be vigilant with our own internal "Human Rights" as outlined by FDR: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/ econrights/fdr-econbill.html

    "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

    Where's WSJ's USA citizen vigilance now?

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/20/2009 @ 11:43pm

14. Liberals are evil and hate freedom. Jimmy Carter supported Pol Pot, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, and offered funding and support to Afghan radical Islamists. He offered approval to Saddam's invasion of Iran, destroyed Afghanistan, and supported global reppression.

    Yet this article would have you believe he cared more about human rights than any other President.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 11:52pm

15. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 10/20/2009 @ 9:57pm </i>

    I'm sorry. I'm a pretty avid opponent of torture, and yes we've tortured, and yes it was wrong...but this is a rather unnecessarily constructed strawman. Unless I'm missing something, Khalid Sheik Mohammad was not "suspected" of being a terrorist, he was a known terrorist and lieutenant in al Qaeda. You don't need to alter the factual record to show why torture shouldn't exist.

    <i>Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2009 @ 11:08pm </i>

    Second.

    You can despise what someone stands for, but to label them a "creature" both undercuts the logic of human rights and makes it easier to demonize disagreement. I realize there are miles and miles between "political party I disagree with" and "guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon," but once you start down the path of dehumanization, it can be an awfully tempting tool to use.

    This is also, by the way, why those who call Republicans "fascists" or "racists" simultaneously trivialize the term and make reasonable political discourse impossible. I'm not pinning this on you, SRJ; I just think your statement provided a nice launching pad to make another point. Sometimes I can't help myself. :D

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:04am

16. really thoughtful article, thank you.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 01:08am

17. I always believe and trust Pres. Obama and one thing for sure he didn't neglect Human Rights.

    http://discounthelmetfactory.com

    Posted by rckddrews at 10/21/2009 @ 04:24am

18. If mere suspicion is enough to change a human being into a "creature" in the eyes of the law, then we really do live in a police state, don't we? Particularly if due process now includes torture.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/20/2009 @ 9:57pm

    Well, I don't "suspect" that KSM is a terrorist.

    You still harbor doubts?

    The interrogation of KSM led the the arrest of Iyman Feris, a Pakistani living in Columbus, Ohio who was planning terrorist attacks and who had supported al Qaeda with money.

    http://tinyurl.com/ln4qkd

    According to this CNN story, KSM was the man who ordered Daniel Pearl's head sawed off on camera. You remember that, don't you?

    Personally, I think at that point you cross over from "people" status to "creature" status.

    http://tinyurl.com/ykgjj3a

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 05:36am

19. "History seems to be repeating itself, with Liz Cheney, rolling out a new neo-con organization, Keep America Safe. The group's mission seems to be two-fold. First, try to rewrite history so that Dick Cheney looks like a visionary. And second, convince Americans that they're all going to die because of Barack Obama.

    ...More importantly, though, is that despite her tough bluster, Liz Cheney is an incredibly weak person. Weak people see everything in black and white, and take the easiest path."-closegitmonow

    and the sheep eat it up and walk the easy path.

    I wonder if CITIZEN considers the guy that ordered phosphorous used on civilians in Iraq to be a "creature"? How about those that firebombed the civilians in Dresden? Or the guys that put an Iraqi general in a sleeping bag upside down, tied it with an extension cord and left him till dead?

    Or, is the definition of "creature" dependent on "the cause" and whose side one is on?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:26am

20. closegitmonow is a group founded partly by 'Merica haters, military haters and known communists...

    like this guy..

    http://tinyurl.com/yfcr7rv

    listen to the troops?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:34am

21. Obama was WRONG to not meet with the Llama. Screw the Chinese, they need us more than we need them. They killed over a million Tibetans, jail tens of thousands for political reasons, pollute our air and support some of the worst dictators in the world.Those that supported the Iraq war to rid the world of some bad people should support the end of the coddling of the 2nd to last communist regime on the planet.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:41am

22. Plus, like most llamas, the Dalai is just sooo cute...

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:44am

23. srjenkins,

    You proclaim:

    "..............Human has to mean more than "people I like"......."

    1. Chinese Communists do not like people in their country that advocate free speech. The Communists say they threaten social stability.

    2. I do not like people, who while invoking the Religion of Peace, hijack aircraft and fly them into 1 World Trade Center, 2 World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and intented to fly another one into probably the White House or U.S. Capitol. I say that did not "threaten" social stablity, it DESTROYED social stability in a big way for a lot of people.

    But, according to YOU, we are to afford terrorists who would like to repeat #2 complete benefit of the doubt, rule of law, etc. etc. etc. so we in no way can be like the situation in #1.

    According to ME, you have no ability to see any difference between #1 and #2. This is standard "moral equivalance" which has been practiced by the left in many ways for a long time now.

    In days gone by anybody not on the left who said the Soviets were a threat and needed to be stopped would be confronted with "who are we to say, after all look at all the wrongs in our society" type stuff by someone on the left.

    Now that the Soviets are defeated, no thanks to anybody on the left, the moral equivalence has shifted to the terrorist threat instead.

    I think if some of you on the left would at least try to take your heads out of your rear ends, you maybe would have the ability to see the world for what it is, rather than seeing the utopian fantasy that you percieve instead.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 07:45am

24. "Sjchermak," the Cold War ended in nuclear disarmament treaties.

    This happened only because cooler heads than yours prevailed.

    Had hot-heads like yours prevailed, the Cold War would have ended in a thermonuclear exchange.

    The end of the Cold War was also not brought about by means of torture. Had torture been widely used, I believe the thermonuclear exchange ending would have been more likely than the treaty ending.

    It is generally not true that one protects human rights by violating them. Good guys do not torture, and smart guys know that torture doesn't work.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/21/2009 @ 08:14am

25. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

    you're not seeing this clearly."screw the Chinese" is just not a helpful attitude. they are the number one holder of American debt. if they sold all their bonds, our economy would be finished. America would likely not sell another bond for decades.

    it's not a matter of coddling, it's a matter of pragmatism.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/21/2009 @ 08:16am

26. It's curious that WSJ mentions the Berlin wall anniversary, and says that Obama should build walls around other countries of the world, namely Iran, Sudan, N. Korea etc, and abandon his well spent diplomacy that Bush denied.

    Human Rights begin at home. Obama should be vigilant with American "Human Rights" as outlined by FDR: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/ econrights/fdr-econbill.html

    "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

    The right of every family to a decent home;

    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

    The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

    America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

    Where's WSJ's USA citizen vigilance now?

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/21/2009 @ 08:24am

27. Posted by Thrawn at 10/21/2009 @ 12:04am

    "This is also, by the way, why those who call Republicans "fascists" or "racists" simultaneously trivialize the term and make reasonable political discourse impossible. I'm not pinning this on you, SRJ; I just think your statement provided a nice launching pad to make another point."

    I'd say fascist and racist denotes something specific, certainly more so than "leftist". It also accurately identifies certain elements of the Republican party.

    What are discussions of the "homeland" and the "War on X" if not expressions of fascism? What is commentary of Obama as the "Magic Negro" and displaying Confederate flags if not promoting new and old forms of racism?

    That said, I don't personally use these terms very often because I generally believe that they should be used on specific instances, rather than labels for individuals. Further, I think arguing that this is dehumanizing in the way that calling someone a "creature", "(sand) nigger" or "gook" is quite a stretch.

    As far as "reasonable political discourse" goes, I am coming to the conclusion that frequently this is impossible regardless of what language is used. Anyone reading sjchermak, Happy, antisocialist and others in this forum will know that reason or logic have very little to do with what they are saying.

    sjchermak frequently doesn't even understand the argument (excellent example above). Happy goes for the little zingers. Antisocialist is the cherry picker who thinks quotes out of context and avoiding the profound weaknesses in his positions by calling people "leftists" is "debate".

    And, this is not unique. Anyone watching what people attending "Tea Parties", 9/11 truthers, Minute Men, etc. are saying will come to the same conclusion.

    So, you were saying?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2009 @ 08:28am

28. JakobFabian,

    The cold war ended because the Soviets were defeated. The country went out of existence because Ronald Reagan put pressure on them (by us building up our military) which caused them to try and keep up. They could not do that and in the process of trying events got going over there that led to the country coming unraveled altogether.

    Had "cooler heads" (i.e., leftist heads) prevailed, then no U.S. military build up would have occurred, no additional pressure on the Soviets, and thus there would still be a Soviet Union today.

    Ronald Reagan did sign treaties with the Soviets near the end of his presidency but only after he stood up to them and did the buildups that led to their country going out of existence.

    And he did not capitulate in those treaties......he would not concede SDI to Gorbachev, who wanted him to get rid of it. Once Ronald Reagan stood firm on SDI, Gorbachev sort of realized it would be over soon.

    Fortunately for us all, the "cooler heads" did not prevail....and you are still fixated on the canard that libs possessed back then that President Reagan would lead us to nuclear war. You were proven wrong, yet still hold on to that canard!

    I was talking about moral equivalence and how libs engaged in it back in times past and how they do now, and did not imply the cold war was ended by "torture".

    By the way, waterboarding is not torture and it does appear that it did work and that terrorist actions against us were stopped because of some of the things libs oppose.

    So just like back with the question of the Soviets.....you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

    P.S. to srjenkins......I understand the argument totally....you just do not like me or other Conservatives proving you wrong, hence the "analysis" of us by you.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 09:04am

29. I wonder if CITIZEN considers the guy that ordered phosphorous used on civilians in Iraq to be a "creature"? How about those that firebombed the civilians in Dresden? Or the guys that put an Iraqi general in a sleeping bag upside down, tied it with an extension cord and left him till dead?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:26am

    First of all, I'm going to need some citations so I'll know the context of these instances you are referring to.

    Except Dresden. The difference with Dresden is that was during World War II. A declared, open war between countries. KSM and the Jihad is nothing like that. Dresden was defended. The Germans had anti-aircraft guns and planes to fight the bombers. The victims of KSM were selected specifically because they have no defence and are unaware that anything was going to happen to them.

    Additionally, the technology available in WWII simply did not allow for the precision strikes we now take for granted in order to limit non-combatant casualties. The Germans themselves were no strangers to bombing cities. In fact, they and the Japanese were the ones who opened that book.

    "Or, is the definition of 'creature' dependent on 'the cause' and whose side one is on?"

    Those things should certainly be taken into consideration, don't you think?

    Interrogating somebody like KSM in order to thwart murderous attacks and butchery is NOT the same as KSM plotting to send people with bomb vests into our nation's shopping malls.

    In other words, one side does what it does in order to preserve life, order, and liberty. The other side, Khalid's side, does what it does in order to end life and subjugate cultures under Sharia law. Do you consider them to be morally equivalent?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 09:09am

30. I wonder if CITIZEN considers the guy that ordered phosphorous used on civilians in Iraq to be a "creature"? How about those that firebombed the civilians in Dresden? Or the guys that put an Iraqi general in a sleeping bag upside down, tied it with an extension cord and left him till dead?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 07:26am

    First of all, I'm going to need some citations so I'll know the context of these instances you are referring to.

    Except Dresden. The difference with Dresden is that was during World War II. A declared, open war between countries. KSM and the Jihad is nothing like that. Dresden was defended. The Germans had anti-aircraft guns and planes to fight the bombers. The victims of KSM were selected specifically because they have no defence and are unaware that anything was going to happen to them.

    Additionally, the technology available in WWII simply did not allow for the precision strikes we now take for granted in order to limit non-combatant casualties. The Germans themselves were no strangers to bombing cities. In fact, they and the Japanese were the ones who opened that book.

    "Or, is the definition of 'creature' dependent on 'the cause' and whose side one is on?"

    Those things should certainly be taken into consideration, don't you think?

    Interrogating somebody like KSM in order to thwart murderous attacks and butchery is NOT the same as KSM plotting to send people with bomb vests into our nation's shopping malls.

    In other words, one side does what it does in order to preserve life, order, and liberty. The other side, Khalid's side, does what it does in order to end life and subjugate cultures under Sharia law. Do you consider them to be morally equivalent?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 09:09am

31. People here keep WHINING about Sept 11 and terrorists and buildings knocked down and jihad and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

    I think it would be great if an American city got blown up by a nuke by terrorists, particularly by Osama bin Laden.

    I'm glad Osama hasn't been caught, he should stay free.

    As a matter of fact, I think Sept 11 was lucky or maybe even providential for America, a blessing, a miracle.

    Lord knows, Congress and the American people needed some sort of catalyzing and catastrophic event, mass bloodbath, to get most everyone to agree to spend $3 or $6 Trillion expanding hegemonic control for the 21st century.

    OF COURSE these are NOT my opinions. They are the opinions of Neo-conservative leaders and military experts, including many who work *inside* our "defense" establishment, and also one high-level neocon former CIA office holder (Al-Qaeda desk in 2000 and 2001) and one former CIA Exec Dir appointed by Bush.

    If this (and there's plenty more quotes like them) does anything to cause the edifice of cocksureness about everything we know about Al-Qaeda and terrorism and Sept 11 to shake and rumble, then my five minutes has been worthwhile.

    Posted by dilbertgeg at 10/21/2009 @ 09:28am

32. Oops, I forgot names: Michael Scheuer, CIA AB Buzzy Krongard, CIA Exec-Dir Michael Ledeen, AEI PNAC group, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, etc.

    Brzezinski made similar allusions, if more oblique, in The Grand Chessboard.

    Posted by dilbertgeg at 10/21/2009 @ 09:33am

33. ...smart guys know that torture doesn't work.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/21/2009 @ 08:14am

    Doesn't work, huh?

    KSM's interrogation led to the arrests of:

    Iyman Faris, sent to the U.S. by KSM to plot terrorist attacks.

    Uzair and Saifullah Paracha. Uzair was to facilitate al Qaeda operative's entry into the U.S. and use his father's (Saifullah) import/export business to smuggle in explosives.

    KSM's information led to the arrest of another terrorist named Zubair. Zubair then gave up an associate maned "Lillie". Both Zubair and Lillie were scheduled to commit a suicide plane hijacking on the west coast.

    Lillie gave up another terrorist named Hambali. He was chief of the Jemaah Islamiyah, an al Qaeda affiliate responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings.

    After Hambali was arrested, KSM told the CIA Hambali's brother would likely be his successor. His brother, Abd al-Hadi, was arrested and he told about Hambali sending men to Karachi for terrorist training.

    Fourteen of those men were then arrested.

    KSM unknowingly gave up details of al Qaeda's anthrax program, thinking we already were aware of it. Because of this, two principle assistants in the anthrax program were arrested.

    http://tinyurl.com/ykc6m4n

    I'm thinking that what KSM divulged potentially saved hundreds, maybe even thousands of lives. Anyone think differently? And can show it?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 09:50am

34. dilbertgeg,

    Your five minutes has been totally worthless.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 10:00am

35. "The cold war ended because the Soviets were defeated"

    ah, they were "defeated". right. gotta sound manly.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 11:00am

36. Citizen_Carrier,

    You said:

    ".......I'm thinking that what KSM divulged potentially saved hundreds, maybe even thousands of lives. Anyone think differently? And can show it?..."

    1. Many on the left on these threads do think differently.

    2. None of them can show it.

    3. The response usually is something like "coulda, woulda, shoulda" or "you don't go torturing people based on hypothetical, etc" (that's a variation of the "you don't go shooting up a country based on hypothetical ideas, etc" that was provided about our invasion of Iraq), or "torture is never justified"...plus the standard stuff that the fact that the terrorists want to kill us are all lies promoted by George W. Bush.

    You also said:

    ".......In other words, one side does what it does in order to preserve life, order, and liberty. The other side, Khalid's side, does what it does in order to end life and subjugate cultures under Sharia law. Do you consider them to be morally equivalent?...."

    1. Yes, many of the left here on these threads do. Many do not see our country as having liberty, they see it as a sewer and hellhole of injustice and wrong, blameable for most all problems in the world over the last 100-200 years.

    For some reason no leftists have responded to you so far so I thought I would provide some of what they ususally say.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 11:52am

37. The cold war ended because the Soviets were defeated"

    ah, they were "defeated". right. gotta sound manly.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 11:00am

    The cold war as well as the Soviet Union because the Soviets bankrupted themselves spending huge amounts of their national treasury on defense spending (offensive spending actually) in drum roll please.....Afghanistan. Sound familiar you moronic war hawks?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:53pm

38. China has Magic's balls and turned him into an imperial eunich bobblehead & Russia got his spine turning him to jello.....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 10/20/2009 @ 6:24pm

    Happy, I think it would be more appropriate to say that China has ALL our balls. Not just Obama's. So, what do you think he should do? Something stupid that China would react negatively to? And then perhaps demand repayment for all the loans they gave us to pay for Bush's two wars? Which would of course, send our economy (what's left of it) back into the tank?

    If you were realistic at all, you should be applauding Obama's stance toward China, or all that money you're making on Wall Street would just disappear into a puff of smoke.

    But we know you're not realistic about anything when it concerns "Barack the Magic Negro" are you?

    Such a Rush Clone dittohead. When you find yourself arguing against your own best interests, which is neither conservative, nor smart, do you ever stop to reconsider your own opinions or just do what your commanding officer, General Limbaugh tell you to do? That's the problems with all you right wing nutjobs: even your hatred of anything pro-American is inconsistent.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 1:03pm

39. I think it's ironic that sjcherm and Citizen both say that "torture works" and cite examples, that "waterboarding isn't torture" in the same sentence.

    Then they deny that the experts who actually know how to torture people say that it doesn't work.

    I wonder if sjcherm and Citizen have ever tortured anyone and are well versed in torture techniques. I know Anti is (I read his posts...that's a joke, BTW), but I wonder how they get all this expertise on torture and that "fact" that it "works."

    Last but not least, I wonder if waterboarding (which isn't torture) KSM 120 times in two months (I think that's the approximate number) was for information extraction, or just revenge?

    Oh, and if the United States government signed an agreement that said waterboarding IS torture, then why again do Citizen and sjcherm say it isn't? Do they know something the US Government didn't know after WWII when the Japanese were tried for War Crimes after waterboarding American soldiers?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 1:22pm

40. Stephen_Carver1,

    I can not figure out your hyper-concern for the terrorist darlings that want to kill us.

    Are we supposed to lay down like sheep and allow them to kill us?

    All of your hyper-worry about the health and well being of terrorist darlings that want to kill us is noble and admirable, I guess, but it is also naive and stupid.

    They have axes to grind against many people, they have hangups and hatred that go back 1,000 years. They do not hate us because we made them angry. They hate us because our way of life is not acceptable to them and they want an Islamic caliphate in the world.

    No amount of peace, dialogue, negotiation and discourse and understanding is going to change their minds, it appears.

    Yet you must think it will, it seems some of you on the left really believe we are not allowed to fight back.

    This stuff is in the same category as the oft-repeated (by the left) instructions that you can never go to premptive war, it is wrong and it is somehow illegal.

    Question - if we had pre-emptively attacked Germany in the late 1930's, would that have been wrong?

    By many of the definitions offered up on this website by the left, it would have.

    But we know after the fact it was a big time mistake not to have done that.

    I will take the gloves off now and get the fur really flying.....many of those who say we are not to harm a hair on a terrorist darling's head, we are to give totally benefit of the doubt, rule of law, etc......say it IS OK for a mother to murder her unborn child, nobody dare question that.

    Is that a contradiction, or what?

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:37pm

41. "They hate us because our way of life is not acceptable to them and they want an Islamic caliphate in the world"

    this is false. our own counter-terror intelligence has concluded, time and time again, that "they" (meaning: jihadist groups) hate us because of:

    a) our unconditional support of israel

    b) our imprisoning, torturing, killing innocent muslims

    c) our invasion/occupation of iraq/afghanistan

    d) abu ghraib/bagram/guantanamo

    gee, why would they want to kill americans?

    oh, right "because our way of life is unacceptable to them".

    sjchermak: dumb as dirt

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 1:50pm

42. sjchermak,

    imagine, if you will, if iran had invaded and occupied canada and mexico; killed, tortured and/or imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent americans; set up massive black site prisons in saskatchewan; and unconditionally supported, say, CUBA's right to exist?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm

43. darladoon,

    Whose counter-terror intelligence tells you this? Counter terror intelligence provided by MoveOn.Org, code Pink, Democrat Underground, daily Kos, or whatever?

    If you think you have all the answers about why they are angry at us, then why are Islamic people moving into many parts of Europe such as the Netherlands, France, Sweden, etc....with no intention of assimilating and with the apparent intention of converting those countries over time to their way of life instead?

    Why is there Islamic terrorism way out in places like Indonesia?

    What say you about that?

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:59pm

44. darladoon,

    You offer a hypothetical example of Iran invading and occupying Canada.

    Uh, it would be hard to imagine why that would be.

    Last I knew, neither Pierre Trudeau, nor Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin or Stephen Harper had been at one time developing or using WMD, nor did they resist U.N. efforts to find out what was happening, nor did anybody working for those people mention that any of them intended to start producing WMD again.

    None of those individuals were developing more and more ties to terror organizations, and none of them were running Canadian citizens who did not agree with them through shredding machines.

    Nobody has ever said anything about rape rooms in Toronto, Halifax, or Calgary.

    Thus none of the individuals above seemed likely to some day produce WMD and get it into the hands of terrorists either by gift or by sale, WMD that would have been used to wipe out Teheran, Iran.

    So explain to me why I should even consider your imaginary scenario.

    ======================

    Whoops...update....maybe you are right and I am wrong.....I forgot that Canadian ambassador to Iran Kenneth Taylor did hide some of the American hostages that got away after the seizure of the American embassy in Iran....and developed a successful scheme to sneak them out of Iran to safety.....so in other words a Canadian helped the Great Satan, and therefore I guess Iran would be justified in attacking and punishing Canada for having done that!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 2:09pm

45. Stephen_Carver1,

    "I can not figure out your hyper-concern for the terrorist darlings that want to kill us."

    Well, you might want to start with the fact that I have never shown "hyper-concern" for the "terrorist darlings that want to kill us." I simply believe that torture is illegal and immoral.

    "Are we supposed to lay down like sheep and allow them to kill us?"

    No, but torture doesn't work. That's not naive and stupid, it is the opinion of people who know how to torture people. Do YOU know how to torture people?

    Real Islamic terrorists number probably less than 10,000 people out of over 6 billion (and that number was smaller before Bush went into Iraq). There are more effective ways to battle them than to spend trillions of dollars in illegals wars. That's YOUR tax money disappearing down that rathole, ya know.

    I am not advocating for negotiation with terrorists. I am advocating for good (legal) international cooperation and investigation, followed by justice when they're caught; which is demanded by our set of laws. Not torture.

    I am against pre-emptive war generally speaking; unless CONGRESS declares it, NOT the President. Again, as outlined in the Constitution.

    Yes. Your question about Germany is incorrect. Did you notice we didn't declare war against Germany until AFTER they did against us?

    I knew we would get around to abortion. It's always about abortion with you folks. Personally, I believe that abortion is wrong, however I will fight to always let a woman have that choice, because it is her body and no one else's we're talking about.

    And for contradictions, how about this one: Republicans are anti-abortion because "all life is precious" yet most are for the death penalty.

    Is that a contradiction, or what?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:40pm

46. then why are Islamic people moving into many parts of Europe such as the Netherlands, France, Sweden, etc....with no intention of assimilating and with the apparent intention of converting those countries over time to their way of life instead?

    Why is there Islamic terrorism way out in places like Indonesia?

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:59pm

    Just curious sjcherm, why did all the white Europeans move into North America, Australia, South Africa, etc....with no intention of assimilating and with the apparent intention of converting (or killing) those countries over time to their way of life instead?

    I guess it's OK for whites to do it but people of color or of a different faith, I guess not.

    There is Islamic terrorism in Indonesia because there are radical terrorists the world over. Why do we have abortion clinic bombers and Federal Building bombers in America? Because terrorists (people who use terror to make their point, whatever it may be) are found everywhere, not just around Islam.

    And yes, I am equating abortion clinic bombers with radical Islamic terrorists.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:47pm

47. I think it's ironic that sjcherm and Citizen both say that "torture works" and cite examples, that "waterboarding isn't torture" in the same sentence.

    Then they deny that the experts who actually know how to torture people say that it doesn't work.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 1:22pm

    Could you cite in any of my posts here where I even use the word "torture"?

    I cut and pasted where you used it, but I have not used that word myself. And I certainly have not used either in the same sentence, as you claim here.

    And as far as the "experts" denying what does and does not work, you'll note in my earlier link that the CIA considered the information obtained from KSM through those interrogation techniques to be the most useful (i.e. "life-saving") intelligence they gained during the war on terror.

    Or did you miss the part where they said it led to the arrest of two top people in Al Qaeda's anthrax weaponization plan?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 2:58pm

48. I think it's ironic that sjcherm and Citizen both say that "torture works" and cite examples, that "waterboarding isn't torture" in the same sentence.

    Then they deny that the experts who actually know how to torture people say that it doesn't work.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 1:22pm

    Could you cite in any of my posts here where I even use the word "torture"?

    I cut and pasted where you used it, but I have not used that word myself. And I certainly have not used either in the same sentence, as you claim here.

    And as far as the "experts" denying what does and does not work, you'll note in my earlier link that the CIA considered the information obtained from KSM through those interrogation techniques to be the most useful (i.e. "life-saving") intelligence they gained during the war on terror.

    Or did you miss the part where they said it led to the arrest of two top people in Al Qaeda's anthrax weaponization plan?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 2:58pm

49. And for contradictions, how about this one: Republicans are anti-abortion because "all life is precious" yet most are for the death penalty.

    Is that a contradiction, or what?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:40pm

    Stephen, Nobody every accused them of logical reasoning. All they can do is repeat what the talking heads tell them to say. Thinking is not allowed for right wingers. It's a dangerous things and there's a chance that some of them might come up with an original thought which the GOP can't have any of.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 3:19pm

50. sjchermak,

    read and weep, pal:

    http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 3:58pm

51. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:40pm

    Stephen, where did you get that number of less than 10k?

    The number of Muslims supporting the radical Islamist position of imposing Islam on the world whether we want it or not ranges from 10-35% depending on which poll or other source. Most assume that only translates into 1% who are willing to engage in jihad.

    Draw that down further to 1/10 of 1% and you still have 1.3 million jihadists in the world.

    Even here according to the 2007 liberal based Pew Poll, US Muslims have larger numbers supporting jihad and suicide bombings than your numbers suggest

    Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances.

    http://tinyurl.com/2c5v3d

    http://tinyurl.com/yjnz9lt

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/list.htm

    BTW Stephen, no president has ever declared war without Congress. Your's is an empty accusation.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 4:06pm

52. Stephen_Carver1,

    You said up above:

    ".....Yes. Your question about Germany is incorrect. Did you notice we didn't declare war against Germany until AFTER they did against us? .........."

    Just for a change of pace sometimes, you might try reading what I actually wrote and answering the question I acutally asked.

    I did not ask you questions about whether or not what did happen as we entered World War II in 1941 was right or wrong.

    I asked about whether it would have been OK or not (in the view of the left) to pre-emptively attack Germany in the later 1930's.

    Winston Churchill warned about the growing Nazi threat and said something had to be done about it......nobody paid attention....the world (or at least Europe and the U.S. deciding to stay out of European issues) went for "Peace in our time" instead.

    If we had pre-emptively attacked Germany in perhaps 1938, given they had been violating the treaties ending World War I, then the world would have been spared a lot of pain and suffering.

    There would have been loss of life, considerable loss of life, but much less than was suffered between the fighting and the Holocaust that came despite the fact that we went for "Peace in our time".

    It was a mistake not to have done that....but from what I see here libs declare absolutely that pre-emptive war is wrong....you never go to pre-emptive war etc.....

    So I was wondering how this leftist "rule" would apply to the situation in the late 1930's.

    If we had gone to pre-emptive war to stop Germany before the Nazi horrors got going big time, then I have to assume based on what I see from the left now that the leftists back then would have been screaming we were wrong and there was no evidence the Nazis were a threat and no need to go to war, etc.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 4:51pm

53. I cut and pasted where you used it, but I have not used that word myself. And I certainly have not used either in the same sentence, as you claim here.

    And as far as the "experts" denying what does and does not work, you'll note in my earlier link that the CIA considered the information obtained from KSM through those interrogation techniques to be the most useful (i.e. "life-saving") intelligence they gained during the war on terror.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 2:58pm

    I apologize if I said something incorrect about you using the word "torture" and "waterboarding is not torture" in the same sentence.

    However, my point is the same, waterboarding is torture as defined by the United States of America (and the world). It's in TREATIES for god's sake! Just because John Woo, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney say it isn't doesn't mean a damn thing. One's a lawyer, one's a failure at everything he's ever done, and the third was President.

    The CIA can say anything they want to about whether or not torture was effective in getting information from terrorists. I want to see the tapes of the interrogations; I want to see the paperwork that backs up what they "say." Yet the tapes have disappeared and there seems to be no documentation of the torture. Hmmmmm, if I were a conspiracy theorist....I'd think they were trying to hide something from We the People. The CIA, you ask?? Not them!!! Anybody but them!

    I am an American citizen and I demand to know what they were doing in my name and with my tax dollars. But that will never happen will it?

    So please, go on believing everything the CIA tells you. I thought you "conservatives" were the ones who didn't trust government?

    Cattle.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:17pm

54. Stephen, Nobody every accused them of logical reasoning. All they can do is repeat what the talking heads tell them to say. Thinking is not allowed for right wingers. It's a dangerous things and there's a chance that some of them might come up with an original thought which the GOP can't have any of.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/21/2009 @ 3:19pm

    And they can (and do) all blame it on Eve, who ate of the forbidden fruit of knowledge.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:19pm

55. this is false. our own counter-terror intelligence has concluded, time and time again, that "they" (meaning: jihadist groups) hate us because of:

    a) our unconditional support of israel

    b) our imprisoning, torturing, killing innocent muslims

    c) our invasion/occupation of iraq/afghanistan

    d) abu ghraib/bagram/guantanamo

    gee, why would they want to kill americans?

    oh, right "because our way of life is unacceptable to them".

    sjchermak: dumb as dirt

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    "deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."

    "soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?

    We know Darlaloon hates herself and all American soldiers who she would rather see DEAD! She is the Islamic fascist terrorist best friend her at home!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 5:28pm

56. Stephen, where did you get that number of less than 10k?

    BTW Stephen, no president has ever declared war without Congress. Your's is an empty accusation.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 4:06pm

    Larry, You assume that the number of people "willing" to jihad (or even "supporting" jihad) is the same number of "terrorists" that are actively seeking the destruction of the United States. Bad assumption to make. That would be like me calling you a terrorist because you support some Christian group that once had a member who blew up an abortion clinic. I know you don't support that violence, so it would be unfair for me to lump you in that category, wouldn't it? Yet you do the exact same thing with your numbers.

    I admit I don't know the number of terrorists in the world. Then again, neither does the CIA. Neither does ANYONE and so your numbers are simply assumptions.

    I wonder how many evangelical Christians in America would agree that blowing up abortion clinics is a good thing. I am sure that there thousands of those too...or that would at least "sympathize" with the cause. Do you know that number?

    As for declaring war...I am ashamed for you. The Constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress, and being a literalist as you are, you know that no President CAN declare war...ever. So, where was the war declaration in 1991? (from Wiki) "President Bush said that as Commander-in-Chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress." Nice of him.

    So, that makes at least one war where it was "declared" by the President and President only. And what's good for Daddy in 1991 was good for Junior in 2004. That makes two.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:41pm

57. Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 4:51pm

    And now you show you know next to nothing about history.

    1. We were not threatened by Germany in 1938. Yes, Europe was, and Europe went to war.

    2. Yes, the Nazis did horrible things and Hitler was an evil, evil man; I am happy to say that my father fought in that war.

    3. The American people did not want to go to war in 1938. There is no way, politically, that the government could have persuaded people that America should go to war because there was no proof at that time, what the Nazis were doing. Similar to the reason Bush/Cheney/Rummy had to lie to get America into Iraq...Iraq was no threat to us (mushroom clouds), Saddam was being adequately confined (weapons of mass destruction), and Iraq (Saddam) was not connected with AQ (we KNOW that the terrorists met in Switzerland with Iraqis). Lies - all of them!

    4. There is no leftist "rule." I never presume to speak for anyone other than myself. However, I believe that pre-emptive war goes against the heart and the soul of the Constitution. It also goes against Congress' power to declare war, because Congress is the People's house, and I would think most Americans don't like war unless it is forced on us. Iraq was forced on us by our own President, not an enemy! That's what makes it an illegal war of choice.

    BTW Roosevelt knew about the death camps during the war and did nothing about them. America was bombing targets within miles of some of the camps and Roosevelt knew about it. I am sad that he did nothing to lessen the costs of the Holocaust; it is a shameful moment in our history.

    I will not play revisionist history with you. Who knows what would have happened in '38 if we had entered the war then? Maybe the Nazis would have gotten the A bomb first.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:58pm

58. And for contradictions, how about this one: Republicans are anti-abortion because "all life is precious" yet most are for the death penalty.

    Is that a contradiction, or what?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:40pm

    No, not a contradiction. Abortion is not a hot-button issue for me, but I do debate.

    Innocent life is precious. Worthy of defense.

    Take a stroll down death row, full of people who are there because of their lifestyle choices, and tell me about "innocense".

    Really, are you complaining here that Republicans don't give unborn children and tattooed, convicted filth moral equivalence? Why would anybody approach those two disparate groups as if they were equal?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 6:09pm

59. If we had gone to pre-emptive war to stop Germany before the Nazi horrors got going big time, then I have to assume based on what I see from the left now that the leftists back then would have been screaming we were wrong and there was no evidence the Nazis were a threat and no need to go to war, etc.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 4:51pm

    Oh and BTW, Prescott Bush (W's grandpappy) actively supported the Nazis in 1938. He did business with them, because...well...I guess business trumped morality in the Bush household. And to this day, it still does.

    http://tiny.cc/neknA

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 6:11pm

60. I am an American citizen and I demand to know what they were doing in my name and with my tax dollars. But that will never happen will it?

    So please, go on believing everything the CIA tells you. I thought you "conservatives" were the ones who didn't trust government?

    Cattle.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:17pm

    Well, the fact remains that the people I mentioned were indeed arrested. Unless you can offer some other explanation as to how authorities knew to arrest those particular people WITHOUT al Qaeda's number 2 man divulging what he knew about them or their associates, then I'm going to have to assume (Occam's Razor) they were arrested based on information given by KSM.

    And frankly, I don't really care how they got the information. What would you do to get that information? What line would you not cross? You have kids of your own? A wife? Parents? Frankly, there aren't many things I wouldn't do to somebody like KSM in order to insure their safety. I would certainly kill to prevent harm from coming to them. Honestly, I would even kill to prevent harm from coming to you. Without hesitation. So I'm prepared to kill in order to protect innocent life, but I'm supposed to be morally outraged that a murderous neanderthal got his head held underwater or was denied some hours of sleep? Not hardly.

    KSM gave up info that saved American lives. I have no doubt of it. There are at least 17-20 terrorists in custody right now because of what he told us. It only took about that many to kill 3000 of us.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 6:20pm

61. Stephen_Carver1,

    You have now answered the question, and you gave the answers I expected.

    The wrong answers.

    We know in retrospect that is was a mistake not to pre-emptively attack Germany and stop the Nazi threat and by not doing that millions more died than necessary and by not doing that we allowed the attempt by the Nazis to get going to wipe out an entire human race.

    In your item #3 above you state a lot of falsehoods. There were no lies by the Bush Administration. Go someplace and see if you can find the actual history about the period of the 80's, 90's and early 2000's rather than the re-written version.

    You will find that most all thought Saddam to be a threat, including Democrats and Saddam's own generals. Please don't even try to tell me that those who thought Saddam was a threat only thought that way because they were misled by George W. Bush - because that would mean that Saddam's own generals were misled by George W. Bush about Saddam and WMD!!!

    We had no way of finding out the real situation because Saddam was not complying with what was required of him - which was complete disclosure of where his program stood, and if it was so that he had no more weapons as he started to claim, complete disclosure of what happen to weapons he was known to have had.

    Instead, he was just letting Hans Blix wander around Iraq at the end to go places where there were no more weapons anyway.

    Saddam, I believe, stopped his WMD program at some point in order to get himself eventually declared free of WMD, so that he would be off the hook and could go back and start WMD again.

    To have continued WMD production would have continued to draw suspicion. Doing what he was doing would have gotten him free eventually but in a way enabling him to start up again.

    to be continued

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 6:25pm

62. Really, are you complaining here that Republicans don't give unborn children and tattooed, convicted filth moral equivalence? Why would anybody approach those two disparate groups as if they were equal?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 6:09pm

    No. What I am pointing out is that if you believe that all life (and you qualified it by saying "innocent" life) is sacred (and many conservatives are not as careful with their words as you), then what is the difference? However, I will argue that Republicans obviously care NOTHING for the pregnant woman, or they would leave her alone and let her make the best decision she knows how (whether to abort or not). I love the fact that a mostly bunch of white men get to decide what a woman can do with her own body, yet women get no choice when it comes to men.

    Not that it matters to the debate, but since you are a conservative, you know it's also cheaper to keep someone alive and in captivity for their whole lives than to execute them? I would think that would appeal to your fiscal conservative side.

    Not to mention, if you keep them all alive and in jail until they die, then there's no possibility of executing an innocent man, is there?

    Nor does the death penalty ever prevent any crimes of that magnitude.

    Nor does it bring solace to the victims.

    It's only about revenge.

    But I guess that fiscal, moral and logical stuff ain't high on conservatives' radar, is it?

    "Just kill em!"

    State sanctioned murder and illegal wars; that's certainly two ways to make us the moral leaders in the world, ain't they?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 6:29pm

63. Stephen_Carver1,

    ...And then, Hans Blix would have declared eventually that Saddam had no weapons anymore, the world would have removed the sanctions, and Saddam would have been back in business again.

    And we know now from the people that worked in his programs that this is what he intended to do. And we know from documents found in Iraq (and the tip of the iceberg has only been found yet regarding documents/information of the Iraqi government (led by Saddam) that Saddam was growing ties to terror organizations and seemed to have the desire to be a troublemaker in the mid east.

    He would have developed WMD and it would have gotten in the hands of terrorists. There is an excellent chance he would have used it and millions could have perished. Chemical and biological weapons can be hidden and do not require much to kill lots of people, he would not have needed any kind of army or navy and a small group of terrorists could have wreaked holy havoc on the world.

    We don't know if this would have happened but there is way too much of a chance it could have to have rolled the dice and taken the chance and do nothing.....and fortunately George W. Bush and Tony Blair were the leaders in the U.S. and the U.K. at the time and not anybody else on either side of the Atlantic.

    There were no "lies" there was a threat and we stopped it. There was a threat in the late 30's and we were wrong not to have stopped that....

    You say pre-emptive war is wrong but we learned not taking pre-emptive action can be a mistake big time.

    I have no idea what your point about the a-bomb is. If the Nazis did not develop an a-bomb by 1945 how could they have had an a-bomb in 1938?

    And who gives a flying crap about what Prescott Bush did or did not do? George W. Bush was President when it mattered.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 6:35pm

64. And frankly, I don't really care how they got the information.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 6:20pm

    And that's the point. I DO care how they got the information because I don't live in a land of state sponsored cruelty.

    If America is to stand up to the rest of the world and crow about how wonderful a nation we are, then we had better damn well BE a wonderful nation. Otherwise, we're just hypocrites.

    Which obviously doesn't bother you.

    Almost every expert will tell you that there are other ways of interrogating prisoners and getting the exact same information (if not better) by NOT torturing people.

    Who knows if they had used the other techniques whether or not KSM would have given up the same or better intel. I don't know. You don't know. And you choose to believe the CIA from the same big government you say you don't trust.

    http://tiny.cc/6f4KB

    Why is it you conservatives, when shown a better, less violent way of doing something, always reject it? Are you afraid of being less manly? Is it about your cajones?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 6:40pm

65. Again the Bush/Cheney lied about WMDs charge?

    Has anybody yet explained how Bush and Cheney were lying about Saddam's WMDs in 2003, but Bill Clinton and a few prominent House and Senate Democrats saying exactly the same thing in 1998 wasn't lying?

    At what time did the "truth" of 1998 become the "lie" of 2003?

    The typical response to this question is to point out that Clinton did not invade Iraq.

    That is immaterial, irrelevent to the question at hand. How does one tell the truth, while the other one is lying...with both of them saying the same thing?

    The logic doesn't work. Either they were both lying or they were both wrong. Wrong, but not actively seeking to deceive. Either they both were, or they both weren't.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/21/2009 @ 6:43pm

66. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 5:41pm

    Stephen, you obviously misread what I stated. Polls show anywhere from 10-35% support jihad and analysts believe those willing are at most 1%.

    But I stated to take it down even further to 1 tenth of 1%. That means 1.3-1.8 million jihadists (differences in estimates of the number of muslims). That means I was willing to stipulate to 10% of what many analysts estimate. Cut that even further if you like to 1 1/100 of 1%. that's still 130,000. there are more than 5000 in the Hezbollah cells in South America. Take Hezbollah in Lebannon has approximately 10,000 in the military wing (although they claim that all members are also part of their "military".

    As to the war issue, I specifically noted that neither Bush nor any other president has declared war. And you are confusing the presidents inherent authority to commit the military to force as EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM HAS DONE =BACK TO WASHINGTON, with the formal action of Congress which is usually after the fact, though seldom done. And even though they don't need it, the War Powers Act specifically authorizes that presidents can commit troops without a declaration of war. That law has never been challenged to the Supreme Court. It recognizes the inherent authority of presidents that is separate from formal declarations of war.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 6:47pm

67. "Instead, he was just letting Hans Blix wander around Iraq at the end to go places where there were no more weapons anyway."

    Yep, Hans Blix was wandering around and reporting that he wasn't finding anything BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO FIND!! There were no weapons ANYWHERE! That's the whole point! So Hans' reports were right and Bush & Co. didn't believe it (mushroom clouds again!), because W stated BEFORE he became President, that he wanted to go to war in Iraq, and Hans Blix' findings weren't in that scenario. So he had to lie to convince America that going into a country that hadn't attacked us was a good thing. That's why they passed the "preventive war" crap in the first place! How can you NOT see the logic in all of that?

    So, we went to war and are STILL at war in Iraq to confirm that there was nothing to find! You don't think there was a better way to do that than spend a trillion American taxpayers dollars? and thousands MORE American lives? You and I are a trillion dollars poorer and thousands of our citizens are dead because W got a hardon for Saddam. Now, try to tell me that ain't true.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 6:54pm

68. Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:37pm

    bonehead alert.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 6:56pm

69. Human rights have been a nice cliché of convenience used by the USA during the Cold War era. It was used as propaganda tool to draw on perceived differences between the US and the Soviet camp. It is ironic that during the same cold war era that the US had engaged in the most egregious human right violations in South and Central America. Very few in the world, with the exception of some naïve Americans, give credence to the US claims of adherence to human right principles. While the US criticized every perceived human right misdemeanor committed by the communist block, our own CIA was destabilizing dully elected governments and endorsing the worst global dictators from Indonesia to Chile'. Can Obama or any other US president reconcile between Human Rights and the US foreign policy, which is predicated on spearheading the exploitive and greedy nature of our multi-national corporations? It is doubtful that he can. How could we in good faith point a finger at the Chinese for not accommodating the aspirations of Dalai Lama, while turning blind eye to the genocide committed by our patron state, Israel, against the Palestinians. While some misinformed Americans don't seem to notice this double Standard; the rest of the world have never failed to notice this obvious hypocrisy.

    Posted by CripThink at 10/21/2009 @ 6:59pm

70. The US military says torture does not work in gaining useful intelligence.

    Damn lefties.

    The US military manual on interrogation does not condone waterboarding.

    Why do they hate America?

    However, some civilian politicians, civilian neo-con pundits and celebrity entertainers say it is effective.

    Who do the Nation cons follow?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2009 @ 7:01pm

71. Stephen_Carver1,

    Hans Blix found no weapons, but he certainly did not cover the entirety of Iraq.

    Saddam, meanwhile had not complied with what was demanded of him....which was to completely explain what had happened to weapons he was known to have had.

    As I mentioned above, his apparent lack of weapons at the time of Blix's inspection was by Saddam's own design anyway.

    Nobody knows and nobody may ever know what happened to weapons Saddam was known to have had. One blogger here recently on this website said they were all gone by 1991 and another said they were gone by 1994.

    So, 1) how the hell would they know? and 2) which was it, 1991 or 1994? or was it something else?

    But you and others seem that you would have been willing and comfortable to supposedly find that there are no weapons anymore WITHOUT any explanation on what happened to weapons Saddam was known to have had.....due to Saddams refusal to comply with what was demanded of him.

    Blix could not possibly have covered and researched every possibility, but you seem to be willing to be comfortable with the apparent lack of weapons anymore, with no explanation of what had happened to weapons he was known to have had.

    Weapons in this case being weapons that only a small amount could kill millions of people and be easily hid.

    But, what me worry, la de da, there are no weapons anymore, so let it go!!!

    I am not comfortable with the fact that no explanation was provided and no explanation was ever going to be demanded of Saddam of what specifically happened to weapons he was known to have had.

    I AM comfortable that we stopped Saddam before this charade would have led to him being off of the hook and back developing WMD again, which would have been the result doing what you say.

    But you

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 7:15pm

72. typo,

    The last two words "But you" were inadvertently left in my post after editing.

    Since I am submitting another post due to the typo, your argument is the standard argument by leftists .....there were no weapons when we went into Iraq.

    But you seem to not care that there was no explanation ever offered by Saddam as to what happened to weapons he was known to have had. You seem to be comfortable with no explanation, that is a pretty casual attitude for something as toxic as WMD.

    We did not know before we went into Iraq that there were no weapons, you and others re-write history to declare lies were made but if we did not know then there was no lie.

    If Saddam's own generals thought there was WMD then how could we have been certain there was not?

    We could not have been certain and we were not certain and we do not know to this day what happened to them or if they were in Iraq until the last minute or what.

    And we DO know that doing what you advocate we should have done (which was nothing) would have led to Saddam producing WMD again, this time with the world no longer concerned or paying attention to Saddam.

    You keep fixating on the lack of weapons found when we went into Iraq, because when you consider everything else about this, which was what was believed before the war, why it was not possible to know otherwise, and what the consequences would have been of not stopping Saddam, your belief about this matter is proven totally wrong.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 7:25pm

73. sjchermak evidently didn't read the report to which i linked, and which definitely concludes that american counter-terrorism efforts have done nothing to reduce anti-american hatred among muslims.

    and bigpasture has to be the most extreme blogger on these pages. he's like glenn beck crazy.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:57pm

74. No Darla LOON here is the most extremist blogger!

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

    "deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."

    "soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?

    We know Darlaloon hates herself and all American soldiers who she would rather see DEAD! She is the Islamic fascist terrorist best friend at home in the U.S.A.!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 11:16pm

75. Pine? Hardly, but should emphasize there is greater continuity of use and accumulation of executive powers mentioned and uses of the Patriot Act with Obama and Bush administrations than change. Gary Wills has written well on this in the New York Review.

    It involves a great deal more than humility....

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 10/21/2009 @ 11:31pm

76. "Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol of the group "Keep America Safe" were quick to attack us yesterday releasing a scathing response to the launch of our campaign "Close Guantanamo Now." According to their statement, those being held at Guantanamo "are dedicated to killing Americans".

    Those "dedicated to killing Americans" include Arkin Mahmud, a Uighur from China. The Bush administration determined six years ago that he was not an enemy of America and a federal judge ordered him and the other Uighurs wrongly imprisoned at Guantanamo to be released a year ago. Thanks to the hysteria whipped-up by the Cheneys and their right-wing allies on and off Capitol Hill, Congress has blocked their release into the United States."closegitmonow.org

    SJCHERMAK wants to keep innocent people in a gulag in Cuba, so he can "feel" safe.

    Just like he feels safe from weapons that did not exist.

    He continues to believe in things that don't exist, driven by propaganda.

    Meanwhile the actions of his "liberal president", GWB have given the extremists all the PR they could ask for. Islamo fascist terrorism continues nearly unabated, two countries are still failed states after 8 years, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Arab lives and trillions of dollars spent.

    But, thats OK, because SJ KNOWS that those weapons WERE THERE in 2003, because nobody found them it proves they exist. Even though only 3 people have been convicted by tribunals, he KNOWS this is the best way to move forward.

    Why?

    Because Liz Cheney and Rush told him so, and they are experts. Unlike Lt Gen Gard, who clearly hates America and is probably a Marxist spy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 07:36am

77. Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 07:36am

    sjchermak has made it clear that he believes everything is opinion. So, why complain about how his opinions have no basis in fact? He's already said as much. Further, responding to him only encourages his poor contributions. So, perhaps it's best just to ignore him.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:51am

78. "But you seem to not care that there was no explanation ever offered by Saddam as to what happened to weapons he was known to have had."SJ the Unbeliever

    Saddam was playing a game, with the US and his neighbors (you know, like Iran which was the Enemy before Saddam, when YOU supported Saddam with his wmd's). He may never have offered up an explanation, but he did say they had been destroyed. Of course, believing him is another issue. However, there existed evidence from the former head of his wmd program, evidence that Bush used to scare you by cherry picking the statements of Hussein Kamal, well it worked so well you are still frightened today after it was proven no wmd's existed.

    "In the evening of 22 August 1995, the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission met with General Hussein Kamal in Amman. The meeting was attended by Prof. M Zifferero (IAEA), N. Smidovich, and a person from King of Jordan court who served as an interpreter. The meeting started at 1950 hrs and lasted approximately three hours. The General spoke in Arabic with the follow-up translation by the interpreter.

    "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed"

    in 1991.

    Now, Hussein Kamal was not the witness that Curveball was, or similar to the "documents" that "proved" Saddam purchased uranium from Niger or as convincing as aluminum tubes that were unsuited to centrifuge use, so I could see how you would discount his evidence...it would reduce your fear and weakness...and you don't want that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 07:52am

79. So, perhaps it's best just to ignore him.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 07:51am

    Add him to the list that includes LIBSHITZ, BIG PASTURE and HAPPY?

    Might need to happen. I once thought he was one of the few reasonable cons, but he has proven me wrong. He is a propaganda eating scared sheep, willing to believe anything that rewards his fear based theology and inherent hatred of all things liberal, regardless of any good that has been done by liberal movements over the last hundred years, and regardless of the inability of his parties programs to produce a thriving employed middle class and to finish two wars started because they were afraid. All ills are clearly the product of Barney Frank and ACORN. Bear Stearns/UBS/Phil Gramm and Rumsfeld were simply helpless against the small minority of liberals that actually run the country.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 08:00am

80. I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, but I want SJ and the other supporters of his policies to take a quick look at a WWII poster and compare it to images out of the US controlled detention center in Iraq called Abu Graib.

    WWII poster-http://tinyurl.com/yhxjjt3

    VS: http://tinyurl.com/ykrx7je

    or

    Images 3,6 and 9 from http://tinyurl.com/p82vx

    After viewing those images, take a moment to compare the actions of dictators like Saddam to the tactics encouraged by SJ and his fear mongers.

    Waterboarding...OK for N. Koreans and SJ.

    Torture..OK for Saddam, Castro, N. Korea, Romanian dictators...and SJ.

    Next SJ will maybe try the "few bad apples" defense. But, he will not allow that defense of ACORN workers.

    So, why do former military commanders want changes to policy? The only logical reason...they hate America because they are liberals.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 08:21am

81. The meeting started at 1950 hrs and lasted approximately three hours. The General spoke in Arabic with the follow-up translation by the interpreter.

    "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed"

    in 1991.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 08:00am

    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." -Bill Clinton, 16 Dec 1998

    "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." -Bill Clinton, 16 Dec 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -Sandy Berger, Feb, 18, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999

    http://tinyurl.com/d4l9j

    Crabwalk, why weren't those Dems citing your general's conference where he ordered all the WMDs destroyed? Why did Clinton lie and bomb those targets?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 09:37am

82. The meeting started at 1950 hrs and lasted approximately three hours. The General spoke in Arabic with the follow-up translation by the interpreter.

    "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed"

    in 1991.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 08:00am

    "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." -Bill Clinton, 16 Dec 1998

    "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." -Bill Clinton, 16 Dec 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -Sandy Berger, Feb, 18, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999

    http://tinyurl.com/d4l9j

    Crabwalk, why weren't those Dems citing your general's conference where he ordered all the WMDs destroyed? Why did Clinton lie and bomb those targets?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 09:37am

83. excellent postings, crabwalk and also srjenkins:

    When you libs start delving into all the nonsense how scared Conservatives are, how we are just sheep eating propaganda, etc....then we on the Right know we have won the arguments because you are not offering substance of any kind, but B.S. instead.

    You just breeze past what has been said - ignoring it.

    I have mentioned that before the war in Iraq Saddam's own generals believed he had WMD, and Citizen_Carrier mentioned above that Democrats believed so also.

    Most all believed Saddam had weapons and was a threat. Some may have said otherwise, but most all people believed Saddam had weapons. Many entities (countries or people) who opposed the idea of invading Iraq did not do so because they were claiming there was no WMD...most opposed for other reasons, such as the propensity of those people to just keep negotiating, talking, etc etc, or like France that had previously a strong trading relationship with Iraq.

    Most of what we know now about the status of WMD in Iraq is what was found out after the war.......we had no other way of finding out because Saddam was not cooperating.....the potential of the damage WMD can do especially in the hands of someone like Saddam was too great to be ignored......the need to find out what was going on in and of itself justifies going in and intervening in Iraq.

    But it doesn't matter....me or other Conservatives can repeat this until Kingdom come, and back will come replies from you on the left that we are sheep who are scared and who just believe and repeat propaganda fed us by Dick Cheney, because everybody knows there are no weapons in Iraq and there never were or they were gone by 1991, or maybe 1994, or was it 1990, or was it 1776 (sarcasm) or what!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 09:44am

84. My personal position on Iraq was never one created or motivated by fear.

    Iraq waged a war of aggression to seize the territory of it's neighbors. This was an illegal war.

    Iraq lost that war. When you lose an aggressive war for territory that you initiate, you get put on probabtion. You don't get to behave as if you didn't just lose a war that you started. That you didn't uproot lives, destroy them, destroy property, and dump oil into the ocean.

    When you violate probabtion, you justify the resumption of hostilities. Not a new "preemptive war", merely a continuation of unfinished business.

    Fear had nothing to do with it for me. It was a simple case of cause and effect.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 10:21am

85. My personal position on Iraq was never one created or motivated by fear.

    Iraq waged a war of aggression to seize the territory of it's neighbors. This was an illegal war.

    Iraq lost that war. When you lose an aggressive war for territory that you initiate, you get put on probabtion. You don't get to behave as if you didn't just lose a war that you started. That you didn't uproot lives, destroy them, destroy property, and dump oil into the ocean.

    When you violate probabtion, you justify the resumption of hostilities. Not a new "preemptive war", merely a continuation of unfinished business.

    Fear had nothing to do with it for me. It was a simple case of cause and effect.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 10:21am

86. "When you lose an aggressive war for territory that you initiate, you get put on probabtion. You don't get to behave as if you didn't just lose a war that you started. That you didn't uproot lives, destroy them, destroy property, and dump oil into the ocean"

    (see: united states invasion of iraq, march, 2003)

    i don't remember the united states getting put on "probatio."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/22/2009 @ 11:02am

87. So, when Iraq invaded Iran...how long was the probationary period?

    How could we have known that Saddam had no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons or biological weapons in 2003? We could have asked Hans Blix. But, SJ hs answered that to his own satisfaction.

    the Big Point being...there were no wmd's in Iraq. I knew it, Hans Blix Knew it, Al-Baridaid knew it, most of the Intelligence community was pretty sure of it.

    So, at best Bush/Cheney and their sheep were wrong, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. And they appear comfortable with that, while calling KSM a creature.

    It appears that KSM and SJ share at least one concept...the ends justify the means.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:43am

88. You are cherry picking there, darladoon.

    I specifically made the argument that 2003 was not a new, preemptive war America waged against Iraq. It was a resumption of hostilities. The cease-fire agreements and U.N. sanctions on Iraq was it's "probation". That is what it violated.

    Under any understanding of the rules of war, when such agreements made to cease hostilities are broken, then hostilities can resume.

    Even then, you can hardly call it a resumption because the hostilities never really ended during the 1990s. Saddam considered himself at war with the United States basically all through the Clinton years.

    "i don't remember the united states getting put on 'probatio.'"

    Why would you remember the U.S. being put on probation? We weren't the ones who engaged in an aggressive, illegal war for territory in 1991. That was Iraq.

    It was encumbent upon Saddam to follow certain conditions so as to remain the dictator of his country. He did not do these things. What we did in 2003 was a consequence of HIS actions.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 11:44am

89. Another darkly amusing change in the "core values" of our cons is that all of a sudden they have become concerned about civilian casualties.

    I guess like teen pregnancy, experienced VP candidates and opposition to the Commander in Chief , core values are malleable when needed to score political points.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:46am

90. "Take a stroll down death row, full of people who are there because of their lifestyle choices, and tell me about "innocense". Ctitzen

    Why not tell us about the growing list of death row inmates that have been proven not guilty of their crimes. How does it help victims to kill the wrong person in revenge?

    Before you go ascribing attitudes a "lefty laws" to me, I am all in favor of executing guilty murderers and heinous rapists. The question is: how do you know you have the right person? The infallible justice system that cons constantly mock? ----

    "The cease-fire agreements and U.N. sanctions on Iraq was it's "probation". That is what it violated. "

    Read the UN resolutions. Pay close attention to the last line.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:51am

91. crabwalk,

    How did Hans Blix know there were no weapons anywhere in Iraq? Hans Blix hadn't found any weapons in his search yet but you are telling me he knew there were no weapons anywere in Iraq?

    How did he know this? Especially since Saddam had never provided what had been requested of him - a complete explanation of what happened to weapons he was known to have had, if indeed he had none anymore.

    Specifics, please. Complete detailed specific detail how Hans Blix knew with aboslute totally 100% certainty there were no weapons anywere in Iraq.

    You are making the claim because you say you knew also. How would you know - do you work or did you work for somebody that would be in a position to know?

    Did you talk face to face with Hans Blix and he provided you the total, complete unbridled detail about this, detail that proved with absolute certainty that there were aboslutely no WMD anywhere in any square inch of the entirety of Iraq, or anywhere else where they could be easily returned back to Saddam?

    You are making the claim. Provide complete total backup and detail to support the claim.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 11:53am

92. Woo Hoo!!

    a Nation neo-con accusing somebody of "cherry picking"!!

    Can you say double standard?

    I know you can.

    (what's that knock on the door? Oh my, it's the pretend Ms Rogers for the afternoon!)

    Apologies to Mr Carson.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:54am

93. So, when Iraq invaded Iran...how long was the probationary period?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:43am

    Different situation, don't you think? First, there was no clear victor that could've demanded that the loser pay pennance in the Iran-Iraq War. The 1991 Gulf War was a war between a belligerent country, Iraq, and a U.S.-led coalition comprised of Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Essentially, Iraq was fighting against the forces and opinion of a sizeable portion of the world in 1991.

    But I know that on a certain level, you understood this even when you wrote your sentence...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 11:54am

94. So, when Iraq invaded Iran...how long was the probationary period?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 11:43am

    Different situation, don't you think? First, there was no clear victor that could've demanded that the loser pay pennance in the Iran-Iraq War. The 1991 Gulf War was a war between a belligerent country, Iraq, and a U.S.-led coalition comprised of Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Essentially, Iraq was fighting against the forces and opinion of a sizeable portion of the world in 1991.

    But I know that on a certain level, you understood this even when you wrote your sentence...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 11:54am

95. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 09:37am

    Isn't Bill a known liar?

    Nice support for your arguments.

    I like how each situation is different for CC, when it comes to our "side" there is always justification.

    When Iraq invaded Iran, and used chemical weapons and purchased dual tech from the USA, Germany and France, the "real politik" required that we support Saddam Hussein, even though he was killing thousands of his own people and we knew it.

    When he invaded the dictatorial monarchy of Kuwait, everything changed.

    When Israel ignores multiple UN resolutions, the UN is a liberal Arab front.

    When Iraq ignores UN resolution, the only course of action is to bomb Falluja back to 1542. If we need to use phosphorous on civilians, so be it. If we need to pose detainees in homo-erotic poses, so be it. If we need to kidnap hundreds of people and bring them to Castros Cuba, call them "the most dangerous" and then release more then 60% of them after holding them for years, so be it. Those are the actions of a freedom loving people, whereas the actions of KSM are deplorable. If we need to stuff an Iraqi general into a sleeping bag, wire it closed till he is dead, so be it.

    But, the cons do not believe in situational ethics.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:05pm

96. crabwalk,

    I notice I made a typo above and asked for "detailed specific detail"!

    I think that is funny - especially since I expect I will get no detail at all from you, most likely - just a link to an opinion by somebody that does not show with certainty there were no weapons anywhere there by 2003.

    I also realized that this profound knowledge that you and Hans Blix shared was not as public knowledge as you apparently think - otherwise can you explain why the news media didn't leap onto this wisdom?

    With a leftist bias news media and George W. Bush the president and quite apparently at that point (early 2003) preparing to have to go to war if necessary, please do not even try to tell me the leftist bias news media would not have started to have stories each and every day interviewing people that were supposedly experts and in the know (such as Hans Blix, Al-Baridaid and last but not least yourself) about the lack of weapons in Iraq and thus why is George W. Bush possibly going to war if there are no more weapons?

    This did not happen, as you know. Not as many people as you apparently think "knew" there were no more weapons in Iraq.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:06pm

97. Darla, thats "glen dreck crazy".

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:08pm

98. But it doesn't matter....me or other Conservatives can repeat this until Kingdom come, and back will come replies from you on the left that we are sheep who are scared and who just believe and repeat propaganda fed us by Dick Cheney, because everybody knows there are no weapons in Iraq and there never were or they were gone by 1991, or maybe 1994, or was it 1990, or was it 1776 (sarcasm) or what!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 09:44am

    SJ,

    I will agree with you that Clinton, etc. all believed (while he was in office) that Saddam was either rebuilding or reconstituting a weapons of mass destruction program after Gulf War I. That's why the UN sent Hans Blix and his teams into Iraq for a couple of years. Blix' teams found NOTHING. Because there was nothing there.

    Bush went to the UN and got a resolution passed for the use of force. He promised Congress, before he invaded Iraq, that he would go back to the UN a second time, which is the only reason Congress passed its resolution for the use of force against Iraq. He didn't go back to the UN. He lied to Congress. That's one lie. And he did it for the sole purpose of getting Congress' tacit permission to go to war without declaring war, which is unConstitutional.

    Bush connected Saddam (through Cheney) with 9/11. Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bush knew it. Another lie to the American people.

    The intelligence community (at least part of it) KNEW Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but that portion of the intelligence community was told to shut up because it didn't fit politically with Bush's plans.

    Bush lied about Nigerian uranium. LIED. When called on it by Ambassador Wilson, Cheney through his underlings, outed Wilson's CIA undercover wife, Valerie Plame (a treasonous offense).

    All LIES.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:24pm

99. and bigpasture has to be the most extreme blogger on these pages. he's like glenn beck crazy.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 9:57pm

    darla, why do you antagonize the poor beast so? He's like a dog with a bone.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:27pm

100. And even though they don't need it, the War Powers Act specifically authorizes that presidents can commit troops without a declaration of war. That law has never been challenged to the Supreme Court. It recognizes the inherent authority of presidents that is separate from formal declarations of war.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 6:47pm

     And I would argue that the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, as should you if you were a true Constitutional "literalist" instead of just a war monger.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:31pm

101. "I also realized that this profound knowledge that you and Hans Blix shared was not as public knowledge as you apparently think"

     Dueling quotes:

     In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

     Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

     Your HUGE assumption is that there is actually a "liberal media". Closer to reality is that the voices of reason were drowned out by the desire for revenge. Instead of putting David Albright, Juan Cole or Brezinski on the air, the "liberal media" chose as their guests BJ Honeycut and Jeanine Garrafolo against Dick and Liz, the newly "informed" Condi Rice, burying Walter Pincus on page 23 and front paging such luminaries as Bob Novak and the bought and paid for Gen McAffery. Then the "liberal media" swooned over Aviator Bush and his Package, calling him "the New Spider Man", A true hero and the guy what brung us the Accomplished Mission.

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:32pm

102. Deja Vu all over again...I believe we have slogged this out a hundred times already. If SJ and CC want to believe in Wmd toting Easter Bunnies, there is nothing i can post to change that.

     Facts: Iraq was no threat to the USA. Period. No threat to his neighbors. Period. Iraq has undergone years of violent chaos.

     Opinion: evidently the chaos in Iraq has been worth it to the neo-cons. I see little change in Islamic radical terrorism since the war in 'the central front of Islamic terrorism" began, so my thought is maybe a better Plan was in order. But, I don't believe in Easter Bunnies or The Rapture so who am I to judge?

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:39pm

103. Have a nice day.

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:41pm

104. Stephen_Carver1,

     I understood the relevance of 9/11 with regard to Iraq - that we were going into Iraq to stop future 9/11's not avenge the one that had already happened.

     If I understood it, then why didn't you understand it.

     Your claim that Bush connected 9/11 to Iraq is weak and can't be substantiated.

     If I understood it, why didn't you understand it?

     Since when was Richard Armitage a Dick Cheney "underling"?

     If you want to talk about liers, talk about Joseph Wilson.

     He said that he determined during his trip that the documents that supposedly tied uranium to Niger were not genuine.

     Problem is, later on people realized that the existence of these documents of whatever worth did not come to light until after Mr. Wilson's trip.

     He, of course, could not possibly have reviewed documents he did not even know about.

     Again I pose the same question to you as to crabwalk....how come the news media did not blow the whistle on this, if it is as you say?

     Crabwalk has answered my question with gibberish, because there still is no explanation (from crabwalk) why mainstream NBC, CBS, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. would not have been doing much more on this if what you say is true.

     At no point did the news media ever "swoon" over George W. Bush.

     (Off topic slightly, but the media certainly did swoon over Obama the night of his election - I saw it for myself on television)

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:46pm

105. Isn't Bill a known liar?

     Nice support for your arguments.

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:05pm

     You'll note that I also cited Albright, Pelosi, and Sandy Berger. I can go on...

     "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

     "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

     "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

     "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

     I await your observations on the honesty of these additional names...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/22/2009 @ 12:47pm

106. Stephen_Carver1,

     I know what is going to come back next..................yes I know you never said the media swooned over George W. Bush.

     It was crabwalk that said that....in my reply to you I also started addressing things crabwalk said.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:48pm

107. But, I don't believe in Easter Bunnies or The Rapture so who am I to judge?

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 12:39pm

     You don't believe in the Easter Bunny??? Say it ain't so, Joe!

     But the resurrection of the Christ has everything to do with rabbits laying chicken eggs.

     Ummmm. I think.

     Or perhaps it's just another pagan ritual adopted by the Christian church to pacify the locals on the spring Equinox and make it less about fertility and sexuality. Those Christians certainly don't like sex, but I bet the pagans know all about rabbits.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 1:17pm

108. Stephen_Carver1,

     In order to really tire you out (I just was over on the other blog refuting you about Texas) I would say that your 1:17 post above makes more sense than anything you have said here so far.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 1:33pm

109. Water boarding does not qualify as torture. Besides, vermin who saw off peoples heads while alive or blow up womens cafeterias just because they want an education do not deserve human rights, mainly because they are not human.

     Posted by pyeatte at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm

110. "At no point did the news media ever "swoon" over George W. Bush. "

     nope, never happened.

     MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

     MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

     ...Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell.

     Brian Williams:WILLIAMS: And two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art farm -- art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today.

     ...One observer here tonight said it was like the Beatles climbed out of that plane, and that's very much what it looked like from here.

     Bob SCHIEFFER: As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time.

     KLEIN: Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day.

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 4:01pm

111. <i>Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 1:17pm </i>

     Not to be too technical, but I don't think Easter is on the spring equinox. Also...the crucifixion happened around springish, didn't it?

     That said...rabbits? Really? The only connection I've EVER heard anyone try to make is "let's lay plastic eggs...and then have kids open them...and say 'hey, they're empty, like the tomb! Sorry, no candy!'"

     Now, the same cannot be said of Christmas. The timing for Christmas is a pretty blatant effort to assimilate aspects of a prior competing custom. Not that Christmas isn't its own custom based on events that I think took place...but he wasn't born in December.

     That said...an organ + trumpets help make both days absolutely incredible.

     <i>Posted by pyeatte at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm </i>

     1) How is waterboarding not torture?

     2) At what point does someone cease being human?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/22/2009 @ 4:12pm

112. Carlson: Cecil B. DeMille couldn't have been done better. And even though you know there's no Santa Claus, Christmas is still great, as it was with that particular moment.

     Can't find the quotes now, but he was compared to Spider Man, Gwen ifill fell over herself praising his manly entrance, etc.

     ----

     So SJ, you were able to find quotes by pols that support the debunked theory that Saddam had wmd's/ Why don't you supply us with some quotes from the people on the ground, people like Blix and Ritter? Or people like Albright, or the head of the UN atomic regulatory agency Muhammed (spelling of last name escapes me now).

     I Guess it may interfere with your ability to live in fear if you had to find quotes from people that were correct in 2003 and then look back and question why the pols were wrong, and why you followed them.

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 4:13pm

113. "'hey, they're empty, like the tomb! Sorry, no candy!'" "

     ROFLMAO!!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2009 @ 4:16pm

114. Your claim that Bush connected 9/11 to Iraq is weak and can't be substantiated. Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:46pm

     Now you're just being stupid and willfully ignorant, or were you not alive and paying attention a few years ago?

     "There clearly was a relationship [between Iraq and al qaeda]. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time. (2004)

     http://tiny.cc/1MPmy

     There's also this: http://tiny.cc/DCyEu

     As for the media swooning over Bush's election? Well, that MIGHT be because he was elected under a HUGE cloud of doubt, lost the public vote by about a million votes, and managed to win the electoral college only after the Supreme Court stepped in and made him President on a vote of 5-4, after a dispute in the state where his brother just happened to be governor. (now, if I were a conspiracy theorist....) W. was the first President in history that was elected by only 1 vote. So, there was really no reason to swoon over him.

     Barack Obama's election, on the other hand, was an historic event, or have there been any other black Presidents elected that I am unaware of? If you want to call the media acknowledging that an historic moment was happening right before all of our eyes "swooning," well, I can't stop you. I guess Cronkite was "swooning" when we landed on the moon, too.

     Too bad you can't be happy over something truly historic happening in America, rather than be all "leftist media" due to your blinding, outdated and outmoded ideology. You poor little Republicans, so sad and pathetic, really.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 4:22pm

115. Posted by Thrawn at 10/22/2009 @ 4:12pm

     You're off base here. Take a look at the Christianization article in Wikipedia.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 5:34pm

116. <i>Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2009 @ 5:34pm </i>

     Ahhh, interesting. Objection withdrawn. I do wonder, though, how much the historical claims made are in the general mainstream of thought.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/22/2009 @ 7:28pm

117. Stephen_Carver1,

     You asked:

     ".......or have there been any other black Presidents elected that I am unaware of?....."

     Answer: Yes, Bill Clinton.

     Remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first Black president.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 7:51pm

118. sjermack [quote]According to ME, you have no ability to see any difference between #1 and #2. This is standard "moral equivalance" which has been practiced by the left in many ways for a long time now. [/quote] You forgot to explain that #1 is liquid, and #2 is solid, but both can be disposed of simultaneously, it just Depends.

     Posted by douglaslee at 10/23/2009 @ 05:32am

119. Remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first Black president.

     Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 7:51pm

     If there were a stronger word than "pathetic" to describe your last few posts, I would use it.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:28am

120. Seriously, because what we've basically got here is me asking:

     "How can such a jolly old fat man fit down a narrow chimney with all those presents?"

     And instead of answering, you go into citing blogs and fringe forums talking about mysterious radar signatures seen on Christmas Eve.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/23/2009 @ 12:47pm

121. Seriously, because what we've basically got here is me asking:

     "How can such a jolly old fat man fit down a narrow chimney with all those presents?"

     And instead of answering, you go into citing blogs and fringe forums talking about mysterious radar signatures seen on Christmas Eve.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/23/2009 @ 12:47pm

122. The REAL 'axis of evil' is the line running from Wall St., through the Great Banking State of Delaware and straight to the White House. Always been that way. This country has been little more than a life support system for robber barons, slave traders, capitalist imperialists, labor-hating fat-cats and international banksters for a LONG time. Lincoln and JFK were the only two presidents who seriously tried to reform our filthy financial system and we all know how well that worked out. Is anyone REALLY stupid enough to think any President has the guts to go several steps further and defend human rights? Probably because these 'people' who run everything lost their humanity long ago. These reptiles have Obama in the crosshairs, just like every other president.

     Posted by DejaVu at 10/23/2009 @ 1:01pm

123. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/23/2009 @ 12:47pm

     Oops, wrong blog...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/23/2009 @ 1:13pm

124. Deep down the president believes in human rights and implementing laws that protect the citizens of the world.the problem is that the zionist reptiles,the military industrial complex and the financial sector will not allow him to enact the policies that will ensure rspect for human rights and international laws.

     Of course the most deadliest and most dangerous of these reptiles are the zionists who have a starnglehold on american foriegn policy.consider this law (the hate crime bill) that is supposed to protect gays and other minorities which is fine.but the zionist have smelt the blood and have pushed and added amendments to this bill that would make it eventually criminal to critisize their apartheid paradise.

     The president is a decent gentleman but unfortunatley is surrounded by a den of deadly snakes that care more about building walls,stealing lands and butchering defenceless civilians.

     Posted by excalibur999 at 10/23/2009 @ 3:38pm

125. Human Rights only for those we support and agree with? Ya lefties sounding pretty far to the right. BTW, 'Israel a fascist, racist state????' Must have it confused w/ its neighbors; Syria, Saudi, Iran, etc. Israel's a multiethnic democracy with equal rights for all. About as fascist as Canada. Get over your silly screeds.

     Posted by monkeywrongs at 10/23/2009 @ 6:07pm

126. Why is there Islamic terrorism way out in places like Indonesia?

     could it be because Indonesia has more muslims than any other place on earth?

     it is tiresome to argue with ignorant assholes, but sometimes I just can't resist.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 09:41am