Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 15, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DIGGING INTO GUANTANAMO....I'm quite late getting to last week's National Journal cover story about the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, but thanks to Jon Henke at QandO I've now figured out how many separate articles there are (four) and how they relate to each other. Taken together, they tell a chilling story.

The basic message from these four pieces is that the evidence against an awful lot of the Guantanamo prisoners isn't just weak, it's known to be flatly false. For example, here's an account of Mohammed al-Tumani, a prisoner who was lucky enough to be assigned a "personal representative" who discovered that his primary accuser was a busy man indeed:

Tumani's enterprising representative looked at the classified evidence against the Syrian youth and found that just one man the aforementioned accuser had placed Tumani at the terrorist training camp. And he had placed Tumani there three months before the teenager had even entered Afghanistan. The curious U.S. officer pulled the classified file of the accuser, saw that he had accused 60 men, and, suddenly skeptical, pulled the files of every detainee the accuser had placed at the one training camp. None of the men had been in Afghanistan at the time the accuser said he saw them at the camp.

The tribunal declared Tumani an enemy combatant anyway.

There's more like this, and the story it tells is that the problem at Guantanamo isn't just that it's difficult separating fact from fiction when prisoners have been captured in the heat of battle and the witnesses against them are thousands of miles away and untrustworthy to boot. That's a genuine problem, and not one that's easily resolved.

Rather, in too many cases, it turns out the Pentagon is relying on blatantly fabricated evidence against many of the Guantanamo prisoners, and it's doing so even though it knows the evidence against them is blatantly fabricated.

And it gets worse. After all, if the Guantanamo prisoners had been captured on the battlefield, that would constitute prima facie evidence that they were enemy combatants even if the rest of the evidence against them was worthless or trumped up. But they weren't:

The largest single group at Guantanamo Bay today consists of men caught in indiscriminate sweeps for Arabs in Pakistan. Once arrested, these men passed through several captors before being given to the U.S. military. Some of the men say they were arrested after asking for help getting to their embassies; a few say the Pakistanis asked them for bribes to avoid being turned over to America.

...."The one thing we were never clear of was where they came from," [Michael] Scheuer said of the Guantanamo detainees. "DOD picked them up somewhere." When National Journal told Scheuer that the largest group came from Pakistani custody, he chuckled. "Then they were probably people the Pakistanis thought were dangerous to Pakistan," he said. "We absolutely got the wrong people."

That's Michael Scheuer speaking, the man who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit through 1999 and worked for the agency up through 2004.

To summarize then: According to the National Journal's research, upwards of half of all prisoners at Guantanamo weren't captured on the battlefield. Rather, they came into our custody by way of third parties "who had their own motivations for turning people in, including paybacks and payoffs." Many perhaps most of the men rounded up in these sweeps have no connection to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and the evidence against them is often weak, sometimes nonexistent, and all too frequently known to be fabricated. And yet they remain in prison.

Corine Hegland wrote the main package of stories for the Journal. It consists of three separate pieces:

In addition, Stuart Taylor summarizes some of the evidence in Hegland's three stories in an accompanying column. Jon Henke has Taylor's column here and Dale Franks provides more information and some background detail here. It's all worth reading.

Kevin Drum 1:42 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (131)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The folks running the country must be insane. Blinding, tongue waggling bonkers.

Posted by: MobiusKlein on February 15, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just almost speechless at how terrible this is. Part of why it's not produced the outcry it should I think is that alot of people find it hard to believe just how bad this situation is, how flimsy the evidence is, etc. They just interface it on a level of "well, harsh measures are needed" and "well, they 're bad people or else they wouldn't be in there." It's a complete abdication of critical thought that's partially the fruit of the way the WOT was sold & poartially a defense mechanism to keep just how bad it is at bay.

Posted by: URK on February 15, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

That or just apathetic. They may just not give a damn.

Posted by: Bolo on February 15, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. Just.. wow. This is beyond sick; thanks for posting it, because I never would have seen the NJ package on my own.

Posted by: andrew on February 15, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes:

"After all, if the Guantanamo prisoners had been captured on the battlefield, that would constitute prima facie evidence that they were enemy combatants even if the rest of the evidence against them was worthless or trumped up."

"Enemy combatants" as the Bush administration uses the term appears to mean "illegal combatants not entitled to POW status". However, at least for Afghans captured on a battlefield, this would not apply (even if they didn't have uniforms).

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 15, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

Your moderate friend Ann Althouse who you read and link to is a constitutional law professor. You should ask her what her opinion is, you may be surprised how moderates feel about this.

Posted by: jerry on February 15, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

When will they forgive us? And why should they?

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

THe saddest part of this?

It's not going to get any purchase in the mainstream media. And if it does, all we'll hear is Matthews, Scarborough, O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al. essentially arguing that since they were deemed enemy combatants, they MUST be terrorists, damn the evidence.

Posted by: Kryptik on February 15, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Of course all this has been known for a long time. Maybe making it more official will what a zombie public we have become in the wake of the monsters ru(i)nning this country.

Posted by: Jones on February 15, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

at Guantanamo Bay today consists of men caught in indiscriminate sweeps for Arabs in Pakistan.
-Kevin

Ok. Release them back to where we got them. Put them in a secret prison in Pakistan which is less humane.

Note - at the very least these were illegal migrants into Pakistan.

Posted by: McA on February 15, 2006 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

McA has no ability to read.

His quote: "Note - at the very least these were illegal migrants into Pakistan."

Article: "... ABC's "20/20," visited the Pakistani village where five Kuwaiti detainees were captured. The locals remembered the men. They had arrived with a larger group of a hundred refugees a few weeks after Qaeda fighters had passed through. "

That's refugees! Not migrants. The just thing to do with refugees is NOT to return them to Pakistan, but to their home countries.

Posted by: MobiusKlein on February 15, 2006 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html

See this. The Dems are supporting spying. When public opinion is this strong on pro-war, you guys are barking up the moonbat tree!

Posted by: Mca on February 15, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

I wish that they would close down the prison at Guantanamo and return all of the inmates, with complete dossiers, to the countries that they came from; nobody investigates the prisons in Egypt, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Some of the prisoners were returned to France and Great Britain; some of those were imprisoned there, and some were released and killed or recaptured later. Others were returned to Russia and Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't hurt to return all to their home nations. If some belong in the US, it won't hurt to try them now in open court.

The prison is less like a cancer than like a pimple: non-life-threatening, but ugly. It should be cleansed.

Posted by: republicrat on February 15, 2006 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if there were any doubts left that these prisoners were detained for any reason other than propaganda purposes, this post dispels them.

Posted by: joe on February 15, 2006 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

That's refugees! Not migrants. The just thing to do with refugees is NOT to return them to Pakistan, but to their home countries.

Posted by: MobiusKlein on February 15, 2006 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

Refugees are regularly detained by most countries while their applications for refugee status are considered, jailed or expelled.

If their country of citizenship doesn't object, you have no rights under international law as an illegal entry for any purpose.


Posted by: McA on February 15, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINK

McA,

let me get this right: You're saying that there's nothing substantially wrong with the practices reported here?
That as long as refugees "have no rights under international law", it's perfecly rational and reasonable to ship them to Gitmo and keep them there indefinitely.

Please, tell me that at least some part of you think that this story sound unsettling?
I really want to believe that even proponents of the Bush administration are open to the possibility of them making mistakes and have an interest in correcting possible wrongdoings.

Posted by: OmniDane on February 15, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

McA, Just another right-wing troll on his daily mission to hijack a thread.

"At the very least...zzzzZZzzzz.

Yes, we should send all illegal immingrants in Pakistan to Gitmo.

I don't think these guys even read what they type anymore.

Posted by: Grotesqueticle on February 15, 2006 at 6:00 AM | PERMALINK

Hardly anything new in this information. DOD picked up anyone from 15year old kids to 70 year old gradfathers that someone was willing to make accusations against or who happend to be at the wrong place. The same tactics was of course use in Iraq in 2003 before Abu Ghraib.

It's just plain arrogance and stupidity.

Posted by: ckrantz on February 15, 2006 at 6:52 AM | PERMALINK

So you say it is better to keep them harmlessly and ILEGALLY detained, McA?

Posted by: question on February 15, 2006 at 6:58 AM | PERMALINK

Please, tell me that at least some part of you think that this story sound unsettling?

Posted by: OmniDane on February 15, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

Nope.

Australia puts refugees in a capmp for years while processing their application. Singapore whips illegal migrants from Indonesia before sending them home. Malaysia does similar.

If they were illegals in Pakistan and Pakistan chooses to store them in the custody of another government, its fine until their country of citizenship objects.

Besides Pakistan or their home country would be way more inhumane anyway.

Totally cool with this.

I'm not American by the way.

Posted by: Mca on February 15, 2006 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

and ILEGALLY detained, McA?

Posted by: question on February 15, 2006 at 6:58 AM | PERMALINK

Its not even illegal you idiot. No hapeus corpus in Pakistani soil where they were found.

Posted by: McA on February 15, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin is a moron. He keeps posting and posting and dredging up old issues which everyone has stopped giving a shit about.

Many of these have been settled.

In America, national security and low taxes trump most concerns - don't have to be American to see that.

Posted by: Mca on February 15, 2006 at 7:07 AM | PERMALINK

Mca,

"In America, national security and low taxes trump most concerns -"

If Americans were truly concerned with national security then they would make every effort to return and fairly compensate those for which there is no evidence.

Any other actions (keeping them in GITMO, etc.) would weaken the very principles by which America holds itself superior to any other form of government and would certainly undercut the Bush rationale for bringing "democracy" to the Middle East.

I would imagine that a large percent of those we have unfairly detained will, in turn, find a way to wreck havoc on America, as is only fair.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on February 15, 2006 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK

I refuse, at this point, to believe McA is serious. But, his (I assume male) posts are valuable reminders of how easy it is to become heartless. If our leaders keep harping on fear of the Other, and fear of economic hardship, this is what happens. The mask of civilization falls away revealing the frightened, cruel ape about one angstrom beneath the surface.

Posted by: ferd on February 15, 2006 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

" refuse, at this point, to believe McA is serious. But, his (I assume male) posts are valuable reminders of how easy it is to become heartless. "

Or brainless, more likely.

Posted by: CN on February 15, 2006 at 7:46 AM | PERMALINK

McA isn't an American, so who the fuck cares what he thinks? Certainly about our politics.

Speaking of which, a political point: this is NOT primarily about how badly treated these guys are. That's important, but not essential.

What IS essential is how badly the Bush administration gathered and sifted the intelligence. (Personally, I'm curious how KUWAITI refugees wound up in Pakistan, especially by way of Afghanistan. That's like Bosnians turning up in Belgium by way of Switzerland.)

The sound bite: For every guy in Gitmo who was turned over for the bounty, TEN real terrorists bribed their way out. That's what Bush is hiding -- not how many innocents he locked up with his bullshit "dead or alive" routine, but how many bad guys got away cuz REAL al Qaeda guys outbid us on bribes.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 15, 2006 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

These "camps" that McA talks about are well run and free from systemic torture and inspected by the UN....none of which is true of Gitmo. And McA, it's 'Habeas Corpus' you idiot

Posted by: murmeister on February 15, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

McA isn't an American, so who the fuck cares what he thinks? Certainly about our politics.
The Americanist

Gosh, why does the world hate the Ugly American?

Posted by: murmeister on February 15, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

Don't bother with McA. He's here only for disruption purposes.

URK: It's a complete abdication of critical thought that's partially the fruit of the way the WOT was sold & poartially a defense mechanism to keep just how bad it is at bay.

Very nicely put.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, as bad as holding people with no good evidence of wrongdoing, and subjecting them to, ah, coercive interrogation (after all, they'll deny being terrorists) is -- and that's pretty darn bad -- the fact is that the US is wasting its intelligence resources on these people.

Bush apologists are quick to insist that they want the bad guys interrogated. Well, thanks to the incompetent policies of the Bush/Cheney regime, we aren't interrogating bad guys; we're interrogating these guys instead.

Due process and transparency in the legal process, while not perfect, works because it helps ensure that, by tending not to railroad innocents for crimes they didn't commit, law enforcement can focus on suspects who are more likely guilty. The Administration can try to hide behind the tattered fig leaf of "classified national security secrets," but the fact that the evidence against these people doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny is a pretty good indicator that we shouldn't be wasting our time and money -- to say nothing of our national reputation -- in holding these people under these dubious circumstances.

These revelations are yet another reason the Republicans can't be trusted with national security.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan nails it upthread with a question: "Will they ever forgive us?"

Answer: not in our lifetimes.

As someone who travels internationally for a living, I can tell you that the torture and detention issue has permanently wrecked our international credibility and has sunk whatever respect we once may have commanded.

It's gone, folks. Invading Iraq under false pretenses was bad enough; people around the world got quite pissed off about that. But Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, etc., has buggered our rep for generations.

Posted by: Wonderin on February 15, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Sweet, Kevin!

Nicely done.

Posted by: SombreroFallout on February 15, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why we keep comparing our tactics to those in crappy other countries. I think its a sad day when the US lets Pakistan set the bar for whats acceptable in America. The US should be above this, but we keep letting BushCo keep dragging us down to these countries levels.

Posted by: Jeremy on February 15, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

McAristotle sounds more like McThrasymachus:

"Justice is simply what is to the advantage of the strong".

I get the feeling that if he ever read the Republic he was cheering when he should have been booing.

It's a shame the late KarlPopper can't go after him and his ilk with a poker, instead of German metaphysicians.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on February 15, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

The Dems just need to package this complaint in a form that can be used in the 2006 elections.

In 1994, the GOP had the "Contract With America."

Why don't the Dems call their package the "Contract With Al Queda" ??

Posted by: BigRiver on February 15, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory: Bush apologists are quick to insist that they want the bad guys interrogated. Well, thanks to the incompetent policies of the Bush/Cheney regime, we aren't interrogating bad guys; we're interrogating these guys instead.

Good point, and one that may resonate more with the torture-shrugger-offers (sorry; it's early). We're dealing with pure evil, but for those who won't/can't address that, try this: Bushco is also performing utterly incompetently. Again.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, your illegal immigrants, so we can lock them up, interrogate them, and throw away the key".

Now, if only the French could give us another Statue of Liberty which we could place at the main gate of Gitmo.

Speaking of the French, reminds me of neighbors settling grudges during the Reign of Terror. We are more humane - we don't put them in tumbrels and provide free haircuts - we just lock them away - of course if we released them now, they could, or probably would, really have a reason to become terrorists. Another great creative effort of Twiggie.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

this is a recording ...bzzt... 9/11 ...bzzt... war on terra ...bzzt... on the march ...bzzt... essential tool ...bzzt... changed everything ...bzzt... commander in chief ...bzzt... tax cuts ...bzzt... tax cuts ...bzzt... tax cuts ...bzzt... clinton did it ...bzzt... if you want to hear this message again press 1; if you disagree with any part of this message press 1; if you are calling about congressional or judicial oversight press 1; if you think the constitution matters press 1;if you want to leave a complaint press 1; otherwise press 1;...

Posted by: supersaurus on February 15, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Draft UN report: Close Guantnamo February 14, 2006

A confidential report of an 18-month investigation by five United Nations human rights investigators alleges that the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners being held in military detention centers in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, violates international law and in some cases may constitute a form of torture.
Posted by: Catch 22 on February 15, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

in '02 I read some "fringe left" reporting that said this very thing, no one wanted to hear it.

It made sense, there were MSM stories about high level intel folks admitting that we were human intel poor and relied too much on high tech snooping. Al Quada is a covert organization. We're very short on reliable interpreters and the ones we did have were leaving.

But less then 6 months after 9/11, we're in Afghanistan rounding up hundreds of "real Al Quada terrorists."

I didn't believe it at all. Bushco had an established pattern of lying, there was pressure to "show progress" and any brown bodies would do. How could the American people know that these weren't "bad guys?"

Everyone I knew accepted the official hook, line and sinker.

I would say I told em so, but there's no point. People will believe what they want to believe, logic and sense be damned.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 15, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget rule number 1 for this regime:

Never admit you're wrong... even when it is blindingly obvious.

Posted by: Buford on February 15, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Why don't the Dems call their package the "Contract With Al Queda" ??

On the off chance (yeah, right) that "BigRiver" honestly missed the point, the people noted in this report not only aren't terrorists, but the DOD knows it and is holding them anyway. I hate to break it to you, but "Arab/Muslim" != "terrorist."

So the question for BigRiver is, why do you approve of our intel assets being wasted on holding/interrogating non-terrorists when they should be used against actual terrorists?

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

So we take hundreds of young Pakistani men who hadn't raised a finger against the US and treat them so badly they end up hating the US. Hearts and minds, guys. Hearts and minds.

Posted by: DNS on February 15, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

These "camps" that McA talks about are well run and free from systemic torture and inspected by the UN....none of which is true of Gitmo. And McA, it's 'Habeas Corpus' you idiot

Posted by: murmeister on February 15, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

The "camps" in Malaysia aren't totally free of abuse. And they certainly aren't inspected by the UN. Just as Cuba's prisons aren't. Or for that matter how Sudan's refugee camps can be targeted for genocide.

The UN does very little actually for internal matters, that's how your worst Gitmo cell still outperforms a typical Pakistani prison.

And since Pakistan would be legally entitled to lock these people up for violating immigration, loaning them to Gitmo is actually a humane solution.

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

refuse, at this point, to believe McA is serious.

Posted by: ferd on February 15, 2006 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

I'm totally serious.

I'm foreign, educated and know more than you about Islamic radicalism and world-wide human rights standards.

As long as you are confronting certain Arab regimes and militant islam in general instead of ignoring, you could do far worst and still improve the world.

America's greatest atrocities happen through inaction rather than action.

-----------

McAristotle sounds more like McThrasymachus:

"Justice is simply what is to the advantage of the strong".

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on February 15, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Justice is simply more than whiney inaction.

You may believe that America is the only culturally intolerant force on the planet, but compared to the morons who blow up giant Buddhist statues - you guys are nothing.

Posted by: McA on February 15, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Cheney" wrote: We are not wrong - you take a poll and most Americans will agree that it is better to keep 100 innocent Arabs at Gitmo than release the 1 who participates in the next 9/11 attack.

First, even if "most Americans" agree, that's beside the point. Most Americans are ill-informed and easily misled. Second, the entire justice system of this country is based on the principle that it's better to release a guilty person than to punish an innocent one. [A principle more often honored in the breach than the observance, granted -- but true nonetheless.] Does that principle mean nothing to you? Third, even if you're not willing to extend that principle to non-US citizens, you have to ask if this practice produces a net gain for the US or a net loss. I think it's clear by now that rounding up and holding innocent people, without recourse to habeas corpus and other legal protections, has done more harm than good. It provides a constant source of propaganda and validation for terrorists and therefore increases the chances that alienated young men will take up arms against us. So the idea that keeping 100 innocent Arabs in prison lessens the chances of another attack is just plain stupid.

And yet our national security is in the hands of people who think the way you do. Great. Just great.

Posted by: DNS on February 15, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Just because the accusers are lying doesn't mean that the accusations are false. Right? So when Burkett trumps up forged documents to nail a sitting President, you guys bought it hook line and sinker, be damned with the actual facts. Yet when the validity of Islamic extremists being held in prison is questioned, you rush to their defense. Have I got that right?

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

OT...but what is the REAL story on Curt Weldon and ABLE DANGER? I know, I know...it's all Clinton's fault...but aside from that...it seems all too weird to me that if there really is a story out there that can put the stake into Clinton's heart (both of them) that this administration would have it dressed up and ready to go...are they waiting for JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT...holding it until their polls are actually in the toilet? Is Weldon a NUTCASE...what gives????

Posted by: Dancer on February 15, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

you're right DNS, we should follow more closely the justice system of the middle east. Maybe they will like us if we do. Let's hope. Gosh I hope they like us.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

#1: Cheney:"you take a poll and most Americans will agree that it is better to keep 100 innocent Arabs at Gitmo than release the 1 who participates in the next 9/11 attack."

#2: Benjamin Franklin:"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

#1 ( if true ) + #2 = America deserves a dictator.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 15, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:"Have I got that right?"

Of course not you fool. Please just STFU.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 15, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Have I got that right?

No, you don't.

Just because the accusers are lying doesn't mean that the accusations are false.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless. It never ceases to amaze me how progressively weak the GOP apologists' arguments have become as their ability to defend the Party's mendacity, incompetence and corruption vanishes like an iceberg in the tropical seas of overwhelming evidence. And it never ceases to amaze me how boldly and unabashedly the GOP apologists will trumpet the lamest counterfactuals or most obvious straw men as if they were making some sort of actual point. Truly, I find their transparently bogus talking points endlessly comforting.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Even if you are right, as long as we get the voters and SCOTUS to agree with us, what are you going to do about it?

Charlie/Cheney might do well to check the current polling. With the President's approval rate at 39%, the premise of his/her/its confidence seems in error.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

gregory, you want to talk about weak arguments look at joey's response (just STFU) That's brilliant. A lot of big words in your response though with no substance - typical liberal. Wasn't that the defense of rathergate there greggy, although the were documents were forged doesn't mean the story is false? Right? The apologists for the liberal agenda are pure entertainment. Jumping in with both feet on any issue, fact or fiction, that may harm the current administration in their sole quest to regain power. Yet time after time the end up with egg on their face, yet with no shame they charge full speed ahead. Jeez this year is going to be fun. Pass the popcorn.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, that's cute: is this Stuart Taylor's penance for his earlier columns praising Bush and any excesses that might be committed in the fight against terrorism, one innocent grandmother at a time? (see Brad DeLong's reminder that it was people like Taylor, with their blithe justifications for blatantly illegal - not to mention useless and counterproductive - actions, that gave the Bush Administration cover for shit like this in the first place)

Posted by: Chris on February 15, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

gregory, you want to talk about weak arguments look at joey's response

No need, Jay. You provide all the examples anyone could need.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

For one thing "the Ugly American", in the original Graham Greene novel, was the GOOD guy. Only our enemies hated him -- and he didn't act like this. (which is why he was killed, IIRC.)

For another, until somebody shows some insight into our politics or national interests, I'm not particularly impressed with the Notion "hey, I'm not one of you but I have LOTS of opinions that don't count!" makes him worth listening to.

That said, McA wildly misses the point: refugees aren't terrorists. Refugee camps are mostly about feeding women and children, because most refugees ARE women and children: the men are generally dead, or off fighting the war that drove the women and kids to the camp.

If McA had a clue about refugees, he'd know that Kakuma camp is typical: for miles around the camp (it's in Kenya) there's not a stick to be found, because the women from the camp go out to gather them for firewood. But they never bring their sons with them -- because they would either be killed, or taken as child soldiers.

Gangrape to gather firewood is just part of life there.

Or the old Vietnamese boat people camps in Hong Kong, where (until Liv Ullman, God bless her, threatened to hold a press conference on the the British governor's doorstep) women had to prostitute themselves to get good and medicine for their kids.

I dunno as anybody ever thought it worth torturing those women for what they knew about anything.

So I'm not impressed with this clown huffing from ignorance about how Guantanamo is like a refugee camp. No, it's not.

Gregory is right: we WANT to be interrogating the bad guys.

But through bad intelligence and arrogance, we're interrogating THESE guys, instead.

If you won't make distinctions, you can't make sense.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 15, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Amazing how much trouble a single troll can cause in a thread.

Maybe because, perversely, the troll's point is essentially correct. For a majority of Americans, national security is the trump suit. Putting it succinctly:

"Better red than dead."

Like it or not, it's the truth. What Democrats failed to do in two elections is to re-frame the national security debate in any convincing way. (Not that it would necessarily have made any difference to the lizard-brains.]

Posted by: Libby Sosume on February 15, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

I do not think anyone has to wonder why I am Hostile, now.

Posted by: Hostile on February 15, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

another brilliant repartee from the left. Drats skewered again. I am surprised the troll word hasn't surfaced. Gosh, I just hope they like us. "Not one dime" - Howard Dean.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

I am sure a lot of people are shaking in their boots now Hostile. An angry liberal - oooooooo
scary.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Just because the accusers are lying doesn't mean that the accusations are false.

oh, you mean like those TANG documents CBS showed ?

Posted by: cleek on February 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

heh. or, next time i can read the thread instead of the chopped-up quotes....

Posted by: cleek on February 15, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

libby, you are making too much sense for the left. They haven't quite figured that one out yet, so let's just keep that our little secret.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

BigRiver:

Sure. Provided the Republicans call their plan "Contract With Jack Abramoff."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, "Not one dime" - Howard Dean. Oh wait.......

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

In America, national security and low taxes trump most concerns

Well, in Republican America, that's true, which is why the rest of the world concludes, quite correctly, that we have no principles beyond self-interest and that all of our high-flown rhetoric is a sick, sad joke.

Justice is simply more than whiney [sic] inaction.

It's also more than indiscriminate lashing out & savage retribution.

Idiot.

Posted by: latts on February 15, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

For one thing "the Ugly American", in the original Graham Greene novel, was the GOOD guy. Only our enemies hated him -- and he didn't act like this. (which is why he was killed, IIRC.)

I think you're thinking of "The Quiet American" by Graham Greene, and in that novel Pyle was the BAD guy -- so wilfully convinced of his own goodness that he engineered a terrorist bombing of innocent civilians and convinced himself it was OK because it was for "democracy." Fowler sums up the disaster of America's involvement in Indochina when he says of Pyle "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

"The Ugly American," meanwhile, was written by Eugene Lederer and William Burdick.

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

y'know, in the book "the Interrogators" toward the end the author talks about that same problem. that the people they were being given to interrogate were just being brought in on petty personal beefs, and even when the individual interrogators in Kabul and Kandahar (sp?) had figured that out, they were still getting shipped over to Gitmo. no one was listening to them. i sorta wish i hadn't given that book away.

Posted by: e1 on February 15, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Don't count on the Democratic Party to do anything about any of this. The only thing they can do is to spread their legs, or at best roll over and play dead.

If any proof was needed, I present to you the case of Paul Hackett.

It will take a few generation to undo the damage to the USA done by the Bushistas and their enablers, the Democratic Party.

Posted by: lib on February 15, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Not one dime from Abramoff.

But you know that ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Not that this should need saying, but since Jay and Cleek think they are being so cute by bringing it up, I will respond this one time.

One difference between Guantanamo cases being describe in the National Journal article and 60 Minutes story about George Bush's National Guard service is that there was a lot of other evidence, most of it pre-dating the 60 Minutes report, to indicate that the President did not properly meet his NG service commitments.

Another difference is that the questions about his NG service were being debated with the goal of helping American voters choose between Bush and his opponent in the election for the President of the United States. The documents were not being used to seriously suggest that he should be arrested and forcibly inducted back into military service to complete his commitments, much less that he should be held indefinitely without trial and subject to "forceful" interrogation techniques that at least approach, and in some cases clearly exceed, the definition of torture.

Posted by: tanj on February 15, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, your mother is calling. You are late for your home schooling lesson in how to prepare juvenile Iraqi liver.

Posted by: Hostile on February 15, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Every time you say "Contract with al Qaeda," we're going to say "Contract with Jack Abramoff."

Both charges are obviously hyperbolic. But one is patently false while the other is objectively confirmable.

And which do *you* think the American public will find more salient?

Just keep repeating your bullshit and we'll shove it right back up your ass where it came from.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

"Road To Guantanamo," Michael Winterbottom

'The Road to Guantanamo is a blend of interviews, news footage and drama set in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Guantanamo showing how three English Muslims ended up in the military jail as suspected al Qaeda fighters. They were released in 2004.

Known in Britain as the "Tipton Three" after the English town where they come from, the young Muslims have accused the U.S. military of torture and of flouting international law by keeping them at Guantanamo for over two years without trial.

U.S. journalists at a screening on Tuesday said Americans may find graphic scenes of beating, solitary confinement and mental and physical torture inflicted by U.S. troops disturbing.'

Road to Guantanamo

Posted by: nepeta on February 15, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

A little different story here in NV with Scary Reid there old bobby. It appears as though a lot of tribal money via Abramoff was funneled through his campaign. OOOPS!

Hostile, are you still there?

tanj, I am proud of you, lumping many of the left's "red herrings" into one retort. Gitmo, torture, rathergate, throw in Plamegate and you've hit a home run. Seems as though not much traction was gained from any of those topics so what next? Hmmmmmm.......... I wonder what Cindy Sheehan is doing?

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

The folks running the country must be insane.

No, they are nazis.

They enjoy torturing people.

They enjoy holding powere over people.

They enjoy deceiving people.

They enjoy doing things that reaffirm the power they hold.

They enjoy demonstating to others that they hold such power.

They are self-absorbed, self-centred, and self-serving.

Pretty much just like Jay.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

advocate, we only enjoy torturing the left, cause it's so fun. And so easy.
Question: How do you confuse a liberal?
Answer:

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

advocate, thank you very much for the complement. Sincerely, it means a lot.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, remember your circumcision?

Posted by: Hostile on February 15, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Jay simply heard Limbaugh use "Contract with al Qaeda," and now he's repeating it here, as he is too stupid to think up his own insults. It's best to just ignore him.

Posted by: Botecelli on February 15, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Once these people are captured by or turned in to the military and detained,whether in Guantanamo,or Abu Ghraib or Bagram or anywhere else,it's clear that they are all terrorists or supporters of terrorism. That must be true since the military would only imprison on genuine evidence or justified suspicion of guilt
That's why one shouldn't look at things like the 1,000 prisoners released in Aug. 05 from Abu Ghraib. Clearly, the military properly detained these people and only after thoroughly processing them,they were found innocent of the charges. I mean from the SecDef on down,the rules are clear:shoot/imprison first,look for evidence later.
No complaint here,look at how the VP has internalized that policy. How do we know that Harry Whittington isn't a contributor to not just the Republican party but some Al Qaeda connected charity,too. I think Cheney shot him to protect America. What other reason could there be? Other than the quotidian incompetence so casually displayed in every other facet of the administration.

Posted by: TJM on February 15, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

"Via's" ass ...

Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff

meme meme meme meme meme meme meme ....

Oh, and did I meantion Contract With Jack Abramoff?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: advocate, thank you very much for the complement. Sincerely, it means a lot.

Yes, and only a nazi would take it as a complement to be called a nazi.

Thanks for proving my point.

Question: How do you confuse a conservative?

Answer: Show the conservative the truth.

. . . we only enjoy torturing the left . . .

Conservatives only enjoy torturing the left, eh?

Leaving aside the grammatical incorrectness of your statement . . .

. . . since conservatives enjoy torturing the truth and the only people they torture (according to Jay's tortured grammar) is the left, then the left must equal the truth.

By Jay's own logic.

How thoughtful of him!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

I have not once used the phrase "contract with Al Qaeda". That was brought up by BigRiver. But why point out the facts to liberals. Facts are those little nasty things that get in the way of good old fashioned liberal hysteria. Gosh, I hope they like us.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

bobbie, that second grade education has served you well.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan is right, I was wrong: right novel, wrong author(s).

In The Ugly American, the title character is a good guy.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 15, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Big River, Jay, whatever. Your both the same fucking thing

Posted by: Botecelli on February 15, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff
Conttact With Jack Abramoff
Contract With Jack Abramoff

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? :)

Bob

PS: Only liberals would be open-minded enough to suffer the company of an asshole like yourself to begin with.

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

WTF are you talking about Jay? You are the one that first mentioned Rathergate in this thread and the whole thread is about prisoners who are being held at Guantanamo and as Nepeta's 11:07 post shows, torture and Guantamo are inextricably linked topics even in cases where the evidence against the prisoners was weak or non-existent.

Posted by: tanj on February 15, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

advocate, the signs of torture are already showing. Or is that your ADD on display?

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie/Cheney might do well to check the current polling. With the President's approval rate at 39%, the premise of his/her/its confidence seems in error.

but it's useful to know how much people like him long for fascism. charlie's prime motivation from day one has been power and lots of it. he rationalizes his narcissistic sadism by calling himself a christian. he luxuriates in unmitgated suffering for those he does not classify as one of 'us.'

sinners like charlie are attracted to christianity because they have a rather distorted and naive spirituality. i suspect that his embrace of fundamentalism has everything to do with a conviction that that uttering the simple phrase, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" excuses everything, up to and including the murder and torture of innocent people, as long as he says he's doing it enforce christian values and not because he gets a hard on for torture, rape, and murder.

so, charlie -- even if you convince a lot of people to go along with you, what you support is still evil. the moral quality of your beliefs is completely unaltered by the number of people who share or don't share them.

Posted by: spacebaby on February 15, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, the all Virgin Junior GOP auxillary meeting is soon, better not be late, okay sweetie? Do you need a boxlunch packed?

Posted by: Mummy on February 15, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

bobbie, please campaign on the Abramoff issue since you are so convinced it's a republican scandal. Puhlleeease. It will work well for you I promise. Also, throw in the NSA controversy and I think you will have a solid campaign. Unless of course you want to win.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

No wonder the left is in power, as exemplified by these powerful debate points expressed eloquently by mummy, bobby, advocate, and hostile. Is it any question that with minds like these the left will stay in power? Oh wait......

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

The only thing worse than political advice from you is political advice from TheAmericanist :)

Your wanna do a little Reid-bashing, count me in for the pressure he put on Paul Hackett to drop out of the Ohio Senate race ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

They keep on telling us that there is war going on. A war that will last for generations, and we have to pay for it by giving the President all the power that he needs, the power of a king.

And yet, the Vice President frolicks around with middle aged ladies and the President has a Valentine's day bash celebrating something.

Someone please tell these men that we are at war, and our young sones and daughter are in the harms way in far away lands, and all the frivolous frolicking must cease. Immediately.

Posted by: lib on February 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

Ooh, getting a little *rattled*, are we?

Hey look, Contract with Jack Abramoff is only a response to Contract With al Qaeda. If you can pull that Limboid idiocy, we can rub your face in the exclusively Republican K-Street Project, ok?

Sure, both are shameless attempts at demagoguery.

One, however, happens to be rooted to a significant degree in objective reality.

Care to guess which one?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

It'll be interesting to see if Taylor can bring himself to stand by the implications of his story when he hits the talk shows again.

Please stop feeding Jay. If you feed them, they keep coming back.

Posted by: zak822 on February 15, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Jay probably is Freedom Fighter. Similar teen aged talking points and only someone that young and dumb and naive could deliver it with such conviction.

Posted by: Mummy on February 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I've been saying from the beginning that it is important to remember that due process doesn't exist merely to protect the accused, but to protect the rest of us from the government taking action that is designed to look like they are doing something to deal with a problem rather than to actually deal with the problem.

Now, it turns out the "terrorists" caught "on the battlefield" in Afghanistan -- the ones held after the supposedly "weak" cases were released that Administration defenders said, after the others were released, must be the worst of the worst -- are largely not people there is any rational reason to believe are terrorists, and were not caught on the battlefield, and the government has known this from the day it started holding them.

Due process exists so that leaders can't invent their own reality. And that's why, as with science, as with expertise, and as with rational thought itself, this administration is at war with it more than "terrorism".

Posted by: cmdicely on February 15, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

See this. The Dems are supporting spying. When public opinion is this strong on pro-war, you guys are barking up the moonbat tree!

Who has ever said that calls from Al Qaida shouldn't be listened in. The law was deisgned for contingencies like that. Listening in on terrorists is good. Need time? The law allows 3 days.

REPEAT AFTER ME: Nobody is saying not to listen in. No one has ever said that. Go anonymously annoy somoene else.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 15, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

bobbie, one more time and I will go slow so maybe you can keep up. I have NEVER stated the phrase "Contract with Al Qaeda". It's that "facts" think again.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

"Better safe than sorry.
Posted by: Cheney"

Who the hell is safe with you around?

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK
We are not wrong - you take a poll and most Americans will agree that it is better to keep 100 innocent Arabs at Gitmo than release the 1 who participates in the next 9/11 attack.

The fact that the administration knowingly purchased a bunch of innocent Arabs rounded up by others in Pakistan and then sold them to the American people as foreign fighters caught on the field of battle in Afghanistan indicates that it is unlikely that the kind of people who would participate in "the next 9/11" are likely to be there at all.

If they were doing the job of catching real terrorists, they wouldn't have to sweep random Arabs off the streets of Pakistan to pretend they had caught a bunch of terrorists.

And that's, in a nutshell, the public safety and (in this case) national security argument for due process. It prevents the government from pulling off snow jobs like this.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: But why point out the facts to liberals. Facts are those little nasty things that get in the way of good old fashioned liberal hysteria.

This from someone who supports an administration for whom facts are inconveniences, like the facts about massive stockpiles of WMDs, or global warming, or New Orleans levees, or even the entries on staffer resumes.

The Right's only debating point boils down to "Al Queda - scary!"

Liberal "hysteria" pales in comparison to actual conservative hysteria.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

. . . you take a poll and most Americans will agree . . .

So, polling of the American people equals truth.

That must mean that the left's opinion that Bush sucks and is a failure is the truth, not partisan hatred, since the majority of Americans now agree.

Sweet.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

It doesn't matter. It's like Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount -- you're sinning in your heart.

You originally brought up Rathergate in a thread about Gitmo.

You wanna try to misdirect -- sure, go 'head. I can play that game and cram more of your right-wing shit further up that gaping, dripping ass of yours than you have a prayer of reciprocating.

CONTRACT WITH JACK ABRAMOFF
CONTRACT WITH JACK ABRAMOFF
CONTRACT WITH JACK ABRAMOFF

This is your Divine Old-Testament Retributive Punishment :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it that Dems always self-destruct just before an election?

Look at 2002 - Dems offered nothing but Bush-bashing, and so the Dems lost.

2004 - Bush was vulnerable but Kerry didn't lay out a plan for Iraq - just more Bush-bashing. So Kerry lost.

2006 - true to form, Dems offer nothing but complaints about prisoner abuse, and complaints about wiretapping calls from Al Queda members and associates.

Dems, do you realize history is repeating itself??

Posted by: MountainDan on February 15, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK
In America, national security and low taxes trump most concerns

Polls of actual Americans show that isn't true, particularly for the latter. Which is why, in selling tax cuts, Republicans always pretend that the tax cuts won't require cutbacks in programs people care about, just as when they propose spending cuts, they pretend they won't result in service cuts, and when they toss a bunch of people in a military prison without due process, they pretend they are combatants caught on the field of battle.

Each of these presentations, though, is a lie.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 15, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

"The Pakistanis asked them for bribes to avoid being turned over to Americana?" -- sounds like one way to make money off of extraordinary rendition.

FGWB for making this country the new Krzygstan.

Posted by: ac8 on February 15, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

When the trolls are letting McA take point you know there is no intelligent opposition.

Gitmo is defended by people who invade other counries and attacked by those who try to work for justice.
Little as I think of lawyers as a breed, when someone doing pro bono work gets that upset I tend to think there's a point to be taken.
These are the people who want to be trusted on flagrantly illegal domestic spying. I could have a small problem with that plan.

Posted by: opit on February 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

MountainDan:

Democrats are *so sick* of advice from people like you. Kerry actually laid out a quite extensive plan for Iraq -- the Mighty Wurlitzer never picked up on it.

Jesus, you think people on this blog are fooled by red staters who offer "advice" to Democrats to become "more moderated"?

Cripes, we'd be best served by doing the direct opposite of what you suggest -- just because you're suggesting it :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: It's that "facts" think again.

It's that "I said it, but I didn't use the exact words you are using and I don't recognize the concepts of analogy or synonymy, so I get to claim I didn't say it."

Sorta like Bush claiming he never said the Iraqi threat was imminent, because he never used that exact word to describe the threat.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

I'd like to thank you, MountainDan, for your touching concern for the Democratic Party's electoral fortunes, but you appear somewhat confused: this is not, as you seem to think, a meeting of high-level Party strategists planning our tactics for the forthcoming midterms, but a blog in which people discuss their opinions.

Nevertheless, you do seem to have some useful ideas, and I am in touch with several Democratic campaigns and party officials, so if you'd like to send me your resume I'll see what I can do about getting you a position as a staff adviser to help us map out our way midterms.

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't had time to check out all of Kevin's links, but the fact that many of the Gitmo detainees are innocents who were ratted out for bounty money paid out indiscriminately by the CIA, has been known for some time.

Just another example of his Bush and his incompetents have completely mishandled the response to 9-11. From not having Green Berets on the ground in Afghanistan on the morning of 9-12-01, to failing to pursue bin Laden at Tora Bora, to allowing Pakistan to block the hot pursuit of al-Qaeda, to failing to work effectively with Interpol and other international police organizations, to pissing billions down our legs in Iraq when they posed no threat to this country at all - the so-called War on Terror has been an abject failure.

If the Dems had any competency in getting a message out, they would borrow a Rovian tactic and go after one of Dubya's supposed strengths and take out full page ads highlighting the myriad ways this dipshit has been weak on terror....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 15, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Stephan:

The Sincerity Strategy -- ROTFL !

Call 'em on their bluff and watch 'em fold every time :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 15, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

MountainDan . . .

Why do GOP presidents always self-destruct after winning elections?

Why does the GOP self-destruct after getting firm control of Congress?

Perhaps you could offer some advice to the GOP also, eh?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

MountainDan: And the supposed plan Bush offered is a goddam lie with a "trust me" whitewashed across the front of it.

There are no viable plans for success in the FUBAR situation Bush signed the US up for. All they have is blind adherence to Bremer's PR schedule, re-management of expectations, and a repeated "I'll pay you double next week if you go away now."

If things are going according to plan, Osama must have been a big part of the planning team.

Posted by: AC8 on February 15, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

The most burning question for today that everybody is ignoring is why Cheney shot Whittington.

Historically, this question is second only to the question of why Vince Foster committed suicide.

Posted by: 'Jay' on February 15, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

The most burning question for today that everybody is ignoring is why Cheney shot Whittington. Historically, this question is second only to the question of why Vince Foster committed suicide.

Obviously, Cheney shot Whittington in Fort Marcy Park and then had his body transported to Texas where it was dumped in that field.

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Evidently they're outsourcing trolls. Cheaper, no doubt.

Posted by: gcochran on February 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Most americans polled agree it is worse to imprison 100 innocents and leave guilty people free to do harm than it is to do nothing at all.

Most politicians polled agree that it is worse to do nothing than to do something counterproductive that is spinnable.

Posted by: Fantasy Poll on February 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

'Historically, this question is second only to the question of why Vince Foster committed suicide.'
--Jay

There is no mystery there. Foster's wife Lisa and the note found in Vince's briefcase have provided the answer - he was driven to suicide from depression caused by false and inflammatory editorials in the WSJ and other right-wing publications.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 15, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

As all the Freepers say about warrantless spying, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

Or ...... do ...... you?

Posted by: karog on February 15, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

A bit of advice for "Jay" (the troll).

Get a new handle, dude (maybe some gloss or pun on "Al" - and I think "Norman Rogers" is in the public domain now).

It's giving the rest of us a bad name.

Posted by: Jay C on February 15, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Get a new handle DUDE!" Dude, you've already given yourself a bad name.

Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: Dude, you've already given yourself a bad name.

Ahhh, the childlike retorts of the juvenile Jayster.

What's next, Jayster?

Liar, liar, pants on fire?

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

What is WRONG with people like Jay, Mountain Dan, and some of the other commentators above? Have they no shame? No decency? Not the slightest alliegance to the principles on which this country was founded?

Confronted with evidence that the United States is imprisoning and tormenting innocents, they gleefully respond that tormenting innocents is good politics. They gloat over the cowardice and ignorance of the American people.

There is a place in Hell waiting for those who use the fear and pain of others this way . . .

Posted by: rea on February 15, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

The first time I saw a picture of Ralph Reed, I thought to my self "If souls exist, that man doesn't have one." Perhaps these folks have lost more than we can ever imagine.

Posted by: MobiusKlein on February 16, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

am I the only one here who wants to shut down the prison at Guantanamo bay and send the inmates back to the countries of their origin?

Posted by: republicrat on February 16, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry to be so late, but Kevin, this is why you were wrong about Graham Levin, see this, and why your being AWOL at the all-hands-on-deck moment in November 2005 when this came up was so important. These reports are only possible because of the legal reprsentation of prisoners, and that was only possible because of the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul. If Congress has overruled Rasul, treatment of prisoners will get worse, not better.

It seems that no one at the Administration has read these articles, or else their responses to the UN Report would be deeply dishonest.

Posted by: CharleyCarp on February 16, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly