Holder -- and Obama -- Must Focus on Torture Accountability

posted by John Nichols on 08/25/2009 @ 08:00am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (199)

Subscribe Now

Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to take the counsel of the Republican partisans who have been campaigning in recent weeks to avert an accountability moment with regard to the Bush-Cheney administration's torture regime.

But that does not necessarily mean that an accountability moment will come.

For that to happen, Holder -- and, by extension, President Obama -- must stop being so cautious about laying the groundwork for the prosecution of wrongdoings.

They must, as well, be far more explicit in spelling out the purpose and point of the investigation into the use and abuse of so-called "harsh-interrogation" techniques by the Central Intelligence.

For now, Holder has opened what he refers to as a "preliminary review" into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists in the years after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations," Holder said in a statement issued by his office. "The department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow."

Let's be clear: it is good that Holder has decided to take a more serious look at the use of torture during the Bush-Cheney years.

But he has done so in a disturbingly cautious manner that is described by the American Civil Liberties Union as "anemic." That runs the risk of encouraging the campaign by Missouri Senator Kit Bond and a handful of senators -- working in conjunction with conservative broadcast and print outlets -- to narrow the scope of any inquiry to such an extent that it will yield little in the way of accountability.

As with the battle to defend insurance-industry control over the healthcare system, Republican partisans in Congress are going to fight hard to block any inquiry that might expose and hold to account members of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Bond, in particular, has made it his mission to thwart anything akin to a real investigation.

Taking the lead in the campaign to block an investigation of officials who initiated, authorized and encouraged the use of torture, Bond has shown no qualms about using his position as the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect partisan allies and prevent checking and balancing of executive excess. He has little to lose; after an undistinguished Senate tenure, the man who was once boomed as a Republican presidential or vice presidential prospect is a lame duck senator who will leave the Capitol after the next election.

But Bond is determined to finish his career with a partisan flourish.

And he is in a position to do so.

As a senior Republican senator with close ties to key players within the intelligence establishment -- both at the CIA and among independent contractors associated with the agency, Bond was the key signer of a last-minute missive urging Attorney General Eric Holder to drop plans to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the use of torture during the Bush-Cheney years.

The other signers of the letter, all Republican senators, are Alabama's Jeff Sessions, Arizona's Jon Kyl, Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, Texan John Cornyn, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn, Utah's Orrin Hatch, Iowa's Chuck Grassley and North Carolina's Richard Burr. With the possible exceptions of Hatch and Grassley, all are among the more rabidly partisan members of the senate's Republican caucus. Bond has traditionally been a more responsible member of that caucus. But with this letter, he positions himself as the key point person in the struggle to prevent the inquiry Holder has initiated from getting anywhere.

Bond and his compatriots argued that the appointment of a special prosecutor would "have serious consequences not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans."

In fact, the appointment of a special prosecutor should have serious consequences primarily for dishonorable members of the Bush-Cheney administration – including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Vice President Dick Cheney and, perhaps, former President Bush. Creating a false conflict between the rule of law and national security, Bond and his co-signers argued in their letter to Holder that, "It is ironic that the Obama administration, which has delayed justice for the victims of September 11 by suspending the trial of (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), may soon be charging ahead to prosecute the very CIA officials who obtained critical information from him." The absurdity of this argument is that it suggests the primary focus of an investigation will be on low-level or even mid-level Central Intelligence Agency operatives.

For it to be meaningful, the investigation can and should focus on the people who authorized the use of torture and who outlined how it should be applied. Those are high-level players in the Bush-Cheney administration, not "honorable members of the intelligence community." The only place at which low-level CIA operatives might become targets of an investigation – or perhaps face prosecution – would be if followed their own personal agendas.

The Center for Constitutional Rights offers a proper perspective:

Responsibility for the torture program cannot be laid at the feet of a few low-level operatives. Some agents in the field may have gone further than the limits so ghoulishly laid out by the lawyers who twisted the law to create legal cover for the program, but it is the lawyers and the officials who oversaw and approved the program who must be investigated.

The attorney general must appoint an independent special prosecutor with a full mandate to investigate those responsible for torture and war crimes, especially the high-ranking officials who designed, justified and orchestrated the torture program," the center said in a statement. "We call on the Obama administration not to tie a prosecutor's hands but to let the investigation go as far up the chain of command as the facts lead. We must send a clear message to the rest of the world, to future officials, and to the victims of torture that justice will be served and that the rule of law has been restored.

The point of any inquiry has to be to identify those who set the torture policy -- deliberately violating the US and international laws, refusing to share information with Congress and lying to the American people -- and hold them to account.

Holder needs to spell this out.

So, too, does President Obama.

It is essential to confront the spin from Kit Bond and compatriots immediately and aggressively.

If Holder and Obama pull their punches, they will give opponents of accountability the opening they need to thwart it.

Comments (199)

obama is and was a coward. He has embarrassed us Democrats who truly want a LEADER, not a follower with a BIG EGO!!! obama needs to get some balls and put the bush/cheney crime family in prison where it belongs. The law was broken and his bullshit about looking forward should be a line ALL criminals and their attorneys use in court so they go free. Is he just stupid or what!!!!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/24/2009 @ 9:53pm
Mr. Nichols - the appearance is that Holder (meaning, on the torture issue, Mr.Obama) intends to do a witch hunt culminating possibly in a show trial. Probably a lower-level official can be expected to go on trial - if Holder (Obama) goes after a high-level official, as you (and I) would like to see, that would start a war with high-ranking rightists with a stake in the issue. Likewise, if Holder goes after actual CIA interrogators, he would probably lose a lot of trust at the CIA amongst the rank and file.

I have a feeling that those who believe in accountability for the higher level Bush officials behind the human rights abuses will be disappointed. Sadly, disappointment is becoming the defining term for the Obama presidency.

Posted by syfriendly at 08/24/2009 @ 9:58pm
but wasn't lynndie england already charged for all this?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2009 @ 10:28pm
Holder and all, have my full support to go on an extended witch hunt to appease the Left! Let's drag the CIA and all those who enabled them, out into the open....

After all, there is nothing like fresh precedents for the GOP to go after the Dems who are shoveling out money to their cronies & enriching their media consultants!

All I can say, yet again but with increasing HAPPINESS: time is our friend and USS Magic's staying the course heading for that iceberg, is a beautiful sight to behold!

Posted by Happy at 08/24/2009 @ 10:47pm
I agree with the previous comment. As much as I hate to adopt the rhetoric of the Right, it sounds like what we're going to see is a show trial. It would be perverse to prosecute someone who overstepped legal torture guidelines (dislocated both of a detainees shoulders rather than the one allowable? forced detainees to lie naked on floor that could cause frost-bite rather than just hypothermia?) while the government lawyers who authorized torture in the first place now enjoy tenure at prestigious universities.

No matter how narrowly Holder defines his brief, it's going to inflame the Right's media-corporate-political-insurance-industrial complex. But I'm not sure who is going to be there to support the prosecution of some 'rogue' agent who went too far, who took Cheney's exhortations too literally.

Posted by blacksquare at 08/24/2009 @ 10:49pm
This is purely a political " witch hunt" and will be a disasterous ploy by Obamanations Admin. and the Demoncrats that will bite them hard in 2010 and beyond!

Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 11:48pm
Hey why not. More like a demon hunt at this point. The sooner the Obama admin give up on the non-functional and obstructionist new con repub blood sucking ticks, the better. There's a good reason that dog won't hunt. Best apply a good dip of needed tick killer. That dog will see the light of day again so help me...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 12:42am
"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday."

hmmm......

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 01:14am
just to give you an idea of bigpasture's bottomless stupidity, he can't even realize that:

a) this is anything but a witch hunt. holder will confront low-level staffers, and that is all

b) these low level staffers will get a slap on the wrist

c) obama won't ever go after high level officials, just like he won't ever push single payer (or the public option), because otherwise his benefactors will instead give money to the republicans.

d) obama, and the dems, are too weak to challenge the status quo, so all this crap about a 'witch hunt' is just reactionary propaganda (not shocking consdering you're about the most brainwashed of right wingers on this site).

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 01:18am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common- sense-2009_b_264706.htm l

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 01:19am
Give him a chance. He has a lot on his plate.

Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/25/2009 @ 02:51am
Darla's right: this isn't a witch hunt. This is a dog-and-pony show choreographed to distract people's attention from health care.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 06:31am
The disgrace of the Bush years already seem clear. The problems regarding torture go all the way to the top. The president and vice -president, with little regard for the constitution, used their power to subvert US law. Will they pay a legal price, probably not. The price they will pay is with their legacy.

Any reasoned, thinking historian has and will conclude that the Bush years rival the Harding years. No amount of whining or 'explaining' by diamond dick will change that.

Posted by erazma at 08/25/2009 @ 06:52am
Here's Ralph Peter's take on the week.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08252009/postopinion/ opedcolumnists/a_winning_week_for_terror_186331.htm

A WINNING WEEK FOR TERROR

WEST'S HUGS FAIL TO STOP THUGS

...Libya's Moammar Khadafy staged a huge homecoming party for the terrorist [Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi]. (Think that would've happened while W was president?) The gleeful Khadafy rubbed the West's snout in our feckless taste for appeasement.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 07:49am
Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 11:48pm

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 06:31am

Again, DTT lied when he said he "never listens to Limbaugh"....the "distraction" line was Rush's main talking point just yesterday on his show.

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 07:50am
A % thrown out there in the MSM currently of those that actually engaged in the torturing, from top to bottom, is about 1% or less.

Why stain all the CIA and our military for what the hsuB/cHeney admin did with their secret extraconstitutional torturing/death squad/programs?

Surely the 99% of the CIA and our military that did play by the Geneva Convention rules would also be vindicated once the cowardly hsuB/cHeney criminals are prosecuted and jailed. I know if I were in the CIA or military I wouldn't want to be associated with this scum.

But I can understand if the new con repub preverts need the cover.

Take that fig leaf away and they got nothing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 07:55am
This is purely a political " witch hunt" and will be a disasterous ploy by Obamanations Admin. and the Demoncrats that will bite them hard in 2010 and beyond!

Posted by BigPasture at 08/24/2009 @ 11:48pm

They only thing that is going to "bite them hard" is Obama's base. Obama is already losing the support of those that got him elected. Between weakness on Healthcare, Iraq and Afghanistan and temporarily reinflating the economic bubble with top down government spending Obama is already well on the road to a single term.

Not holding the previous administration accountable for numerous crimes against the American people and the Constitution is only one more nail in the coffin of his presidency.

Obama is forgetting who actually got him elected. Big Mistake.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 08:03am
In my opinion these are the things Obama needs to do to insure a second term.

A) Pass meaningful Healthcare Reform with a strong Public Option.

B) Send no more troops to Afghanistan and start withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

C) Vigorously support investigation and prosecution of high level Bush Administration officials for the crimes they commited.

D) Initiate a second Stimulus Package that is focused on bottom up economic programs like "Cash for Clunkers".

Germany and France are climbing out of recession. We should look at how they are doing it. Their stimulus programs introduced last year amounted to $67 billion for Germany and $37 billion for France.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 08:32am
chaoszen--batting 4-for-4! nice average!

a), b), c) and d)--NONE of you demands will be met.

oh, right...that's 0-for-4! yikes!

glad to see you haven't killed yourself (and that you find the nation useful to fill up your days)

Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 08:54am
glad to see you haven't killed yourself (and that you find the nation useful to fill up your days)

Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 08:54am

You seem to be obsessed with me killing myself. Odd, as I have never mentioned that desire. As far as filling my days, 6 1/2 of those days I spend working. Today is my half day off. And for the most part I am spending it doing laundry :(

If I can get it done before I run out of time, I will take a spin on my Harley. My days are full already. The Nation is something I do in between times or when I'm sitting in my Motel room in Nebraska waiting for my truck to return from Denver.

Not much of a life, but it's all I have. Certainly not so bad that I would kill myself.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 09:29am
"I am all alone"

"I am alone"

"I am so alone"

"I'm leaving and never coming back"

--all written by you...a psychiatrist would say that sounds suicidal

Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 09:32am
Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 09:32am

When you see someone standing on a ledge do you start chanting, "Jump! Jump! Jump!"?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 09:35am
I've had my fights with Zen, but I certainly know how he feels. It can be very alienating to realize the world is moving in a direction different from that which you desire.

It is very difficult to master that emotional detachment needed to accept society's failings. Case in point, I've come to recognize spending too much time here as a sign I need to get my depression medication adjusted.

It is very common to get completely emotionally invested in society's direction. Candidate Obama's year-long campaign of hope and change was inevitably going to lead to a certain amount of let down. That doesn't make the disappointment any more palatable.

My advice, show a little compassion and cut him some slack.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 08:54am |

As far as my list of things that Obama needs to do to get re elected is concerned, I doubt if any of them will be accomplished. More's the Pity.

Four more American soldiers died today in Kandahar for nothing. If someone had asked them what they were doing in Afghanistan, I doubt if any of them could have really answered.

I spent quite a bit of time in Kandahar, back in the early seventies. I rather liked it there. Not such a bad place then. At least not until the Russians invaded and now the U.S.

Seems like nobody remembers what happened to the Russians...

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 09:47am
Afghanistan is a tough place in the best of times. Having been there in better times I can imagine what our troops must be going through now. When I was there I didn't have to worry about getting shot at or driving by a roadside bomb. And it was still difficult.

I got Dysentery for the first time, while in Kandahar. What a mess. Thought I was going to die. I recovered from that and when some time later I arrived in Kabul I got food poisoning in the "Best Restaurant in Kabul". That one came very close to doing me in.

Just being in that part of the world is dangerous enough, without having to fight an opponent that is well versed in repelling invaders. They have been doing it for a very long time.

The total deaths of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan for August 2009 now stands at 41. And August is not over yet.

Obama has blood on his hands. And it is a wonder that this Milquetoast "Mr. Rodgers" doesn't crumble.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 10:29am
Why haven't there been any terrorist attacks in the US in yeqrs? Even back in the days of the 19th century anarchists there were more bombs going off.

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 10:47am

James von Brunn?

Scott Roeder?

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 11:31am
"...Libya's Moammar Khadafy staged a huge homecoming party for the terrorist [Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi]. (Think that would've happened while W was president?) The gleeful Khadafy rubbed the West's snout in our feckless taste for appeasement."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009

Yup, Khadafy was *the* OBL of the 1980s. Reagan went so far as to bomb Tripoli in time for the opening of the network news...

...And, fastforward 20 years, George W Loser's biggest enabler, the staunch Tony Blair, visited Kadafy's tent in the desert in 2005 to give the flatus-prone dictator with a bloody terroristic past a rimjob and invitation to The Club!!!

That's not "would've happened while W was president...)". That's what DID happen, DARIN, while you were inhaling cupcakes for a robust physique.

[Now watch as DARIN backtracks into a similar posture of rimjob to the dictator/terrorist now that DARIN knows that his role models have had done so, in between those same anti-terror absolutist role models sparking up fake terror alerts in their political crack pipe]...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/25/2009 @ 11:36am
"This is a dog-and-pony show choreographed to distract people's attention from health care."

darin, it is neither of these things.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 11:36am
Why haven't there been any terrorist attacks in the US in yeqrs? Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 10:47am

Because Bush and Cheney made us safe? They attacked Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11 and then they gutted the Constitution. And Bush said "Bring it On". And all the Evil Muslims got very scared and ran off into the desert. How is that for a little revisionist fairy tale?

My personal opinion is that the possibilty of Domestic Terrorism is fairly high right now. All the right wingnuts in the media are busy ginning up hate amongst the psychopaths. Just check out Glen Beck as one example. An enemy of the state and a terrorist. That runs around free as a bird.

I would be very surprised if we get through the next year without the crazies setting off a bomb somewhere. Or one these milita freaks spraying a town hall meeting with automatic weapons fire.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 09:46am

"Case in point, I've come to recognize spending too much time here as a sign I need to get my depression medication adjusted."

Ever consider it was a cause rather than a symptom? The conversation here could depress anyone.

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 10:47am

Perhaps it is because "terrorist attacks" of any significance have historically happened rarely in the United States. Let's review the 20th century:

Sept. 16, 1920: New York City Jan. 24, 1975: New York City Feb. 26 1993: New York City April 19, 1995: Oklahoma City

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 11:31am

I think he was specifically thinking of "bombs" - which would make the United States the biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:43am
I would be very surprised if we get through the next year without the crazies setting off a bomb somewhere. Or one these milita freaks spraying a town hall meeting with automatic weapons fire.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 11:40am

Delusions of a radical leftist

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 11:43am
"darin, it is neither of these things."

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 11:36am

Wow, you really told him off!

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/25/2009 @ 11:43am
"... I followed up Simpson's article about Holder's ties to the RNC via Covington and Burling LLC, his employer during the last eight years. Holder reportedly received some $2 million in compensation from C&B during his tenure, which coincided with a number of high-profile cases against the Bush administration.

On its website, the company boasts more than a few such cases, in which it worked for Bush et al. In nearly every one, and while Holder was happily a partner in the firm, C&B defended GOP operatives--and also the financial industry and Big Pharma. These, of course, are all the very players responsible for the immense corruption of the US public sphere.

Check out the litany of litigation that C&B has been involved in, mostly on the RNC side. Remember, these are the company's own proud claims.

Must we, then, still wonder why Eric Holder is a no-show on GOP election-rigging and selective prosecutions?"

http://www.cov.com/

Posted by TarryFaster at 08/25/2009 @ 11:54am
It's all quite disturbing. If the only means of protecting us from terrorist attacks is immoral, then we must be worried by the dilemma. If such means were not necessary but were used, then we should be worried as well. If attacks begin again, whether by "crazies" or from other "rational"(?) terrorists, we should be even more worried.

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 11:55am
anyone, and i mean ANYONE, who is opposed to holding torturers accountable (and this includes obama and holder) is politicizing (or obstructing) what should be a real, honest, and thorough investigation.

serious.

ANYONE opposed to investigations is inherently against the rule of law, the constitution, democracy, transparency.

by saying it would be a "dog and pony show" or "distraction" is (obviously) political theater.

and not the other way around (i.e. we need investigations).

btw, the ACLU is basically doing the justice department's job.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 11:58am
Nothing would do more to save the GOP than for President Obama literally turn Bush and Cheney over the The Hague in handcuffs for war crimes.

Let's indeed take these war crimes all the way to the top and let MSNBC and The New York Times and the rest of the liberal media have a field day. Nothing could do more for conservatism at this point in time.

Posted by rjensen65 at 08/25/2009 @ 12:03pm
"Nothing would do more to save the GOP than for President Obama literally turn Bush and Cheney over the The Hague in handcuffs for war crimes."

precisely my point about 'playing politics' with the constitution, democracy, transparency, etc.

obama is only interested in winning elections, not in following the rule of law.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 12:08pm
Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 11:55am

"If the only means of protecting us from terrorist attacks is immoral..."

The problem is the premise that torture "protects" anyone. Torture increases the risk. It makes it more likely that people will want to commit violent acts against the government perpetuating torture. It makes it less likely that other governments will assist in bringing terrorist to "justice" if that involves torture.

In short, it fails on both moral and efficacy grounds.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 12:11pm
Today's outraged virgins about CIA's actions should crack a history book or two ;)

All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum's encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995) 1) http://killinghope.org/ 2) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

A History of CIA Atrocities http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/history-cia-atrocities.htm

The Hidden History of CIA Torture: America's Road to Abu Ghraibhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCC409A.html

Ice Water and Sweatboxes The long and sadistic history behind the CIA's torture techniques. http://www.slate.com/id/2213959/

History of CIA Torture: Unraveling the Web of Deceit, Part I http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7100

As for our very own amazing mofos...

THROW DA FUCKING BOOK AT THE LOT OF THEM !

The Fifty Top U.S. War Criminals Who Need To Be Prosecuted http://pubrecord.org/commentary/3717/fifty-criminals-prosecuted/

Question remains : Will Rove pick up the soap ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzPJPHVjc78&feature=channel_page

FLASHBACKS OR BACK TO WHERE WE NEVER LEFT ?

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.: William Colby: Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from September, 1973, to January, 1976.

In examining the CIA's past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. - Frank Church / He served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1979 to 1981.

Posted by white noise at 08/25/2009 @ 12:14pm
"Delusions of a radical leftist"

--antisocialist, 08/25@11:43am

George Soldini? Oh yeah. He was an uncompromising radical leftist-feminist trapped inside a man's body. Right, ANTI?

Scott Roemer? Another pro-choice feminist-symp who had been steeped in the collected works of Jane Fonda & K-Marx. As everyone knows. Right, ANTI?

Timothy McVeigh? America's most murdeorus homegrown terror monger of course had a background that spanned from College Democrats out to the Spartacist League. Right, ANTI?

James von Brunn? Of course, for years he had been a leftwing pamphleteer, soapbox regular & guitar-strumming peacenik who championed an uncompromising agenda of equal rights for all. Right, ANTI?

The fact is that, from fake Bush-era terror alerts to psuedo victims like ASHLEY TODD (who beat herself up and then blamed a non-existent black man for Obama), to the "anti-secular humanist" rightwing religionism of AlQ, all of these people who thrist for hate & violence are from the hard right.

Violent. Hateful. And right wing. It's not a coincidence. It's in their political DNA. It IS what THEY ARE.

Also, while ANTI harps on every topic here from his herbal remedies to his experience of having died & come back to life, he has said not a word about BARRY25's bald-faced admission that he is sad and nostalgic about the post-911 era having passed. Yup, the fuck said it: B25 is "nostalgic" for the immediate aftermath of the mass slaughter of our people.

So, just wondering, ANTI, whataya think of all these apostles and aoplogists for violence who always congregate under the blood-stained flag of rightwing ideology? Why is it such a circus of violent spasms & hateful, foam at the mouth venom that erupts whenever your "friends" & fellow travellors get the chance?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/25/2009 @ 12:21pm
"This is a dog-and-pony show choreographed to distract people's attention from health care."

darin, it is neither of these things.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 11:36am

sure it is.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:25pm
To call lawful adherence to the Geneva Conventions a witch-hunt, as some comments here do, is asinine.

Posted by noxidereus at 08/25/2009 @ 12:30pm
Well the crazies are already carrying guns around Obama events as compensation for their intense feelings of inadequacy.

You know the better Obama does the worse these new con repub preverts get.

Do you think perhaps that Obama has been playing his massive ability to persuade somewhat down so these new con repub spawn do not harm themselves!?!?

However so, I really think it's more likely the opposite direction could be just as true-- what if the Obama admin take the dysfunctional obstructionist repub preverts to the shed and exsanquinate the blood sucking ticks! Investigate the bloated golden calf worshipers 'til they're malleable enough to implant human hearts.

Then we get our nation back.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 12:43pm
Nothing would do more to save the GOP than for President Obama literally turn Bush and Cheney over the The Hague in handcuffs for war crimes.Posted by rjensen65 at 08/25/2009 @ 12:03pm

The Gop and real conservatism are dead. The remaining members of the Republican Party are Fascists and in no way resemble the GOP of old.

Bush and Cheney among others would most likely be proven guilty of War Crimes if tried at the Hague. Bush an Cheney should be tried for Mass Murder among other crimes. But I doubt that they could even be tried for War Crimes at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. I don't know that much about the procedures.

Most Americans would like to see justice done by the rule of Law.

By I would be surprised if any justice is done. Justice for their crimes will probably have to wait for Karma or a Higher Power.

But as it stands now, I know longer believe in the rule of law . If certain people are above the Law, then the Law is a mockery and no one should be held to account for anything.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 12:46pm
It makes it more likely that people will want to commit violent acts against the government perpetuating torture. posted by srjenkins

That's an interesting idea, in theory. But of all the violent acts in history, from the Persian invasion of Greece in antiquity up through the 1948 Arab attack on Israel to the Timothy McVeigh bombing, how many were committed by people offended at their enemy's treatment of somebody? In fact, it's usually the other way around: the Chinese claiming that the Tibetans are mistreating the Chinese who live in Tibet, the Nazis complaining about the Czechs abusing Germans living in the Sudetenland.

Of course, none of this justifies mistreatment of anybody, it just means that the current administration is in a tough position if there is another terrorist attack: they don't have the moral authority of, say, John McCain, who suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese and can say that certain interrogation techniques are off-limits even if they might extract useful information that could prevent a catastrophe.

And on that topic: does anybody here think the current administration is using different methods than the previous administration?

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 12:48pm
Then we get our nation back.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 12:43pm

got any new polls to paste for us?

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:49pm
Obama has blood on his hands. And it is a wonder that this Milquetoast "Mr. Rodgers" doesn't crumble.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 10:29am

Ya know, zen, Obama has screwed up a couple of things, admittedly. However, I think he's just another example of "on the job training" that every President receives in their first few months of office.

Even if Obama had screwed up the health care debate by simply allowing the right wing nutjobs airtime and not framing the debate properly (not all of which he has control over, mind you), if the health care debate was the ONLY thing he had to worry about when he arrived in office, I'd say he'd still be doing a good job. However, think about the historical context: no incoming President since FDR had as large a domestic hurdle to overcome; no incoming President EVER had to deal with two mismanaged foreign wars simultaneously; no incoming President has ever had to deal with an opposing party that shows absolutely no interest in fixing the country's problems, but has instead become so entrenched with ideology that they have failed to even admonish the crazy people who carry guns to Presidential events.

And he's managed to keep an even head about all of it. Of course his poll numbers will go down; they always do. I find it funny that all those neocons who didn't care about poll numbers when W was in office are the first to point out Obama's numbers. The fact that Obama's numbers are falling and theirs are not going up makes me laugh hard.

No one ever truly know what being President is going to be like, because regardless of the preparation you have, the world will throw things at you that you didn't expect. I am just glad that a genuinely smart man is at the helm, mistakes and all, and hope that wisdom will arrive soon.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/25/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 12:49pm

Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,600 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Date __________Approve__Disapprove

8/20-22/09_______54_______38

8/19-21/09_______ 53_______40

8/18-20/09_______53_______40

8/17-19/09 _______ 51_______42

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 12:30pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 12:57pm
The guys in orange look like there lined up for a firing squad...which is probably what should have happened to them when captured on the battle field...

Someone should yell, fire...since many end up back on battle field..ALLAH AKBAHR

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:08pm
Had to laugh yesterday watching the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC.

Johnny Nichols was on and demonstrated for all to see that he is a far left marxist radical by quoting SAUL ALINSKY to explain the healthcare situation and the debate between conservatives and the left.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 1:12pm
Obama is definitely still more popular than he was last year!

Gallup Poll. July 10-12, 2009. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Barack Obama?" 12/06: ". . . Illinois Senator Barack Obama"

Date__________Favorable__Unfavorable

7/10-12/09________66_______33

5/29-31/09________67_______32

1/9-11/09_________78_______ 18

10/10-12/08_______62_______35

7/25-27/08________61_______35

5/30 - 6/1/08______ 58_______37

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 1:12pm
"The guys in orange look like there lined up for a firing squad...which is probably what should have happened to them when captured on the battle field..."---Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:08pm

Including the 100s of innocent ones that even BUSH released?!??!!??!?

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 1:20pm
Steven Carver, thanks for that, we all need a pep talk now and again to help keep things in perspective, I honestly believe that Obamas heart is in the right place, and that plus smarts will win out, I can HOPE can't I?

Posted by Denise29 at 08/25/2009 @ 1:26pm
FAUX radio was all kill kill kill this morning. They're so shitting in their leather S&M panties. But like who could tell...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

How about a recent poll...

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:28pm
With the creation of a specialized interrogation unit that would focus on key terror suspects and report to the White House-based National Security Council and the continuation of the rendition policy, there is no hope LEFT to be found in the Obama Administration: no hope for genuine change, no hope for a clean break (or any kind of break) from the relentless and ruthless promotion of empire, oligarchy and militarism.

The decision, which comes as the CIA faces fresh scrutiny about interrogations it conducted under the Bush administration, paved the way for the president to appoint today a de facto interrogation czar -- to join the ranks of White House-based directors (all corporatist' activists from the phony-left Apollo Alliance and the neo-liberal Netroots Nation) for health care reform, the auto industry overhaul, energy and other issues. (Where do you think the health care bill HR3200 everyone is arguing about came from?)

This continues the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Wall St. & foreign oligarch controlled neo-liberals (neo-liberals are corporatists dressed in democratic drag) and another level of Obama's corporatist' (OBAMA IS A CORPORATIST NOT A SOCIALIST, FOR YOU CONFUSED RIGHT-WINGERS or you confused left-wingers) takeover of America. It is not early to discuss the "I" word (IMPEACHMENT). True leftists, true progressives, true Democrats should lead the way and not let the right be the only critics of & opposition to the Obama corporatist putsch. Take back the Democratic party. Stop the Apollo Alliance/Netroots take over. Show them what true progressives believe. (for instance, single-payer not public option, withdraw from Afghanistan, real reform of the economy, no torture period.)

Posted by perryfellwock at 08/25/2009 @ 1:28pm
Including the 100s of innocent ones that even BUSH released?!??!!??!?

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 1:20pm

no, they were released. I would only shoot them if they re apperaed on the battle field..

whats your point?

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:29pm
"far left marxist radical" =

anyone who attempts to reverse the damage caused by the bush administration. nevermind setting a new course. just reversing the damage/covering losses.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
I would only shoot them if they re apperaed on the battle field..

whats your point?

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:29pm

Know how many civilians were killed?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
"far left marxist radical" =

anyone who attempts to reverse the damage caused by the bush administration. nevermind setting a new course. just reversing the damage/covering losses.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 1:32pm

Only Darla could attempt to defend statements by someone using the proposals of a radical who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" as simply "reversing damage" by a previous administration

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 12:48pm

Let's take the two most recent examples 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings.

1. Osama Bin Laden and 9/11:

"I will speak to you about the reasons behind these incidents. I will honestly tell you about the minutes in which the decision was made so that you will consider. I say to you that God knows that the idea of striking the towers never occurred to us.

Your security is in your own hands But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.

The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/ 3966817.stm

2. Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City:

"The destruction of the Waco compound enraged McVeigh and convinced him that it was time to take action. The government's use of CS gas on women and children angered McVeigh; he had been exposed to the gas as part of his military training and thus was familiar with its effects."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

"...even if they might extract useful information that could prevent a catastrophe."

The ticking time bomb scenario is a bad argument. You cannot point to any example in history where this circumstances existed and torture was effective.Even if you could, you also could not say it was more effective than not using torture.

So, it's fine to use this bad arguments when you and your buddies are sitting on the back porch drining Bud. But, you need to do a little bit better than that with people that ain't in the choir.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:08pm

Can you refresh my memory? Which war did you serve in and which branch? How many people have you killed?

Easy to talk about killing people in the battlefield and "Bring it on" when you've never been on a battlefield.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 1:55pm
Iraqi innocent civilians killed:

low end = 46,000

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/IraqiDeaths.aspx

high end = 1 million+

http://tinyurl.com/mbqgt3

And even then, YJomamma would've killed much much more.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 2:08pm
Do we really need to have another war here in the USA for the new con repub preverts to understand what hell innocent civilians experience in a war torn country and the greatest reason for war to be one of LAST resort rather than as one of choice for PROFITS.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 2:17pm
My advice, show a little compassion and cut him some slack.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 09:46am

You are getting soft in your old age Darin.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:21pm
And hey, lets not forget the tons of depleted uranium that ain't going nowhere:

http://tinyurl.com/mwnhfu

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 2:23pm
Delusions of a radical leftist

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 11:43am

How quickly you forget. The most successful attacks on American soil aside from Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were commited by radical Americans not Radical Islamists. So why is this just a delusion? This is an acceptance of fact. Once again you live your life in imagined fears. The biggest threat to this country if you look at our history is radical Americans. But you can't accept that fear because your imagined fear has to be an enemy outside of the United States. I suggest you step back from the frothing at the mouth that was caused by the stoking of fears carried out by the Bush administration and just for a second look rationally at the situation. If you can step back and do that you will see that Radical Islam is the least of our issues.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:26pm
The guys in orange look like there lined up for a firing squad...which is probably what should have happened to them when captured on the battle field...

Someone should yell, fire...since many end up back on battle field..ALLAH AKBAHR

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:08pm

Or maybe if you step back and look at it logically you will notice that the reason that people we presumed to be innocent end up on the battlefield is because we are actually creating terrorists. By capturing people, locking them up, torturing them and then holding them maybe these people are actually beginning to hate us and want to carry out actions against us. I know in your mind that's completely impossible but if you know anything about human nature you would see how possible and indeed probable it truly is. You are now suggesting we should be shooting innocent people on the battlefield. Which makes you no better than them.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:31pm
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 1:54pm

But Bin Laden's and Timothy McVeigh's stated motivations that you quoted above said nothing about interrogation techniques. In fact Bin Laden's complaints referred to a Lebanon that was the territory of Hezbollah that was at war with Israel. Bin Laden's reasoning makes about as much sense as whatever excuse the Soviets used to crush the Prague Spring.

Of course none of this has anything to do with stopping mistreatment, especially of captured terrorists. But saying that interrogation encourages attacks is just inaccurate. Saying it doesn't work is even more counterproductive, since that brings the debate down to a crude dispute over the efficacy of various techniques (remember when steroids first came out and authorities tried to stop athletes from using them by telling them they were "ineffective"?). It's better to stick with the position of somebody like John McCain, who says it's wrong because it's wrong, not because it's ineffective.

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 2:32pm
By I would be surprised if any justice is done. Justice for their crimes will probably have to wait for Karma or a Higher Power.

But as it stands now, I know longer believe in the rule of law . If certain people are above the Law, then the Law is a mockery and no one should be held to account for anything.

Posted by chaoszen at 08/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

Again, the is EXACTLY how I felt. If the Chief Constitutional Officer of the US is absolved from perjury why should anybody have to follow the law?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 2:34pm
Investigation of the CIA's torture episodes will be similar to the investigation of Abu Ghraib, a hand full of low level idiots (the guy with the power drill for instance) will be the sacrificial goats while the guys who set policy will only get their hands slapped, at most. Obama and the Pelosi/Netroots Democrats must protect the neocons and the Bush family because ultimately there is no difference between them. Both sides of the same coin. Free trade, empire, militarism, corporatist take overs of what is left of American industry, continued Wall St. & foreign investment banks' rip-offs of the American taxpaper, protection of the role of insurance companies in determining health care policy and practice, expansion of Federal power where it is not needed, weakening of Federal power where it is needed, stimulus programs that do not build enterprise nor provide jobs, continued support for foreign dictators (such as the Saudi's who attacked us on 9/11), and the list goes on. There is no substantive difference between the neocons who took over the Republican Party and the neoliberals who took over the Democratic Party. Torture and rendition will go on regardless of what Holder and the Justice Dept. do. Unless a grass roots movement actually develops that can hold Holder and Obama's feet to the fire.

Posted by perryfellwock at 08/25/2009 @ 2:46pm
Don't you people realize the reasons that Obama has retained Rendition and is opposed to a special prosecutor going after the Bushies? He wants to be able to use aggressive interrogation (torture) when he feels he has to. Just like every other president since George Washington who have either authorized torture or turned a blind eye to it in order to save American lives. You people may not feel the same when it turns out that Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton also either authorized it or pretended they didn't know it was happening. Bush is the only moron who allowed people to take pictures and publish them. Can't rely on it? Bullshit! The only info you can't use is a confession. Anything else can be verified and God help the poor bastards that lie to you. Why else would we take prisoners instead of just popping them in the field? You folks want to feed them, give them cable TV and a lending library? Well there will be a place in heaven for all you commendable people. But I also hope there is a place for your kids and grandkids who died at early ages because you didn't use techniques that could have saved their lives.

Posted by bean22 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:51pm
So what we're saying is that Holder doesn't have any work to do. This is merely payback by the dems because of the Clinton investigation. What's Ken Starr up to these days?

So they were tortured. Give em some cash and send them home.

Posted by sofakingdabest at 08/25/2009 @ 2:56pm
During the The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Yukio Asano was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor for waterboarding American troops.

Was the IMTFE a witch hunt?

Was the sentence Asano received justified?

Posted by FLaim at 08/25/2009 @ 2:57pm
Jonathan Turley was right all along: While the constitution MANDATES an obligatory investigation and persecution of war crimes---there is NO choice involved here-- Obama will never go down that path because inevitably it will reopen the can of worms of 9/11, and the rest of the world knows that is the ultimate nail in a coffin with too many nails already.If the cowardly milquetoast Obama doesn't do it---and he surely made a deal with the Bush dictatorship not to do that-- the rest of the world will do it for him.Forget about restoring any vestige of America's global respect and reputation. We are in the gutter, and there are many many nations, governments and people all over the world that privately revel in that sight.Our arrogance has done us in.

Posted by mystic7 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:01pm
With a 9 trillion dollar deficit, 15% real unemployment, two wars and Iran getting ready to deliver an atomic weapon I don't think this immature administration should be pissing away any time going after President Bush just to appease you people. Get over it. As stupid as you say George Bush is he made complete asses of the left for eight years. It is time to pull your heads out of your collective asses and start preparing for the shitstorm(s) that are coming.

Posted by wredner at 08/25/2009 @ 3:16pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:29pm

Everybody grabbed "on the battlefield" should be shot, Maasch?

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm
"You are now suggesting we should be shooting innocent people on the battlefield. Which makes you no better than them" (Cccomfo1) Excellently said. J.M. Coetzee's masterpiece (written in 1970)"Waiting For The Barbarians" affirms that we have become the very barbarians who tortured us. Same with Israel.

Posted by mystic7 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:29pm

Everybody grabbed "on the battlefield" should be shot, Maasch?

Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm |

The "on the battlefield" are their neighborhoods, temples of worship, shopping malls, schools,...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 3:31pm
This immature administration SHOULD go after the Bush war criminals not simply because they are guilty but to prevent this immature administration and all future administrations from committing war crimes. Of course, that won't happen (so those of you who relish torturing or shooting everybody grabbed on the battlefield can relax. The Obama administration is your best friend, even if you don't realize it. The Obama/Netroots-phony-Democrats may differ from the neocons and Bushies on tactics and style but they have the same goals: continue the free trade empire called globalism, continue the planned demolition of America, reduce the human population by any means necessary, and ultimately support 21st Century-style dictatorship whether by Cheney subterfuge or Obama dictat.

Posted by perryfellwock at 08/25/2009 @ 3:32pm
You people may not feel the same when it turns out that Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton also either authorized it or pretended they didn't know it was happening.

Posted by bean22 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:51pm

What a multicolored rhinestone embedded leather reverse strap-on straw dildo!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 3:36pm
"Just like every other president since George Washington who have either authorized torture or turned a blind eye to it in order to save American lives."

Posted by bean22 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:51pm

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Posted by FLaim at 08/25/2009 @ 3:40pm
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …"– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).

Regarding the surreal expansion of government immunity for malfeasance, tort and torture, by the courts in collusion with DOJ for accountability, I note that in 1995 I argued and won in the U.S. Supreme Court, Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), where DOJ under Eric Holder surreally argued that a DEA agent outside of the US was not negligent for causing a car accident while driving drunk and having sex.

Thus, it is very odd and a bit cynical that Holder will determine if those involved in torture will be prosecuted!!

Because of the evidence of malfeasance of the Federal Judicial Branch conspiring in criminal collusion with Beltway Lobbyist/Attorneys and government attorneys (i.e. Eric Holder) to obstruct my rights as a father I have filed Federal Criminal Complaints under RICO in Virginia, D.C., Colorado, NY, and Pennsylvania (See http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance/; and http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/).

I note that I opposed Holder's nomination and confirmation as Attorney General based on the above record of malfeasance. (see http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror.

Posted by IsidoroRDL at 08/25/2009 @ 3:41pm
I suggest you step back from the frothing at the mouth that was caused by the stoking of fears carried out by the Bush administration and just for a second look rationally at the situation. If you can step back and do that you will see that Radical Islam is the least of our issues.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:26pm

This may be due to how young you are, but many of us formed our views PRIOR to GW Bush becoming president.

My views were formed by understanding history and watching the modern Islamic threat develop from well before you were born.

Radical Islam has been one of the most serious threats to us for over 200 years. It has been the pre-eminent threat to Western Civilization for nearly 1400 years.

It became one of our top threats approx 30 years ago.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:42pm
This may be due to how young you are, but many of us formed our views PRIOR to GW Bush becoming president.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:42pm

And thus the (pretend) election and (pretend) re-election of the worst US president ever (pretend) elected in recent US history.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 3:47pm
This may be due to how young you are, but many of us formed our views PRIOR to GW Bush becoming president.

My views were formed by understanding history and watching the modern Islamic threat develop from well before you were born.

Radical Islam has been one of the most serious threats to us for over 200 years. It has been the pre-eminent threat to Western Civilization for nearly 1400 years.

It became one of our top threats approx 30 years ago.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:42pm

Weird how for being a major threat for 1400 years it's attacks have been minor compared to many others. By all estimations they got lucky on 9/11. Other than that what major attacks have been succesfully carried out against us? I can tell you many major attacks that have been carried out by Americans that have succeeded. You are looking at this from a religious perspective. Not one of rationality. You are religiously opposed to Islam. If you were looking at this again from a rational point of view you would see that Radical Islamists are of very little threat to our country compared to many many other threats. The flu kills more Americans a year than they do. Until they gain some power, which judging by the state of their part of the world is unlikely they are of no serious threat to the United States. We would be better off divorcing ourself from the region and leaving it alone.

Again I say step back and look at it rationally, not religiously, not politically but from the point of view of sheer numbers and you will be able to see my point.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:48pm
Eric Holder must prosecute all the way up to and including Bush and Cheney. They are most likely responsible for ordering the torture techniques. I also feel they are most likely responsible for the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center controlled demolitions of all three buildings which would therefore make them murderers, traitors, theives and liars !!! There are many videos of proof of all three buildings coming down with multiple explosives going off all the way down !! You can clearly see them on www.video.google.com. We as a free country need to take advantage of our availble freedoms while we still have them and bring these men and their associates and cohorts in the many crimes they have committed against humanity !! We must send a "STRONG MESSAGE" to these evil men and their families that they will NEVER again gain the power over the AMERICAN PEOPLE to murder us, steal from us, lie to us and send our brave sons and daughters to foreign lands to die for their greed and power grabbing of other countries resources !! They are responsible for over a million deaths !! We must not let them get away with it !! Rise up and fight for our country !! Take it back from the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX !! J.F.K. would have if they (The Bush Family) and their C.I.A. cohorts didn't kill him!! The C.I.A. is our AL Qaeda. Al Qaeda is C.I.A. ! Have a clue AMERICA and throw these rapscallions (Bush and Cheney) and some key people in their administration in prison where they belong and hang them by their devious little necks !! If we were able to open some more C.I.A. documents I am sure we would expose G.H.W. Bush and his father Prescott and Richard Nixon for the J.F.K. assassination. JUST DO IT AMERICA AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK !! It's TRUTH, not conspiracy theory !

Posted by roostertlc at 08/25/2009 @ 3:50pm
Also I say this with no contempt or insult anti. But you look at things from the religious perspective which is inherently irrational because it relies on events and suppositions that cannot be quantified and have little to know empirical evidence to back them. Everything in the Bible, the Torah, The Quran and every other religious text is predicated upon the acceptance that their god or gods exist. A point which cannot be proven or disproven. Making everything about it irrational. This isn't to say irrationality equats to being wrong. Simply that when I ask for a stance of rationality we need to look at quantifiable fact not religious bias.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:52pm
Considering all the damage to the reputation of Islam in the past few years from fatwas, hijackings, beheadings, tossing people in wheelchairs off boats, etc., what should Muslims do to improve the image of their religion and culture around the world?

Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 3:53pm
to antisocialist

If, indeed, you have studied the history of the modern Islamic threat, then you should know that so-called Islamo-facism did not arise within any natural form of Islam until the Orientalist Bureau of Great Britain's MI6, with help from the british and american neocon movement, began fostering radical islamic sects 30 to 35 years ago and having their surrogates in Saudi Arabian intelligence pay for the operations. The Brits did this so that there could be a replacement for the "communists" now that the Cold War was winding down. Instead of the Red Menace, we now have Islamo-facists behind every tree. The Moslem Brotherhood was formed in London. Ayatollah Khomeni began organizing against the Shah of Iran from London with British help. And Osama Ben Ladin had british intelligence vicars guide his emergence in the frey. Al Qaida is an operation of Saudi intelligence with winks, nods and suggestions from MI6 (and quite possibly from those sectors of the CIA who are witting). On 9/11 we were attacked by Saudi Arabia. Bush (long time friend and ally of the Saud family) then began protecting Al Qaida and their Saudi masters while attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is continuing to not go after Ben Laden or his Saudi paymasters while continuing Bush's diversionary wars. (Personally, I think we should have sent Dog the Bounty Hunter into Wazirastan and we would have had Ben Laden in chains within 48 hours). Instead, first Bush and now Obama (by misusing the Delta force, other SOFs as well as the Army, Marines and Air Force) have allowed the Saudi terrorist to enjoy his freedom.

Posted by perryfellwock at 08/25/2009 @ 4:02pm
Weird how for being a major threat for 1400 years it's attacks have been minor compared to many others. By all estimations they got lucky on 9/11. Other than that what major attacks have been succesfully carried out against us? I can tell you many major attacks that have been carried out by Americans that have succeeded. You are looking at this from a religious perspective. Not one of rationality. You are religiously opposed to Islam. If you were looking at this again from a rational point of view you would see that Radical Islamists are of very little threat to our country compared to many many other threats.

Again I say step back and look at it rationally, not religiously, not politically but from the point of view of sheer numbers and you will be able to see my point.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:48pm

As I said, I formed my views on Islam from history, not religion.

Minor attacks?

Invading India, parts of China, the entire middle east, Europe including the occupation of Spain for hundreds of years, stopped at the gates of Vienna, stopped short of Paris. Invading and conquering most of Northern Africa.

Then there were the Barbary Wars with Europe and the US

The Muslim Barbary pirates preyed on Christian and other non-Islamic shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea beginning with the Crusades, but more importantly in the 16th century after the fall of Granada to the Christians (1492). The attacks continued into the early 19th century.

You call that minor?

Western civilization was successful in shutting down Islamic expansion until the later part of the 20th Century. Oil revenue has fueled this resurgence of over a 1000 years of Islamic conquest.

I can fully separate my religious faith and still comprehend history.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 4:06pm
France does not count babies who die in the first day in their infant mortality rates. They count them as stillborns.

Conversely, the US does follow the definition by WHO and counts these in their infant mortality numbers. Likewise, many other countries refuse to follow the WHO rules and thus have lower infant mortality rates.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:46pm

Link please. Back it up or you're once a again a proven antichristian.

As far I see their stats are standardized or else they couldn't be compared:

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table2.pdf

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_TOCintro.pdf

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 01:30am

Did you ever find that link that proves what you stated antisociali? If you're just making up shit all the time, this needs to be understood since you post soooo much.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 4:40pm
It is depressing once again to view this kind of thread.

The mild part is where many who are on the left here have pronounced themselves judge, jury and executioner over the question of the activities of the Bush Administration.

Then it gets worse, courtesy of roostertlc.

This blogger (roostertlc) declares that the World Trade Center towers came down by a controlled demolition.

The second aircraft flew into 2 World Trade Center on live television. The ABC broadcast clearly shows the plane striking the building.

The question of how and why the towers collapsed has been answered over and over again. It was either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine did a detailed article explaining the construction of the buildings and why they collapsed. There was no controlled demolition.

Roostertlc then pronounces the Bush family and Richard Nixon as guilty for the JFK assassination.

Earth to Roostertlc: In case your wondering, one person only was responsible for the murder of JFK - his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe he completely acted alone.

Maybe Eric Holder ought to seek Roostertlc's advice during this "investigation"....then it would become a complete three ring circus.

Posted by sjchermak at 08/25/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by Mistral at 08/25/2009 @ 2:32pm

I should think that the connection between bombing a building, using gas and torture is pretty obvious. If you don't think there won't be some future terrorist attack based on torture - just as there were for the previous two, you suffer from a severe lack of imagination.

It is also amusing that you object to talk that's against torture on efficacy grounds. The funny things is that "ticking time bomb" framing like the one you use is basically an efficacy argument. So, ignoring it and trying to stick to a deonotological stance against torture leaves this position untouched.

While I can hold to moral positions about torture, I can also show that it does not work on its own terms - that their is no real life example of the absurd hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario, and it is impossible to show that even if one were to exist that information could not be obtained in another way. So, it fails as an argument.

Another point worth making is that John McCain basically provided cover for the Bush administration's policy of torture. The Detainee Treatment Act limited torture to the U.S. Army's Field Manual to DoD personnel. The U.S. Army's Field Manual was revised subsequent to the Act's passing - which points to the problem of having the definition of torture in the hands of the DoD rather than spelled out in the law itself. The DoD limitation is also a problem - given the role of the CIA and contractors in "defense".

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 5:09pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 4:40pm

Sorry for the delay. One of my nieces was using the computer about a week ago and wiped out 10 years of bookmarks.

<Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length, as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, a former visiting fellow at Harvard's Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S. (4.8 and 7.2,respectively, per 1,000 live births) is comparing apples and oranges.

In other countries, such as Italy, definitions vary depending on where you are in the country.

Eberstadt notes "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first 24 hours after birth. In Australia, Canada and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day."

In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."

Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, in their 2004 book "Lives at Risk," economist John Goodman and his colleagues conclude, "Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low- birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries" in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same>

http://tinyurl.com/3589hc

In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless

http://tinyurl.com/mcgplb

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 5:16pm
A NATION OF LAWS? Attorney General Eric Holder might yet prove to us in the present era that, truly, no one is above the law. As against an earlier argument advanced by Dick Cheney and some Republicans, the end does not justify the means. Western democracies have long discarded such an argument. In some Moslem countries, they cut off body parts of prisoners in their search for truth, or for sheer revenge. Can we do this, and still be different--and better? Some have argued that Eric Holder has not gone far enough--as he placed an unwarranted limit on what may be probed. Some human rights groups have called for a full probe. Without doubt expediency dictates Eric Holder's more limited action. He is duty-bound under the Constitution to uphold the law--without bias or special favors to the powerful. Thus will he demonstrate to the world the sanctity and integrity of the American legal system. Some like Dick Cheney may beg to differ. In fact, Cheney's attitude suggests his contempt for the law. Thus he openly disagrees with his boss for not giving full pardon to "Scooter" Libby. Cheney hovers menacingly over our current political horizon, still kicking, still arguing that we are stronger and more secure as a nation by doing things that are over the top, things that clearly violet American and international law. We should not fall for such a sugar-coated approach to governance. We are better off as a nation of laws! Stay tuned, DICK!

Posted by drsam8 at 08/25/2009 @ 5:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 4:06pm

Please feel free to point to the last instance of "Islamic conquest". And are you as deeply concerned about the resurgence of the Holy Roman Empire, a new Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, Vikings, Hindustan and Japan?

And you are going on about pirates? Do we want to ignore that European powers supported different pirates to attack their enemies - much like we did with Saddam? And what about modern day pirates in Somalia - which are opposed by the Muslims that live there?

What we have here is justifications for bigotry. End of story.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 5:22pm
Posted by bean22 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

grrr, kill, kill

Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:33pm
"They keep trying to scare us. They keep telling us to be on the lookout for Al-Qaeda. I ain't scared of Al-Qaeda! I'm from Brooklyn... I don't give a fuck about Al-Qaeda! Mother fuck Al-Qaeda. Did Al-Qaeda blow up the building in Oklahoma? NO! Did Al-Qaeda put anthrax in your mail? NO! Did Al-Qaeda drag James Byrd onto the street till his eyes popped out of his fuckin' head? NO! I ain't scared of Al-Qaeda! I'm scared of Al-Cracka!"

-Chris Rock, 'Never Scared'

Posted by FLaim at 08/25/2009 @ 5:38pm
Terrorism is a violent act designed to promote a message or ideology. It is almost always directed at oppressors by the oppressed. The terrorism being directed at the U.S. right now is in Afghanistan & Iraq, as well as the incidents of gun violence in public places here in the U.S. that are occurring with increasingly regularity - largely by Caucasian males. (Those automatic weapons outside Obama rallies visual threats, which should be taken just as seriously as verbal and physical threats are. But god forbid we might actually review the second amendment in the 18th century context in which it was written.) That said, as long as we're an Orwellian empire, blowback from abroad will remain a risk.

All of our travails are interconnected and will continue if we do not shutter K St. Bond is doing this b/c he's retiring to go to K St, just like the rest of the decade's retirees. (DWTS aside.) Not that we wouldn't have problems w/o K St, but we might have a shot a solving them if we fire enough bubbleheads to make it clear that K St is useless to them. We have to stop watching the ads & tell our TV stations. (Put those DVRs to patriotic use!) Join the Larry Flynt General Strike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html ). Send your delegations copies of the original DC charter - written EXPRESSLY to prohibit this kind of corp. lobbying. (And changed during the robber baron takeover of Reconstruction.) (I need to find the link again.) Support auditing the Fed (HR1207-S604). (If you don't know why, learn.) Support an Article V Constitutional Convention. (Google it.) Make it clear that getting $$$ to run campaigns is not the same as winning. Finish what we started in 06 & 08.

Posted by erose001 at 08/25/2009 @ 5:52pm
I am just glad that a genuinely smart man is at the helm, mistakes and all, and hope that wisdom will arrive soon.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/25/2009 @ 12:54pm

Thanks for a great, long laugh! I needed it after a long day!

But seriously, after the Hopey and Changey campaign, 7+ months as POTUS, "that wisdom" of "a genuinely smart man" has NOT arrived yet?

What's the holdup? You're so full of it, surely you can shed more light....LMAO!

Posted by Happy at 08/25/2009 @ 6:15pm
A couple of other things: Warrior culture = using all available resources for war (including torture). Even the founders did not understand this because they were warriors, and among the privileged. Those who are privileged usually can't see privilege. It really boils down to the Old Boyz Network. Those who are in it treat the world as their RISK gameboard. Those who aren't and think they should be do violent things against it. End the OBN, start reshaping warrior culture into peace culture, start treating the planet and the needs of all life on it as INFRASTRUCTURE, then we shift the whole freaking paradigm.

It'll take time, but maybe not as long as you might think. Consider this. If Prescott Bush had been tried in front a jury of his peers for his relationships with Nazis, even if he had been acquitted, he'd have been disgraced and never would have been a Senator (participating in authorizing some very unpatriotic programs - or perhaps I should say "patriotic" but undemocratic), and his progeny wouldn't have had any shot at helping run the country into the ground. (There are others, of course, but he's forebear of presidents.) Or how about the "intelligence community"? (Oxymoron. Emphasis on the moron.) The CIA operations side being at the root of way too much evil - like torture, for example. And of course DOD & "Homeland" Security. Start working to cut them down to size and make them do the jobs they're supposed to do. Where to start? A campaign to make earmarks illegal & make the use of the FAR mandatory. Make the industrial side of the MIComplex competitively bid through the Federal Register process. (Hey, if they're really doing something of value, they could still win the contract.) Just brainstorming, lots of other great ideas out there.

Posted by erose001 at 08/25/2009 @ 6:15pm
What's going to be fun to watch is the interesting dilemma our neocon friends here will soon have--that is, whether or not to label the FBI agents who will be investigating all this shit "pinkos", "commies" and "leftists".

Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/25/2009 @ 6:40pm
Delicious!

Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/25/2009 @ 6:42pm
I can fully separate my religious faith and still comprehend history.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 4:06pm

We are talking about threats as they relate today. We fought a war with Britain does that mean they are a threat today? It's odd that you choose Islam even through every major empire has conquered large portions of the world at some point or another. So why is Islam the only one you seem to be worried about?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 6:55pm
"This may be due to how young you are, but many of us formed our views PRIOR to GW Bush becoming president.

My views were formed by understanding history and watching the modern Islamic threat develop from well before you were born.

Radical Islam has been one of the most serious threats to us for over 200 years. It has been the pre-eminent threat to Western Civilization for nearly 1400 years."

it's pretty amazing that someone can utter these words with a straight face.

Posted by darladoon at 08/25/2009 @ 6:55pm
Please feel free to point to the last instance of "Islamic conquest". And are you as deeply concerned about the resurgence of the Holy Roman Empire, a new Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, Vikings, Hindustan and Japan?

And you are going on about pirates? Do we want to ignore that European powers supported different pirates to attack their enemies - much like we did with Saddam? And what about modern day pirates in Somalia - which are opposed by the Muslims that live there?

What we have here is justifications for bigotry. End of story.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 5:22pm

I'm surprised at your response. While you are unquestionably a pacifist, I did not take you for someone who ignores or belittles facts and history.

As to modern takeovers:

Lebanon a country that is still fairly divided between Christians and Muslims has been taken over by the Syrian/Iranian controlled terrorist organization Hezbollah.

Southern Islands of the Philippines constant battles with the govt not really in control of a number of the islands

<Manila, 19 August (AKI) - Philippine troops have clashed with about 30 gunmen who took over a remote islet near resorts popular with foreign tourists, killing at least seven and capturing two others, officials said on Wednesday. The gunmen were believed to be Muslim separatists from the Moro National Liberation Front.>

Also this info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front

Chechnya and Dagestan

http://tinyurl.com/nsregv

And of course the declarations of taking over Europe and the US (Europe is well on the way)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025884.php

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22589-foreign-islam-left

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 6:55pm
Obama is having Eric Holder, the man who enable the most corrupt pardon in U.S., letting a major criminal off scott free because his ex-wife donated money to the Clinton library, persecute the heroes who kept us safe after 9/11. They prevented additional terrorists attacks saving thousands of American lives, and continue to do so today, and their reward from a grateful nation is to be the object of a political witch hunt. Obama is systematically destroying our intelligence capability and if the terrorist manage to get through again the blood will be on his hands! Let me on the jury....Eric Holder? - Guilty of corruption at the highest levels. Barack Obama - Guilty at the very least of endangering national security and criminal ingratitude! Obama needs to go back and look at the innocent Americans jumping to their deaths from those towers as their skin blistered from the unimaginable heat and stop siding with the people responsible for it!

Posted by valwayne at 08/25/2009 @ 7:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 6:55pm

The problem is none of this proves they ae nearly as big a threat as you make them out to be. Europe is not well on theway to being conquered by Radical Islamists. Europe has a considerable population of Muslims but that does not equate to Europe being ruled by Radical Islamists. You have bought into an overblown fear. You are afraid of the boogieman. You are buying into historical fact to amplify fears of today. Like srj and I both pointed out there have been many many empires who have conquered the world. You don't seem to have some great fear of them. You only fear Islamists for some reason. Why aren't you calling for Japan to have sanctions against them. Why aren't you calling for us to nuke China in order to preemptively stop them. It's because the government has told you to fear Islamists and you have now found every reason possible to do it no matter how irrational and illogical those reasons are.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 7:51pm
This is all just a matter of fear. Islamists today are the Communists of your era. It's a great fear a boogieman that can be used to keep people compliant. Why has this country never known peace? Why is it we are always fighting some concept. We are unlike any other country. We are constantly afraid of something. I don't buy it. Being that I am a rational and logical person who isn't prone to be scared of irrational threats I have yet to see a rational reason for me to live my life in fear of Radical Islam or Communism.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 7:58pm
Here is a true example of a mindless republican:

"#

Obama is having Eric Holder, the man who enable the most corrupt pardon in U.S., letting a major criminal off scott free because his ex-wife donated money to the Clinton library, persecute the heroes who kept us safe after 9/11. They prevented additional terrorists attacks saving thousands of American lives, and continue to do so today, and their reward from a grateful nation is to be the object of a political witch hunt. Obama is systematically destroying our intelligence capability and if the terrorist manage to get through again the blood will be on his hands! Let me on the jury....Eric Holder? - Guilty of corruption at the highest levels. Barack Obama - Guilty at the very least of endangering national security and criminal ingratitude! Obama needs to go back and look at the innocent Americans jumping to their deaths from those towers as their skin blistered from the unimaginable heat and stop siding with the people responsible for it!

Posted by valwayne at 08/25/2009 @ 7:02pm | "

He wouldn't know right from wrong if it was taught to him for 10 years. It is a disease to be a republican. They are incapable of intelligent thought and taking responsibility. Always blaming everyone else. bush and cheney are cowards. They allowed the attacks to occur on 9/11 because they were incompetent. They fucked this country up so bad and now all of us have paid for their mistakes. Democrats should have gone nuts like the crazy tea bagger idiots when bush took office in 2000. When he was APPOINTED by 5 republican judges who cannot interpret the law correctly. What delusional psycho supports these monsters? republican do!!! They went nuts when Clinton had a personal affair, yet tell us that it none of our business for them.

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/25/2009 @ 8:02pm
Think of it this way if you want my perspective Anti. The things you should be afraid of are the things most likely to kill you. Flu kills 30,000 - 40,000 US citizens each year. There were 52,000 gun deaths in 2000. I imagine that number hasn't gone down. Heart disease is a number one killer in this country. Why should we be afraid of an outside threat that managed to kill a total of 4,000 people on US soil in you say 1400 years or 30 years since they have been a "serious" threat while Americans who own guns kill 13 times that every single year. Starvation kills more people a year worldwide than Radical Islamists could even hope. Why don't we start fearing the things that actually have a potent chance of destruction rather than fear the thing that kills one of the lowest amounts of people every year?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 8:12pm
THEY'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 8:48pm
Don't worry Nichols, the accountability moment will come.

This is the stupidest Obama move yet, and the most cowardly. It is happening while the president is out of sight on Martha's Vinyard and the decision seems to come from the attorney general. So much for courage. A while back Obama said, he wanted to look forward not past and move forward, that he needed the the fine people who work at the CIA more than ever. Then he had Holder say: ‘It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."

But now the left's Madam Defarges have goosed Obama into declaring war on Langley. Now he is attacking our protectors and pretending that it is they who are the enemy and terrorists are figments of the imagination. This is the Hyde Park Obama, Jermiah Wright's Obama. He could not shed his skin.

It is dumb, dumb, dumb, because the people feeling betrayed won't just be the CIA, but all Americans. We are discovering that our leader is not on our side, he is not determined to defeat our enemies. He has a different view of our enemies. This is a parting of the way which Obama will bitterly regret.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/25/2009 @ 9:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 6:55pm

There are people that have declared they they have seceded from the United States in Montana. What does the U.S. government do with those people? They either ignore them. Or, they send in the police and arrest people for tax evasion or whatever.

You could point to the Christian Identity Movement in the United States as another example. There are also other movements of this type that have a Christian orientation in Indonesia, India and the Sudan.

So, while there are certainly areas of the world with Islamic insurgents and separatists - as you correctly point out, it doesn't look that much different when you compare it to Christian examples or examples based on ethnicity or even race. This is not unique to Islam.

Further, I think it is quite a stretch to argue that these movements are coordinated. They may each be waving the flag of Islam, but they are not talking recreating the caliphate. They very much want home rule.

So, I think claims about Islam taking over the world are exaggerate - as I have argued with you on many occasions.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 9:38pm
but srj,

THEY'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(i think larry's really worried about the burkini)

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:41pm
Let me help you Bushfools...

"GALLUP: OBAMA HITS NEW LOW... "

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 9:42pm
Let me help you John Maasch...

"LOGIC: MCCAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE "

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:47pm
BEVEN BWORSE?? Is that Swedish?

Posted by twillie at 08/25/2009 @ 10:20pm
From wsjonline:

"Indeed, the CIA report makes clear from its first paragraphs that it was those who ran the program who brought abuses to the IG's attention: "In November 2002, the Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) informed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) that . . . he had just learned of and had dispatched a team to investigate [REDACTED]. In January 2003, the DDO informed OIG that he had received allegations that Agency personnel had used unauthorized techniques with a detainee, Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri . . . and requested that OIG investigate."

Once the IG report was completed, the agency referred it to the Justice Department for review for possible criminal prosecutions. This review was conducted not by Bush political appointees. It was conducted by career prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia. They recommended against prosecutions in all but one case--that of a CIA contractor, not in the official interrogation program, who had beaten a detainee in Afghanistan. (The detainee later died and the contractor was subsequently convicted of assault.)"

http://tinyurl.com/ndw43x

This is a blatant political move by Dems to hurt Repubs as much as possible.

Posted by twillie at 08/25/2009 @ 10:32pm
"Democrats should have gone nuts like the crazy tea bagger idiots when bush took office in 2000."

They did. And they continue to go nuts whenever 2000 is brought up.

"When he was APPOINTED by 5 republican judges who cannot interpret the law correctly."

Wrong. They were merely overturning an attempt by a partisan Florida Supreme court to appoint Gore. Two Republican appointees sided with Gore. No Democrat appointees sided with Bush.

"What delusional psycho supports these monsters? republican do!!! They went nuts when Clinton had a personal affair, yet tell us that it none of our business for them." Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/25/2009 @ 8:02pm

I don't know about Repubs, but I went nuts when Clinton PERJURED himself. And then uttered the famous line, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

Posted by twillie at 08/25/2009 @ 10:45pm
just hoping for html to return

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 10:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:41pm

You just haven't lived until you've gone to the beach with your wife in a burkini - don't knock it till you try it! Hmmm, maybe you should try the burkini first...hahaha...although on a different beach than me.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:03pm
BEVEN BWORSE?? Is that Swedish?

Posted by twillie at 08/25/2009 @ 10:20pm

Whenever something is typed like this "even" it is HTML. What he was trying to do was make the "even" in his sentence bold. But since the website no longer support HTML it's just shows up as the command.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:10pm
You just haven't lived until you've gone to the beach with your wife in a burkini - don't knock it till you try it! Hmmm, maybe you should try the burkini first...hahaha...although on a different beach than me.

Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:03pm

Love those burkinis.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:11pm
Eberstadt notes "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first 24 hours after birth. In Australia, Canada and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day."

In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 5:16pm

1. That Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA is then not in dispute a la their socialist healthcare system:

http://tinyurl.com/2d5ael

2. Would not then France/Southern Europe have a much higher stillbirth rate than the USA-- if what is alleged is that they're simply moving the numbers over to another stat category? But that too isn't so:

http://tinyurl.com/ksrl29

Not only does France have a lower infant mortality rate, but also has a close to lower stillbirth rate to the USA!

Are you now going to argue that WHO and Europe secretly rendition the dead baby bodies to hidden places in order not to count them?

Uhm Eberstadt? Would he happen to be The Nicholas Eberstadt, who holds the Henry Wendt chair in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:22pm
O K lets get this straight The economy is TANKING The defecit is 7 opps no now 10 TRILLION The presidents approval rating is SINKING daily His healthcare bill is DOA So what will He do?? Send some cruise missles into Bosnia? oops wrong liberal president How about going after a guy who dared to show a drill to a mass murdering terrorist and send him to jail after a public spectale. same ole same ole

Posted by limoman at 08/25/2009 @ 11:29pm
let me help you Bushfools...

"GALLUP: OBAMA HITS NEW LOW... "

Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 9:42pm

And here I thought you wanted substantiated poll number analysis-- not obviously wrong and short sighted hysteria!

Oh, but of course what else would a new con repub want... nay, 'need' with every fiber of their being!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:38pm
OK, one more time:

Obama is definitely still more popular than he was last year!

Gallup Poll. July 10-12, 2009. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about Barack Obama?" 12/06: ". . . Illinois Senator Barack Obama"

Date__________Favorable__Unfavorable

7/10-12/09________66_______33

5/29-31/09________67_______32

1/9-11/09_________78_______ 18

10/10-12/08_______62_______35

7/25-27/08________61_______35

5/30 - 6/1/08______ 58_______37

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,600 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Date __________Approve__Disapprove

8/20-22/09_______54_______38

8/19-21/09_______ 53_______40

8/18-20/09_______53_______40

8/17-19/09 _______ 51_______42

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 12:30pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 12:57pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:42pm
Hmm, all this compassion for terrorists. Getting set to reveal CIA methods and sources to our enemy while at war and going after people who were trying to protect their country. One gets the idea that the current government is at war against its own people, IE and country. Many will construe that as treason. That would hold very ominous consequences.

We are starting to look like a banana republic - investigate the previous administration, possibly with the intention of just taking the peoples minds off the current problems. Notice that President Bush never went after members of the Clinton administration. Bush had the smarts and foresight to look forward, not backward. Obama doesn't seem to be that smart.

Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 12:05am
Obama doesn't seem to be that smart.

Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 12:05am

Smart enough for Kool-aid lovers!

Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 12:11am
"http://tinyurl.com/ksrl29 Not only does France have a lower infant mortality rate, but also has a close to lower stillbirth rate to the USA! Are you now going to argue that WHO and Europe secretly rendition the dead baby bodies to hidden places in order not to count them? Uhm Eberstadt? Would he happen to be The Nicholas Eberstadt, who holds the Henry Wendt chair in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute?" Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:22pm

Interesting link, subfools. Totaling up the four categories in the table gives the following overall mortality rates in early life:

UK: overall mortality rate 1.81%

US: overall mortality rate 1.74%

France: overall mortality rate 1.60%

So, it appears to me that the US healthcare system is very similar when you look at overall infant mortality, and remove the issue of uncertainty of definition that antisocialist raises. What do you think?

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 12:36am
"Hmm, all this compassion for terrorists"

uh, they are acccused terrorists. not necessarily terrorists.

second, multiple laws and treaties were broken by the previous administration with regard to the treatment of detainees.

third, several detainees (at least 100) died while in US custody as the result of torture.

fourth, all detainees are protected by the geneva convention (hamden v rumsfeld).

fifth, not torturing someone does not necessarily mean "compassion"

" Many will construe that as treason"

i can't believe someone can utter this with a straight face, as if torturing innocent people isn't treasonous.

pyeatte = idiot sauvage

Posted by darladoon at 08/26/2009 @ 12:40am
"How about going after a guy who dared to show a drill to a mass murdering terrorist and send him to jail after a public spectale"

threatening to kill a detainee constitutes a felony, and is against both the war crimes act, the geneva conventions, and the convention against torture.

"show a drill "= threaten to kill him with it.

Posted by darladoon at 08/26/2009 @ 12:41am
"We are discovering that our leader is not on our side, he is not determined to defeat our enemies. He has a different view of our enemies."

the most illogical thing i've read all day (and i've read a lot today)........

Posted by darladoon at 08/26/2009 @ 12:43am
"following the rule of law" = "showing compassion for our enemies"

can anything more stupid be uttered today?

i think not.

Posted by darladoon at 08/26/2009 @ 12:43am
Cccomfo1,

You imply that there was no reason to fear communism in the past and radical Islam now.

But if we had not stood up to the Soviets in various ways this would be a different world now.

Rather than the use of the word fear I prefer to say that we should be vigilant.

And there absolutely was cause to be vigilant against Soviet communist expansionism.

Khrushchev told us that "we will bury you". Plenty of other communists back to Lenin himself said on the public record what their intentions were.

And once World War II the Soviets tried every way they could to expand the communism. They desired for all Europe to be communist, only our presence and persistence there stopped that. From that point, in many other places, from Southeast Asia to South America, communist movements started wars of "liberation" that we tried to counter in one way or another.

This drew us in to conflicts that caused misery for our nation, but had we not resisted the communism at the very least we may have found ourselves in a communist dominated world today.

The fact that the Soviet Union did not survive is due in large part to the resistance we put up.

China is a different matter now. They never were allied with the Soviets but acted alone, and while still stridently politically communist, they have gone to economic capitalism and they do not seem to be supporting or aiding communist movements elsewhere in the world.

Communism was a real threat and we were right to "fear" it and spend time and energy to resist it and fight it.

It is the same with radical Islam today. Their own writings and words on the public record display what their real intentions are. We ignore it at our peril.

Posted by sjchermak at 08/26/2009 @ 12:50am
Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 12:36am

If you are saying that France has a slightly better infant mortality rate than the USA and thus their healthcare system isn't a disaster, as a lot of new con repubs would have us believe, I can live with that.

And hey-- if a public option lowers cost all around and we all live a little longer-- why be against making things better?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 12:58am
"But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment..." Ted Kennedy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 01:10am
Communism was a real threat and we were right to "fear" it and spend time and energy to resist it and fight it.

It is the same with radical Islam today. Their own writings and words on the public record display what their real intentions are. We ignore it at our peril.

Posted by sjchermak at 08/26/2009 @ 12:50am

Communism was not a real threat. Communism imploded as it would have always done. Communism as a system could never work. Soviet Russia could never have conquered the world. The threat of Communism was in the end an opinion. It was a fear at the time because we didn't know better. How many successful Soviet attacks on American soil were there? The problem of Soviet Russia was exacerbated by the fact that we decided to have a nuclear stand off with them. Now we have a world with nuclear weapons that could easily fall into the wrong hands because of our "vigiliance". To me it isn't vigilance it's irrational fear caused by you being told that something is threat and accepting it without question and then people magnifying it in their own mind.

This country has never been at peace. If we are not in full scale war with someone then we are in some quiet war with a shadowy concept. We lost the directness and unquestionable enemy of likes of Nazis now we invent these massive shadowy threats that always can destroy the world. Radical Islam is not the Nazis. They can't destroy the world. Russia couldn't until we went into the nuclear stand off and kept escalating the numbers of nukes on both sides. You know the biggest threat to this world? It would be our nukes because we have enough of them to level the entire planet. You fear Radical Islam? They won't ever even get close to take over the world just like Communism wouldn't have.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 01:37am
Cccomfo1,

You say we are never at peace and we invented the threat of communism.

Soviet leaders were on the public record with statements what their intentions were.

The Soviets supported revolutionary movements around the world, including in our own hemisphere, in order to expand communism and it's influence.

All of Europe, not just eastern Europe, would have been communist if it had not been for the United States and our efforts such as the Marshall plan, the Berlin airlift, etc.

These things were real, I don't see how you can say they were an "invention" and that we know better now that the Soviets could not have succeeded. The Soviet system imploded because of the pressure we put on it. ("We" in this case is President Ronald Reagan).

You imply that the implosion of the Soviets was inevitable, but unfortunately the collapse of communism was not inevitable without our efforts to oppose it. Look at Cuba. They are economically isolated, and provide a lousy life for their people with no freedom, yet Fidel and his brother have still kept their gulag going. And North Korea is even worse, if that is possible. So it is not inevitable that this type of system will collapse on it's own and if we had not opposed the Soviets they would still be there today.

And the nuclear weapons may have kept the Soviets from being more aggressive in their efforts. Unlike radical Islam, the Soviets did not have a death wish. They wanted to expand their power and influence, but did not want to die in the process. That would have defeated the purpose of their efforts.

You basically state an opinion that the Soviet communism was no threat but you have not defended your opinion with any discussion showing why you believe it was no threat, with tie-ins to known events in history.

Posted by sjchermak at 08/26/2009 @ 03:03am
"Should any American soldier ... injure any [prisoner]...

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Posted by FLaim at 08/25/2009 @ 3:40pm

FLaim, note the date: this was a full year before the Revolutionary War started. How prisioners of an expedition are treated is different from how prisoners of war are treated, which is different from how illegal combatants are treated.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 06:53am
for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Posted by FLaim at 08/25/2009 @ 3:40pm

Notice also that Washington gives a reason. He doesn't say, "Because God told me so." He doesn't say, because I said so." He say that it brings shame. Okay, but what if torturing a person saved 1000 innocent lives? Is saving (or trying to save) 1000 innoncent lives "shameful?" No, it is not.

My point is that many on your side approach the torture argument as though there is a universally agreed upon moral standard against toture like there is against murder. There isn't.

We give our State the authority to execute criminals. We give our State the authority to kill enemy soldiers in the defense of our nation. wether or not we torture comes down to a utilitarian arguement of potential costs and potential benefits.

Ultimately, the Geneva Convention's prohibition against torture (which doesn't apply to illegal combatants) is a calculation. It is a voluntary agreement in which we voluntarily AGREE to not torture prisioners of war based on an expectation of reciprocity.

Al Queda never signed the Geneva Convention. No intelligent person expects reciprocity from Al Queda.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:10am
Communism was not a real threat. Communism imploded as it would have always done. Communism as a system could never work. Soviet Russia could never have conquered the world. ...

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 01:37am

Russian Communism was a real threat to Poland, and the Ukraine (where 6 million people were intentionally starved to death) and Czhekoslovakia, and East Germany and Latvia, not to mention North Korea and Vietnam and Loas and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. Russian Communism was a real threat to billions of people over four generations.

Furthermore, there were influential people and Hollywood and CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS (I won't mention any names) that were contantly trying to sell the American people on the wonderful benefits of Russian Communism during those four generations.

To pooh pooh the idea that Communism posed any threat to America is ignore history.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:26am
You know the biggest threat to this world? It would be our nukes because we have enough of them to level the entire planet. You fear Radical Islam? They won't ever even get close to take over the world just like Communism wouldn't have.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 01:37am

I've read that in 10 minutes one Atlantic hurricane gives off more energy than all the Nukes in the world combined.

Granted, hurricane don't concentrate 100% of their destructive energy in highly populated areas. They lack the ability to focus the energy into killing humans. Nonetheless, it's important to put these things into perspective.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:29am
wether or not we torture comes down to a utilitarian arguement of potential costs and potential benefits.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:10am

Big-Fat,

Assume that your FAT ASS was in a German prison camp. Do you want the Gestapo to base their decision to mutilate you on the cost and potential benefit to the German?

How would you feel if the Gestapo threatens to bring your mother and sister to be violated in front of you if you don't confess (threat used by our CIA against some detainees)? Or, if they threaten to kill your children if you don't confess (Threat used by our CIA against some detainees).

How about the rule of law and our Constitution; does that matter any more? Forget the Geneva Convention, does our Constitution allow torture?

It was the Hypocrite Donald Rumsfeld who accused the Iraqis of violating the Geneva Convention when they interviewed some of our POWs on their national TV, then Rumsfeld went on to order the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

It is easy to pontificate and BS while sitting on your coach grinding your Popcorn, however, you will definitely feel differently when your ass is in the grinder. Go back and read the constitution of the United States and stop watching Fox News.

Posted by CripThink at 08/26/2009 @ 08:12am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 4:06pm

But Larry....that was only "15-20%" of all Muslims.

Right????

Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 08:16am
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:29am

Unlike a nuclear attack, we can see a hurricane coming for days and evacuate; then go back into the devastated location immediately to help survivors and repair the damage.

Well ok, unless the hurricane aftermath is during a far right new con repub admin and it's on a predominately dem population...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 08:16am
For all you confused right-wingers and confused left-wingers out there, you might want to watch this documentary. Interesting presentation. The documentary may help you understand why Obama and Holder are just going to stage a show trial similar to what happened with Abu Ghraib - low level particiapnts get punished, higher-ups don't get touched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvw

Posted by perryfellwock at 08/26/2009 @ 08:19am
"George Washington, charge...Sept. 14, 1775--FLaim, 08/25@3:40pm

FLaim, note the date: this was a full year before the Revolutionary War started.--Darin,08/26@06:53am"

Er, DARIN,

To use your phrase, "Note the date". Seems you spent so much time in college hanging out with cops in your towel, that you never learned basic US history:

Wikipedia-"The battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[8] They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America.

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk, and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle, and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the military movement.

The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, several hundred militiamen fought and defeated three companies of the King's troops. The outnumbered regulars fell back from the Minutemen after a pitched battle in open territory..."

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 08:25am
He (Obama) has a different view of our enemies...

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/25/2009 @ 9:08pm

Typically vacous rightwing blathering that hurtles beyond stupid into a distinct danger for our nation.

Let's consider what George W Loser did when handed the August 6 memo, during a summer of hair-on-fire warnings about mass slaughter that his Attorney General refused to listen to or prioritize. What George W Loser did with the memo was... wipe his ass on it and then go golfing like the super-wealthy metrosexual pansy he has always been, replaying his youthful idyll of wiping his ass on the US flag during 'Nam.

So, c'mon national security tuff guy: Tell us all about this "different view" that you bloviate about. There is plenty of space here, no limits on it really. Explain in as much detail as you can muster, and as the situation demands, all of the earth-shaking moves that George W Loser's admin took to defend thr United States before its east coast homeland was attacked. Again, spare no detail...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 08:39am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 08:25am

One can only imagine if hsuB/cHeney had been in charge back then instead of Washington-- how horribly wrong everything would be today...

Would "Heck of a job...", then be the past quote on torture handed down?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 08:54am

The standard issue, half-assed rightwing elephant shit on the issue is to whine and moan and carry on that ... nothing could've stopped alQ that day, nothing!, which is contra Thomas Kean's judgement of the issue as head of the 911 commission as well as Dick Clarke's book lenght account. But that's what conservaFreaks do: Set dismally low standards and then blame others for the catastrophes that folow.

There is one excpetion to the rule of exonerating the Loser admin's failure and that arises when (drumroll) they blame Clinton (or Gore, or Gore's beard, or Jimmy Carter, or Chelsea, or The Great Society or The New Deal...take your pick) for the 911 massacres. Suddenly, alQ's atatck is no longer iron-clad inevitable!!!

Can you feel the dishonesty joined to the 200-proof head-spinning relativism?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 09:05am
"But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment..." Ted Kennedy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 01:10am

G-d rest his soul, but socialism 101 in that statement.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:19am
G-d rest his soul, but socialism 101 in that statement.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:19am

Yes, he had a heart and a soul.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 09:32am
Improved Phrasing, Free of Charge:

"SOCIALISM rest his soul, and GAWD101 to any other statement."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:19am

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 09:37am
But Larry....that was only "15-20%" of all Muslims.

Right????

Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 08:16am

Hmm, 15% of 1.8 billion is what Mask

270 million

What's the size of the combined armies of the US and Europe (less the Islamic Members)...less than 10 million with the US the largest at 3.4 million.

Now let's drop the Muslim number down further to 10% of the 15% as being military capable (as jihadists or organized military). That is still 27 million.

If you think that is a trivial number, I suggest you think it through.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:49am
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 5:09pm

Interesting that you should mention the "ticking time bomb" scenario. I'll have to assume that this is merely a mistake on your part, since I didn't mention it, I merely wrote about the general question of whether the means justify the ends. Your position seems to be that the means don't work, so we don't have to consider the question at all. But, as you say, "you need to do a little bit better than that" because, first of all, immoral techniques DO work, just as mustard gas is an effective weapon (remember how Beria extracted information from German spies?), and second of all you just motivate the interrogators who say "well, if none of this works, let's try something else." In short, your arguments encourage torture.

Posted by Mistral at 08/26/2009 @ 10:10am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:19am 

Um, really? First of all, nothing in that statement specifies government action, so it fails that standard right at the outset. I realize that he defends government action, but I think the debate is precisely about government v. private means in securing health-care for everyone. Second, if that's socialist, how is that different from a Christian worldview that by necessity views one's neighbor's needs as holy? In other words, how can one love one's neighbor as oneself without actively seeking the good of one's neighbor? And if their good doesn't include not dying from a disease we've long cured or having to choose between feeding their family or getting cured of cancer, I'm not sure what conception of good you're working with.

Now, I know you've said you personally don't see doctors, and that your committment is to trust God wholly to the exclusion of medicine. You've also said, though, that you would never impose that on anyone else. If others who feel differently from you need to see a doctor, isn't a system which enables that more Christian than one that fails to do so?

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 11:46am
I found a secret new con repub decoder ring:

good = monetary profits

public option = no choice

repub terrorist = normal

guns near pres = security

torture = safe techniques

statistics = silly rabbit

war = monetary profits

truth = monetary profits

dems = enemy

liberal = socialist

progressive = satanic

monetary profits = love

Oh no it was a booby-trap-- my head is about to explode....

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 12:55pm
Um, really? First of all, nothing in that statement specifies government action, so it fails that standard right at the outset. I realize that he defends government action, but I think the debate is precisely about government v. private means in securing health-care for everyone. Second, if that's socialist, how is that different from a Christian worldview that by necessity views one's neighbor's needs as holy? In other words, how can one love one's neighbor as oneself without actively seeking the good of one's neighbor? And if their good doesn't include not dying from a disease we've long cured or having to choose between feeding their family or getting cured of cancer, I'm not sure what conception of good you're working with.

Now, I know you've said you personally don't see doctors, and that your committment is to trust God wholly to the exclusion of medicine. You've also said, though, that you would never impose that on anyone else. If others who feel differently from you need to see a doctor, isn't a system which enables that more Christian than one that fails to do so?

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 11:46am

If everyone is able to get the same treatment, that is only available if the cost is the same to everyone. And that can only occur under a govt system.

How do you derive that ONLY govt can ensure that Christians are meeting the needs of their neighbors?

As to everyone obtaining cures, I don't see how this is also tied to Christianity. Christianity is not tied to govts in order to fulfill our obligations and to show our Christ love. There is no passage of scripture that even hints of this.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:13pm
"Christianity is not tied to govts in order to fulfill our obligations and to show our Christ love. There is no passage of scripture that even hints of this."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:13pm

Anti,

It's been a very long time since I was in Bible school. Could you please interpret this passage for me?

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

-Romans 13:1-7

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 3:00pm
Anti,

This one too, if you don't mind...

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

-1 Peter 2

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:13pm

Ah, I see. Perhaps the wording of Kennedy's statement leans more strongly towards government involvement, but I think the more broad stance of "everyone should have access to adequate medical care" is virtually unassailable. I don't think that government-paid or government-run health-care is a necessary position for Christians, far from it.

Framed that way, though, I fail to see how not wanting everyone to have adequate care is consistent with Christianity. As I argued previously, Jesus repeatedly treated the needs of one's neighbor as holy. How can we possibly pretend to love our neighbor when we do things to help them individually, but make no effort to change the system that helps give rise to their situation?

And...no passages of Scripture for which governmnt would be implicated? This is awfully surprising:

1) How about the same passage in Romans that talks about being subject to the authorities? It says that governments are "ministers of God," which if you buy inerrancy, means that they have a corresponding obligation to sustain a society in which the needs of the less fortunate are not ignored.

2) Go back to the prophetic tradition in the Old Testament. Nowhere does it say that such things were relevant only to a a theocracy; in fact, the primary meaning of "prophecy" has not been telling of the future, but speaking truth to power about the present order.

I don't mean to say here that political solutions can take the place of individual charity. What I would argue, though, is that structural questions should in no way be left out of the picture.

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 3:04pm
Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 3:00pm

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 3:02pm

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 3:04pm

I want to answer both of you since your questions are so similar.

The Romans passage speaks of the role of govt in bringing the sword of justice against evil. And that we are to submit to govt

I am on record here as fully supporting both of those commands.

The passage in Peter again repeats the command to submit to govt.

This has nothing to do with promoting a govt takeover of healthcare services.

Now if our govt does set up a govt healthcare, I will have to submit to it even though I believe it to be wrong because of the commands you listed.

Thrawn, back to the passage somehow also connecting to meeting the societal needs, I have never seen a single theologian add that context and I can't imagine any even attempting to do so. It clearly is speaking of the use of the power of govt to punish wrongdoing and against the evils in other govts that threaten the lives of the citizenry. But that doesn't cross into a social context.

Again back to the OT, all of the Israeli govts were theocracies so I still maintain that it cannot apply to the US.

Also where in the world do you get this interpretation of prophecy?

<the primary meaning of "prophecy" has not been telling of the future, but speaking truth to power about the present order.>

Again, that is not to be found in any theological studies I have ever read and I've read quite a few as a pastor and theologian.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 3:52pm
Look who's defending torture: http://truthsite.org/DefendersOfTortureUnite .

Posted by ThinkerFeeler at 08/26/2009 @ 4:21pm
"You imply that the implosion of the Soviets was inevitable, but unfortunately the collapse of communism was not inevitable without our efforts to oppose it."

The problem is that that opinion is just that, an opininon. I mean you state it as if it's fact and then use Cuba as an example. The reason I believe Cuba has survived is because it's a smaller country than Russia with lots of things the world needs and it is a palce that can attract tourism and doesn't need MUCH in the way of imports. Other than Cuba all Communist countries have either collapsed or moved away from Communism. Which is why I post that the destruction of Communism is built into the system. It is not sustainable.

Again it is not the pressure we put on Russia that made the Communist regime collapse. Why don't we fear Communist China if it is such a great threat?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:25pm
I've read that in 10 minutes one Atlantic hurricane gives off more energy than all the Nukes in the world combined.

Granted, hurricane don't concentrate 100% of their destructive energy in highly populated areas. They lack the ability to focus the energy into killing humans. Nonetheless, it's important to put these things into perspective.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:29am

True. But at the same time it is proven that we have the destructive force to destroy the entire planet.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:27pm
Russian Communism was a real threat to Poland, and the Ukraine (where 6 million people were intentionally starved to death) and Czhekoslovakia, and East Germany and Latvia, not to mention North Korea and Vietnam and Loas and Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia. Russian Communism was a real threat to billions of people over four generations.

Furthermore, there were influential people and Hollywood and CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS (I won't mention any names) that were contantly trying to sell the American people on the wonderful benefits of Russian Communism during those four generations.

To pooh pooh the idea that Communism posed any threat to America is ignore history.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 07:26am

I don't think it is. I think it is to acknowledge that the threat was massively overblown. That the system would have collapsed of it's own volition. I think 4 generations is overblown also. A generation is considered to be 25.2 years. I don't think Communism was a threat for over 100 years.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:30pm
what a bunch of loony drivel. if you came face to face with the truth of the heinous violence, the staggering pure evil that runs through the veins of these fundamentalists, you'd pee in your pants. most sane people don't really give a f' re what's necessary for us to not lose more lives on american soil. you could care less about what's done to our soldiers, beheadings, lord knows what. you're worried about evil thugs getting miranda rights (they are not citizens) and being read a bedtime story. i don't care what matter of coercion is necessary to get these a-holes to crack. i only care that they do crack. if you and your ilk ruin the CIA, then I hope the fundamentalists come to your house first. idiot.....

Posted by sub at 08/26/2009 @ 5:42pm
Anti-Health Care Reform Group Pulls Ads, Citing Respect For Kennedy

http://tinyurl.com/mcuoul

Connect- Healthcare Finance Fraud, SEC Fraud, Bankruptcy Fraud, Financial Fraud and Mortgage Fraud- all for ‘market driven healthcare' in America?

2009 - The Wall Street Journal reported that Richard Scott, "the former chief executive of HCA Inc," had formed the non-profit organization Conservatives for Patients' Rights as part of a "lobbying campaign to derail or modify" President Obama's health care proposals,...

In 1997, Rick Scott was terminated by Darla Moore. As part of Richard Scott's severance package from Columbia he was paid $5.13 million and given a five year consulting contract at $950,000 per year.

1997 + 5 = 2002

In 2002 FBI raided the offices of National Century Financial Enterprises in Dublin, Ohio

"This case is one of the largest corporate fraud investigations involving a privately held company headquartered in small town America," said Assistant Director Kenneth W. Kaiser of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division.

In October 2008- Leo Wise, now at the OCE ---stated "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a case of staggering fraud," 'It is one of the largest frauds the FBI has ever investigated.

Guess where ALL of Richard Scott's & Richard Rainwater's Columbia/ HCA and certain subsidiaries and joint ventures were?

National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.! (NCFE).

One prosecutor stated ‘…'NCFE- the largest corporate fraud investigations involving a privately held company and no one has ever heard of.'

NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF? (The largest corporate fraud investigation…)

Why is that?

Richard Rainwater was GW Bush's ex- partner with the Rangers.

____+____

Limbaugh Congratulates Himself On Kennedy Death Prediction

http://tinyurl.com/mv5872

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 6:00pm
Obama and Eric Holder need to go watch those videos of 9/11 that show Americans jumping from the two towers to their deaths because their skin was burning from the fires behind them. Then they need to get down on their needs and beg the forgiveness of the men and women who interrogated the murdering terrorists and saved thousands of Americans from a similar gruesome death. And ask yourselves what the terrorists will be doing while Obama and Holder attack our intelligence agencies and the agents are all running for their lawyers? Obama has taken us back to 9/10, but this time we will now exactly who to blame if something similar to 9/11 happens!!!

Posted by valwayne at 08/26/2009 @ 8:20pm
Anti,

"Now if our govt does set up a govt healthcare, I will have to submit to it even though I believe it to be wrong because of the commands you listed."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 3:52pm

So then you will have to admit that healthcare is a right. Not a inalienable right based on your faith, nor a natural right, but a civil right, or social contract.

Our government is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as agreed to by the entire UN on December 10, 1948, without dissent.

Article 24 of the UDHR, section 1, states:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

The 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 9:08pm
"If you are saying that France has a slightly better infant mortality rate than the USA and thus their healthcare system isn't a disaster, as a lot of new con repubs would have us believe, I can live with that. And hey-- if a public option lowers cost all around and we all live a little longer-- why be against making things better?" Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 12:58am

You've misunderstood. Proggys on this site and others have been expounding on how US healthcare sucks because the infant mortality is so much higher than those oh-so-wonderful euros. so, now it turns out that we have a better rate than the UK, and comparable rate to France. So, if you proggys have been lying about that for so long, what are you lying about with Obama's plan?

Are you truly so delusional as to believe the public option will "lower costs all around"?

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 9:35pm
"Unlike a nuclear attack, we can see a hurricane coming for days and evacuate; then go back into the devastated location immediately to help survivors and repair the damage. Well ok, unless the hurricane aftermath is during a far right new con repub admin and it's on a predominately dem population..." Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 08:16am

You'll have to cut Bush some slack on this. I'm sure he regrets believing the Democrat head of emergency preparedness for Louisiana declaring the day before the hurricane hit, that the state was "ready". Bush should have sent the feds in and ignored that bozo.

Of course, if he had, you proggys would be complaining about the day Bush "invaded" Louisiana.

If you're a whiner, you'll find something to whine about.

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 9:45pm
"Let's consider what George W Loser did when handed the August 6 memo, during a summer of hair-on-fire warnings about mass slaughter that his Attorney General refused to listen to or prioritize. What George W Loser did with the memo was... wipe his ass on it and then go golfing like the super-wealthy metrosexual pansy he has always been, replaying his youthful idyll of wiping his ass on the US flag during 'Nam. So, c'mon national security tuff guy: Tell us all about this "different view" that you bloviate about. There is plenty of space here, no limits on it really. Explain in as much detail as you can muster, and as the situation demands, all of the earth-shaking moves that George W Loser's admin took to defend thr United States before its east coast homeland was attacked. Again, spare no detail..." Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/26/2009 @ 08:39am

Gee, Phil, was that the memo that said that AlQaeda was going to hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Oops, no, it was the memo that said that Osama was determined to "STRIKE WITHIN THE US."

Hey, Phil, I've hidden 10 million dollars within the US. If you can find it, you can have it.

So, where are you gonna look first?

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 9:55pm
Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 9:08pm

1) The UDHR has not, as far as I know, been understood as incorporating facilitative rights unless it specifically says so. The fact that certain rights are listed does not mean government has to actively provide them rather than simply assuming an obligation not to suppress them.

2) The Ninth Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to suggest it means. It was never meant to open the door for whatever the Court felt was a right, nor was it meant to overrule established limitations on the federal government. Instead, it was meant to say "listen, the fact that the Bill of Rights takes certain powers from the Fed doesn't mean that it has all powers not taken from it by the BOR. Unless a power has been given to the feds, it belongs to the states."

Now to antisocialist's theological analysis:

On prophecy, you're simply mistaken. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others were prophets, were they not? Yet look at what their primary work was. They sometimes had things to say about the future, but much of their work was telling leaders in Jerusalem how they were falling short of God's command to actually work for the welfare of their people. Amos is an even better example of that. When God gave them words, those words often weren't predictions of the future, but rather harsh criticisms of the present. If prophecy is meant to refer to the primary work ascribed to prophets, it seems like present-day criticism far outstrips prediction of the future. At the very least, criticism of the present cannot be ignored as a crucial component of prophetic work.

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 11:01pm
Continued:

You make virtually no response to most of my other arguments. The part about government being a minister of God, for instance, wasn't the argument you seem to think.

Here's my first line of analysis. I argue that the prophetic tradition that involves calling the state to account when it fails to treat God's children as they ought be treated (e.g. caring for the stranger) is highly relevant, and Jesus carries on some of that by incorporating justice into his theology. Your response was that this only applies to a theocracy. First of all, you have NEVER justified this assertion. Why is the application limited only to a theocracy? Second, and this is where I bring in Romans, I think your argument simply can't succeed. If governments as a whole are ministers of God, that means that they have obligations before God just as any human being does. This isn't a speculative inference; it is a necessary implication. Indeed, it was on the hypocrisy and cruelty of the claimed ministers of God that Jesus focused much of his anger.

Moreover, my other argument is even more basic. Look, the entire New Testament talks about people's needs as holy. Jesus feeds people and heals them, and he tells them to pray for forgiveness of their debts (not trespasses, debts). In doing so, he imbues their basic needs with great significance. And, quite frankly, how could a loving God do otherwise? If life on this Earth is to mean anything at all, a loving God who cares for his children as Jesus clearly did would never want his followers to help people while simply ignoring the causes that put them where they are. Man of his parables, in fact, can be interpreted not just as criticisms of individuals, but as criticisms of the corrupt and legalistic systems that people have created.

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 11:08pm
a), b), c) and d)--NONE of you demands will be met.

Chaos IS demand

Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 08/26/2009 @ 11:31pm
2) The Ninth Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to suggest it means. It was never meant to open the door for whatever the Court felt was a right, nor was it meant to overrule established limitations on the federal government. Instead, it was meant to say "listen, the fact that the Bill of Rights takes certain powers from the Fed doesn't mean that it has all powers not taken from it by the BOR. Unless a power has been given to the feds, it belongs to the states."

Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 11:08pm

Thrawn,

I would disagree. As I've pointed out to Anti before, there is no constitutional guarantee for numerous rights that are taken for granted, right to travel, to procreate.

Otherwise what you are proposing is that it would be constitutional for any state to prohibit marriage and procreation. Those rights, as with many others, are assumed as natural rights despite not being enumerated. The ninth makes clear that just because a right is not included, that the government, in any form, cannot take it away. Hamilton, in particular, argued that enumeration was unnecessary, because it would lead to exclusion of other assumed rights.

"The fact that certain rights are listed does not mean government has to actively provide them rather than simply assuming an obligation not to suppress them. "

Preamble:

"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,..."

True, but not actively providing them doesn't make them any less a right, and our government has pledged to promote those rights. If Anti truly submits to the decision of the government, then acceptance would naturally follow.

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 11:40pm
hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:22pm claimed:

>>> Not only does France have a lower infant mortality rate, but also has a close to lower stillbirth rate to the USA! <<<

There are over 40 countries with better infant mortality rates than we. The catch is what they consider a viable infant at birth.

In France what comes out of the womb that weighs less than 500 gram and is less than 26 weeks is not considered a birth.

In the US anything that is delivered, which shows any life, regardless of age or weight is considered a birth. Thus we record a tremendous number, relative to other countries, of premis, many of which, within hours or days, do not prove viable and enter into our morbidity statistics.

It is in effect our tremendous efforts in fighting for every life, which create these seemingly disappointing statistics and give joy to cheap shot Charleys like hsuBfools.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 07:24am
Anti,

So then you will have to admit that healthcare is a right. Not a inalienable right based on your faith, nor a natural right, but a civil right, or social contract.

Our government is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as agreed to by the entire UN on December 10, 1948, without dissent.

The 9th amendment:

Posted by FLaim at 08/26/2009 @ 9:08pm

1. I said no such thing and I maintain it is not a right, it is a service. It is not a civil right, I merely stated that if it becomes the law of the land, I am required to submit as a Christian to the ruling authorities.

2.The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not imposed on the US or any other nation as law.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a Gen'l Assembly Resolution and carries no weight of enforcement under the UN charter. The language of the Declaration itself only encourages that nations follow and promote it.

This was recognized by one of the founders of the UN Eleanor Roosevelt

Roosevelt, head of the U.N. Human Rights in 1948, led the drafting discussions of the UDHR. She did so representing the United States and summed up its position: "… my government has made it clear in the course of the development of the Declaration that it does not consider that the economic and social and cultural rights stated in the Declaration imply an obligation on governments to assure the enjoyment of these rights by direct governmental action." She added, "This in no way affects our wholehearted support for the basic principles of economic, social and cultural rights set forth in these articles."

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12413

As to the 9th Amendment, Thrawn stated the facts quite well.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 09:07am
"It is in effect our tremendous efforts in fighting for every life, which create these seemingly disappointing statistics and give joy to cheap shot Charleys like hsuBfools." Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 07:24am

True. See the post below for the actual infant mortality rate in early life. It refutes the canard that libs put up about how our infant mortality rate is more in line with third world countries.

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 12:36am

Posted by twillie at 08/27/2009 @ 10:13am
"As to the 9th Amendment, Thrawn stated the facts quite well."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 09:07am

So then you agree there is no right to marry? Or procreate?

If "Unless a power has been given to the feds, it belongs to the states," then there is nothing unconstitutional about a state imposing laws that restrict or prohibit those activities.

See the problem with being a literalistic?

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a Gen'l Assembly Resolution and carries no weight of enforcement under the UN charter. The language of the Declaration itself only encourages that nations follow and promote it."

That's hilarious! Our government has agreed to the UDHR, clearly stating "our wholehearted support for the basic principles of economic, social and cultural rights set forth in these articles." But since it's not enforceable, it can be ignored.

As I've quoted before"

"The strength of this country is to say one thing and do another." -South Park, "I'm a Little Bit Country"

Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 10:54am
That's hilarious! Our government has agreed to the UDHR, clearly stating "our wholehearted support for the basic principles of economic, social and cultural rights set forth in these articles." But since it's not enforceable, it can be ignored.

As I've quoted before"

"The strength of this country is to say one thing and do another." -South Park, "I'm a Little Bit Country"

Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 10:54am

You are wrong. Show me where we agreed to implement a nonbinding UN resolution.

Show me where it says it must be implemented.

Show me where we agreed to surrender our sovereignty to the UN.

And do you say that Eleanor Roosevelt who favored all of the things in the UDHR was wrong or in error for saying that the US would not be bound by it?

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 10:58am
"Show me where we agreed to implement a nonbinding UN resolution."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 10:58am

Hello! The fact that it is a non-binding resolution clearly demonstrates that we did not agree to implement it. It is not a treaty.

But tell me, Anti, what does "our wholehearted support for the basic principles of economic, social and cultural rights set forth in these articles," mean?

Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 11:10am
The 3000 plus humans murdered by terrorists really ought to be remembered by capturing and harshly interrogating any and all supporters of mass murder, and this may include some fuzzy-brained 5th columnists in the USA, perhaps the writer of this piece.

Posted by tucanofulano at 08/27/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 10:54am

I can help save you some time in rebutting my post.

Here is the straight info from the UN website

<The Articles of the Charter have the force of positive international law because the Charter is a treaty and therefore a legally binding document. All United Nations Member States must fulfill in good faith the obligations they have assumed under the Charter of the United Nations, including the obligations to promote and respect for human rights, to promote observance of human rights, and to co-operate with the United Nations and other nations to attain this aim. However the Charter does not specify human rights and does not establish any specific way to ensure their implementation in Member States.

Although the Declaration does not have the binding force of a treaty, it has acquired universal acceptability. Many countries have cited the Declaration or included its provisions in their basic laws or constitutions. And many human rights covenants, conventions and treaties concluded since 1948 have been built on its principles.>

http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/humanrights/hr2.htm

more to follow

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:29am
To Flaim continued

According to Amnesty USA

<Some influential states continue to be sceptical about the validity of individual claims to recognition and defence of these human rights. The USA, for example, has stated that,

"at best, economic, social and cultural rights are goals that can only be achieved progressively, not guarantees. Therefore, while access to food, health services and quality education are the top of any list of development goals, to speak of them as rights turns the citizens of developing countries into objects of development rather than subjects in control of their own destiny."24

Consequently the USA has not ratified significant economic, social and cultural rights standards, and is opposed to developing international mechanisms to enforce these rights, including the Optional Protocol.>

http://tinyurl.com/lmrkhx

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:31am
So then you agree there is no right to marry? Or procreate?

If "Unless a power has been given to the feds, it belongs to the states," then there is nothing unconstitutional about a state imposing laws that restrict or prohibit those activities.

As I've quoted before"

"The strength of this country is to say one thing and do another." -South Park, "I'm a Little Bit Country"

Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 10:54am

There is no constitutional right to marry or procreate. Those are rights given by G-d not man.

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:34am
"at best, economic, social and cultural rights are goals that can only be achieved progressively, not guarantees...24"

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:31am

Check the reference. This is from a UN Special Rapporteur discussing education in China, and not the opinion of the government to which you must submit on health care as a right. Anti! You're referencing that commie Amnesty International site? (just teasing :-)

"There is no constitutional right to marry or procreate. Those are rights given by G-d not man."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:34am

You might call that a covenant, yes?

"Consequently the USA has not ratified significant economic, social and cultural rights standards, and is opposed to developing international mechanisms to enforce these rights, including the Optional Protocol."

The USA, as a member of the UN, ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 on the 8th of June 1992, the preamble of which states:

"Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights,"

-http://tinyurl.com/pj8rqr

Of course the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights hasn't been ratified. It was only adopted in December of 2008.

Posted by FLaim at 08/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Of course, if he had, you proggys would be complaining about the day Bush "invaded" Louisiana.

If you're a whiner, you'll find something to whine about.

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 9:45pm

What, a shiny whiny straw dildo award!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2009 @ 4:56pm
Are you truly so delusional as to believe the public option will "lower costs all around"?

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 9:35pm

That's what they've done in other countries comparable to ours-- considering we sometimes pay as much as 2x for having a lower life expectancy rate.

Are you saying we should continue to pay more for less?

Or are you also saying they also hide people that die in Europe and other places in order to have a better life expectancy curve for paying less?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2009 @ 5:10pm
hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:22pm claimed: >>> Not only does France have a lower infant mortality rate, but also has a close to lower stillbirth rate to the USA! <<<

There are over 40 countries with better infant mortality rates than we. The catch is what they consider a viable infant at birth.

(True)

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 07:24am

And do they rendition the bodies off to 3rd world countries to hide? No, they become classified as stillborn. Yet, those numbers too are close to lower than the USA!

Do you still not get it?

France does it better for a lot less.

Bottom line, repubs want everyone to pay more to the Medical Industrial Complex than pay less for better life expectancy and healthier babies.

Why? Because they're stupid? Mean-spirited? Just 'cause?

Nope, it's just all those straw dildos they're so fond of constantly using-- have distracted them from the here and now and they're stuck in a permanent state irrational excitement.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2009 @ 5:21pm
It refutes the canard that libs put up about how our infant mortality rate is more in line with third world countries.

Posted by twillie at 08/26/2009 @ 12:36am

No it doesn't.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2009 @ 5:47pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2009 @ 5:47pm |

Twill is able to overlook the fact that parts of our great nation resemble 3rd world countries with respect to healthcare access.

Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:05pm
Twill is able to overlook the fact that parts of our great nation resemble 3rd world countries with respect to healthcare access. Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:05pm

I'm all for healthcare access. I just don't think Congress has the smarts or cajones to implement it. At least not the current Congress.

Posted by twillie at 08/28/2009 @ 01:05am
"There is no constitutional right to marry or procreate. Those are rights given by G-d not man."

Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:34am

I see. So, if my congressman won't/can't do the right thing, maybe you could ask god why he neglected our health care as a right?

Is it because he loves the little viruses he created, as much as us?

Are my sinuses full of sin?

Seriously, Larry, WTF has god been for the last 2000 yrs.? He has much unfinished work to do, right here on earth.

I have my congress-critter's number. Maybe you could send me gods number. He appears unlisted.

Posted by Malcontent at 08/28/2009 @ 08:33am