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 20, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

JANE MAYER ON TORTURE....Jane Mayer's New Yorker article about Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy, and his fight against abusive interrogation practices, is must reading. But I want to highlight the part of the story that hasn't really seen the light of day before. Near the middle of Mayer's account, we learn that after several months of internal fighting, Mora had warned William Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense, that he planned to put his objections to the Pentagon's policies in writing:

By the end of the day, Haynes called Mora with good news. Rumsfeld was suspending his authorization of the disputed interrogation techniques. The Defense Secretary also was authorizing a special working group of a few dozen lawyers, from all branches of the armed services, including Mora, to develop new interrogation guidelines. Mora, elated, went home to his wife and son....

A week later, Mora learned that John Yoo, a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, had written an opinion arguing that Mora's concerns were unfounded. Yoo's opinion was forwarded to the working group:

In the spring of 2003, Mora waited for the final working-group report to emerge, planning to file a strong dissent. But the report never appeared. Mora assumed that the draft based on Yoos ideas had not been finalized and that the suspension of the harsh techniques authorized by Rumsfeld was still in effect.

....In June...Haynes wrote a letter [to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy] saying that the Pentagons policy was never to engage in torture, or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment just the sort of statement Mora had argued for. He wrote...that he saw Hayness letter as the happy culmination of the long debates in the Pentagon. He sent an appreciative note to Haynes, saying that he was glad to be on his team.

The next year, Mora learned that he'd been sandbagged:

On April 28, 2004, ten months later, the first pictures from Abu Ghraib became public. Mora said, I felt saddened and dismayed. Everything we had warned against in Guantnamo had happenedbut in a different setting. I was stunned.

He was further taken aback when he learned, while watching Senate hearings on Abu Ghraib on C-SPAN, that Rumsfeld had signed the working-group report the draft based on Yoos opinion a year earlier, without the knowledge of Mora or any other internal legal critics. Rumsfelds signature gave it the weight of a military order. This was the first Id heard of it!

....Without Moras knowledge, the Pentagon had pursued a secret detention policy. There was one version, enunciated in Hayness letter to Leahy, aimed at critics. And there was another, giving the operations officers legal indemnity to engage in cruel interrogations, and, when the Commander-in-Chief deemed it necessary, in torture. Legal critics within the Administration had been allowed to think that they were engaged in a meaningful process; but their deliberations appeared to have been largely an academic exercise, or, worse, a charade.

It's stunning. Not only did the Bush administration keep Congress and the American public in the dark, but they even deliberately lied to their own chief legal advisors. (The administration provided Mayer with an official excuse for this behavior, of course, but it's laughably thin.)

And the debate is still going on. Mora reports that "a few months ago" he sat in on a meeting to decide if it should be official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Despite the fact that virtually everyone at the meeting supported the proposal, and despite the fact that U.S. law already forbids the violation of Common Article Three, the proposal was scuttled because of Bush administration opposition.

The pigheaded blindness on display here is nothing short of astonishing. Even those who don't have any moral objection to abusive treatment of prisoners ought to understand the tremendous damage done to our cause by refusing to abide by U.S. law, international treaties, or even a decent respect for world opinion. It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

As always, the problem with the Bush administration is not that they want to fight a war on terror. The problem is that they don't understand how to fight it, and because of that we're losing the broader and more important ideological war against terrorism and we're going to keep on losing it until they figure that out, something they show no signs of doing. That's the problem.

Kevin Drum 3:32 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (214)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

oh, this is all so very very simple: laws are irrelevant in the absence of enforcement.

Posted by: cleek on February 20, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Laws are also irrelevant to a certain type of person, they are called criminals.

Posted by: jay boilswater on February 20, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

...laws are irrelevant

Hmmmm, I'm seeing a trend with this administration.

Posted by: ckelly on February 20, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I can't wait until the prisoners are paraded before the press to apaologize for being tortured and making the administration face uncomfortable questions.

Posted by: Rob on February 20, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

another way of saying what cleek said is that they'll do it, and everything else they do, until they are stopped. A bit of light this morning in the NSA wiretap issue indicates that some Republican lawmakers are getting tired of being spat on by their "dear leader." I guess Bush spit gets harder and harder to wipe off. Sadly, there is little sign of effective and coherant opposition from the Dems.

Posted by: wvng on February 20, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is that they don't understand how to fight it.

The Idiot Bush got played for a fool by bin Laden.

The only part of the "GWOT" Bush is winning is here at home politically, but even that's arguable.

Everywhere overseas we have failed: politically, rhetorically, diplomatically, maybe even militarily.

Heckuva job, I say.

Posted by: Flamethrower on February 20, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

> The Idiot Bush got played for a fool by
> bin Laden.

Really? While bin Laden has certainly achieved most of his goals, I think that Cheney/Rumsfeld have as well. I am not suggesting the uber-conspiracy theory that they are actually working together (not impossible, but unlikely), but I don't think that those two or their backers are unhappy with events as they are working out.

Crnaky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 20, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

And the debate is still going on.

It is unfortunate we're having this debate in the first place because every time liberals start the debate the enemy is listening. They see the debate as a sign of weakness and our lack of resolve in doing everything possible to kill the terrorists before they strike again. It emboldens the enemies to attack America again as they did on 9/11. But liberals don't care about the enemy killing Americans because they hate Bush more.

Posted by: Al on February 20, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

I would suggest that anyone who objects to this behavior by the US government find a way to protest it and ultimately to change it. It may be necessary to do so through international organizations - the Red Cross, the UN, Amnesty International - since it appears too few of our representatives either care or have the clout to do anything about it.

Posted by: karin on February 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

You liberals always worry about legal niceties. The USA is under direct threat from terrorists, and you worry about some foreign document named after a place that no one I know has been to. Look, we just need to trust the President on this one. He's doing the right thing, and the American people understand this.

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Look, we just need to trust the President on this one. He's doing the right thing...

He's doing the wrong thing, and if we ever get to the "I told you so" moment, it will be too late. Take your head out of the sand - it's embarassing.

Posted by: rusrus on February 20, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I could be wrong but I think the comments by Al and Happy Conservative are parody - or at least that is how I read them.

Posted by: karin on February 20, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

It's generally conceded that many to most of the detainees in Guantanamo are there by mistake. And so, we've used torture and abuse on innocent people.

That's the wisdom of paranoia.

Think of the Salem witch trials and the persistence of the infamy they spawned. How many more innocents have been tortured and killed to find our modern "witches"? It's as if the Salem puritans had Science and Technology at their beck and call.

The terrible irony, of course, is that not only had Bush been warned about the identity AND the technique the 9/11 terrorists used, but floating around the country among various FBI agents and offices was information that had Bush taken the threat seriously could have prevented 9/11. All achieved the old fashioned way.

The innocents of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have paid the price not only for Bush's indifference, but also for his laziness. At least the Salem puritans had religious reasons behind their hysteria. Bush's reasons are callowness and political advantage.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The phrase you hear so often in another context, 'they say one thing in English and another in Arabic', describes a fundamental character of social conservatives everywhere.

Posted by: cld on February 20, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Al and HappyConservative aren't paroding, they're parroting.

Posted by: donnie on February 20, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. HappyConservative just out-Al-parodied the fake Al...That was almost too good.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 20, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

to George Bush in the words of Joseph Welch:

"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"

Posted by: jw on February 20, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"....persist in repugnant behavior...."
Small wonder we call them Repugnicans.

Posted by: Tanna on February 20, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

As always, the problem with the Bush administration is not that they want to fight a war on terror. The problem is that they don't understand how to fight it...

Do you know why Bush is in power right now?

Because for all your rhetoric and ridiculous sniping and backbiting, the American people know that when it comes to national defense, conservatives have both the will and the resolve to see it through to the end.

So it's a little humorous to see articles like these. If you want to see the very definition of quagmire or retreat, have John Kerry head up this effort.

Of course, you will deny this to the end, but it's the very reason that Bush is a two term President.

Posted by: sportsfan079 on February 20, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Goddamn liberals!

Shut the hell up! All patriotic Americans know that we should trust the President when he hands the security of our ports over to a company from the United Arab Emirates.

The truth and rightness of this action is clear for anyone to see.

Your "debating" is keeping all that fat post-911 security money out of the hands of our friends in Dubai.

Posted by: Houston Conservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Do you think that this means anything to those who have been rioting, burning, injuring, and killing due to their presumed offense over a series of cartoons? Is there anything that we could do as a country to show the world that we are fighting for a just cause? What if we played catch and release? Just let terrorists go after they have been captured. No confinement. No questions. Would that change any minds of those burning the embassies and churches? Many of them freely admit their actions are not due to those "offensive" cartoons. It's the exsistence of the US and Israel that fuels their hatred. The cartoons are a convienient excuse.

Before it was Abu Ghraib. The recently released pictures are from the same time frame as the originals. Yet their release is page one news again. Why? Is it evidence that we are still abusing prisoners? Didn't those that committed the abuse (much of it for their own personal pleasure, not via any order) get punished?

I really can't worked up over your hand wringing. Not when Jimmy Carter and Kofi are supporting Hamas. Not when the N.Y. Times discloses where best to target our troops. Where their body armor has it's chinks. Not when the Dems are debating how to enact Murtha's desire to cut and run from Iraq. Or as Screamin Howie puts it, to stage our troops in an area outside of Iraq for fast response to a serious incident in the country. Like where Howie?

I just don't see how your angst over an incident that wasn't the result of official policy is going to solve any problem.

Mora is upset that his worst fears came true in Abu Ghraib. But the maority of the abuse was not ordered or condoned by the military. Mora is a lawyer. He had his opinion. There were many other lawyers involved. Where in the article are their opinions? Why is his opinion help above dispute?

Posted by: meatss on February 20, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

The right just keeps playing right into Bin Ladens hand,Be scared,Stay scared,Live forever scared!

Posted by: rico swava' on February 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

If you want to see the very definition of quagmire

If I want to see the very definition of quagmire, I will look to Iraq.

In addition to defining quagmire, the Iraqi endeaver also connotes corruption, cronyism, mismanagement, criminal negligence, political interference with the military, and the manipulation of intelligence to mislead a nation.

Posted by: trex on February 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

THEY ARE HANDING OUR PORTS OVER TO ARAB COUNTRIES.

THINK ABOUT THAT, BUSH CULTISTS...

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

when it comes to national defense, conservatives have both the will and the resolve to see it through to the end.

I'm just wondering where the conservatives are in this government of ours. Haven't seen any lately.

Posted by: karin on February 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

sportsfan079, it's because of idiots like you that Bush is a two term president. People who believe in this nonsense about what conservatives can do without any strong empirical evidence to back it up. Morons who vote against their self interests because of gay rights and other 'insidious' social issues.

Hopefully at the end of the day, Americans will come back to their senses and history would have proved that Bush was the worst president of the modern era if not in the history of the republic. Otherwise, we may be witnessing the beginning of a series of events, the end of which no man knows.

Posted by: GOD on February 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jefferson Davis, where is your proof that most of those held in Camp Gitmo are there by mistake? Are you familiar with the aspects of their capture? Have you been witness to their interrogations? Or are you basing this on the fact that out of those released from Gitmo, only a small percentage have been recaptured or killed fighting our troops again? It can't be based on a UN report where the authors didn't even go to Gitmo. Heck of a way to observe conditions, isn't it?

Posted by: meatss on February 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Still waiting for meatss to defend giving the port contracts to the UAE company.

meatss...?

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Laws only apply to Democrats.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 20, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

To those of you who feel that debates like this one only embolden the terrorists, keep in mind what it is we say we are fighting for. It is precisely this ability to debate issues in public.

If we stop participating in that most fundamental exercise of freedom, well, we might as well just roll over and give it all up.

Posted by: Jack Lindahl on February 20, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

sportsfan079 - Bush being elected is not the same as Bush being correct about the war on terrorism. People voted for many reasons, good and bad.

When you say things like "conservatives have both the will and the resolve to see it through to the end", it would help your case immeasurably if you could define what "the end" means. What is your goal? The death of every Muslim? You've got a billion to go, so get cracking. The death of every terrorist? Unlike in movies, terrorists have families and friends who love them. If you kill one terrorist and one innocent person, you recruit ten to twenty more. Do you want the love and admiration of the entire world? Then we should start obeying U.S. law, International law, and stop torturing innocent people, you jackass.

Posted by: travis on February 20, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, big bad conservatives...why is giving the port contract to an Arab country such a great idea?

69% of us (the real Americans) are waiting for an answer...

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

meatss, does it matter that are guilty? So, torture is OK? Fear has turned you and your ilk to animals. This truly is sad that you would lose all sense of morality just because you think some people want to kill you.

Posted by: GOD on February 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Move on.

A low level lawyer in the Navy feels slightd because he was not in the loop. In the great experiment and enterprise of which Iraq is just the first step, this does not amount to a hill of beans.

Gotta focus on the big picture. the big picture.

Posted by: lib on February 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"The Idiot Bush got played for a fool by bin Laden."

Really? The latest headline I saw reads: "Bin Laden vows he won't be caught alive". I guess things are going so well and according to plan, Bin Laden is already making preparations to meet his 72 virgins.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Are we really going to give our tax money to an Arab country to run OUR shipping PORTS?

Still waiting for the "patriots" to explain this to me. And Congress.

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

It seems the liberals never passes a chance to defend people who want to kill Americans. And they wonder why they can't get elected.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Meatss nails it! A lawyer says we have to obey the law, and you liberals go weak at the knees. Meatss is right: all this public discussion is a direct threat to the Republic.

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Are we really going to give our tax money to an Arab country to run OUR shipping PORTS?

Still waiting for the "patriots" to explain this to me. And Congress."

What? So you guys are now for racial profiling?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

It seems the "conservatives" never pass a chance to defend the money men who use our government to enrich themselves (Haliburton, etc) and their partners over in the oil dumps (UAE companies).

Again, did the liberals just give these port contracts to the Arabs?

No...it was BUSH.

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter, go fu*k your mom you asshole. You make me sick.

Posted by: GOD on February 20, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

No I don't agree with the UAE getting control of the ports. I didn't agree when a British company had that control. I didn't agree when Carter gave away the Panama Canal and I don't agree with a Chinese company controlling the canal operations now.
I don't agree that Iraq is a quagmire. I don't agree with a commenter using the name GOD as a screen name. But I'm not going to put a bounty on his head or threaten to burn his house down for committing blasphemy.
But as he says, we may be witnessing events then end of which no one knows. But these events have been a long time in developing. Do you think with another political party in office that the world would be in a different shape? Would bin Laden have not declared jihad on the west? Would many muslims not be clamoring for Shari'a law in western countries now? How would events have unfolded?

Posted by: meatss on February 20, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

"conservatives have both the will and the resolve to see it through to the end."

What end would that be? Detainment and torture of anyone not appropriately worshipful of W?

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 20, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

It seems the liberals never passes a chance to defend people who want to kill Americans. And they wonder why they can't get elected.

"seems". What a waste of a good word.

Being American used to mean being the Good Guys.


Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Again, did the liberals just give these port contracts to the Arabs?"

But I thought liberals decried profiling? Aren't you going to applaud Bush for that?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

If you DO NOT AGREE with President Bush, meatass...doesn't that mean you are giving comfort to the enemy?

Agreeing that we should give contracts - concerning our ports - to Arab countries means you support the President on terrorism.

Thinking that we SHOULD NOT give them the contracts - this is giving comfort to our enemies.

Starting to understand just how far these "conservatives" will go?

Don't trust them. For a second.

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter nails it! All these statements from OBL show that he knows the President is hot on his trail and has been so since 9/11/01. It's only been 4.5 years. What do you liberals want, a miracle? No wonder you can't get elected.

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

would that freedom fighter were a parody along the lines of happyconservative, but no: he/she really means it! the only question is, which is the stupidest of the 3 freedom fighter postings: the one that suggests that all is going according to plan because a headline says that bin laden vows never to be caught alive; the one that makes no sense at all at 4:34; or the one that suggests that says that questioning assigning a national security matter to the united arab emirate amounts to racial profiling.

i vote for 4:34, but that's because i'm an old-fashioned guy who thinks that postings that make no sense on the face of them are, by definition, stupider than posts that make no sense once you think about them for a nanosecond or two....

Posted by: howard on February 20, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter, you do realize you have exactly the same mindset as those killing over cartoons, right? You mindlessly buy into the "macho" theme of the day and can't think beyond that, and attack anyone who dares question The Prophet / Dear Leader.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 20, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

So, Freedom Fighter...you still have not answered...

You support giving the contracts to the UAE company, yes or no?

Conservatives are so plain spoken...except when they don't want to answer an uncomfortable question...

Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

meatass on February 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM:

where is your proof that most of those held in Camp Gitmo are there by mistake?

Read Kev's earlier posting on this topic, especially the National Journal articles he linked to...It isn't just based on the UN report...

...Then you should apologize to Jefferson Davis for being a jackass.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 20, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

I trust the President and Secretary Chertoff implicitly, so I'm not worried about the ports. Can you liberals name one mistake either of them has made in the past year? Their performance has been flawless.

Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"You support giving the contracts to the UAE company, yes or no?"

To answer your question; no, I don't support it. But that wasn't my point. My point is: you guys are hypocrites on this issue.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Damn you Freedom Fighter!

Traitor!

Posted by: President Bush on February 20, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

rico swava Nails it, We are scared,We fear Bin Laden and we are not scared to admitt it.(piddle running dowm my leg).

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hey FF, what freedoms are you fighting for? The freedom to be ruled by an unquestioned, above-the-law dictator?

And your chosen method of fighting is babbling incoherently? Cut back on the oxycontin, dude.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 20, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

conservatives have both the will and the resolve to see it through to the end

travis has already neatly whacked up sportsfan's inability to define "the end" (or the beginning, or the middle...). I'd just like to add that "will" and "resolve" are both lovely things, but when even obedient foot soldiers like sportsfan can't bring themselves to say the conservatives have "competence" on this issue, it's all over.

Posted by: shortstop on February 20, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Trading with an enemy is an interesting charge. The details of the dealings of Prescott Bush with Nazis in the early days of WW2 has come to light recently.

George Bush's brother Prescott traded with China before any other American could.

Vice-President Cheney, when he was CEO of Halliburton, set up an offshore company to circumvent the prohibition against Americans trading with Iraq.

And recently, former President Bush's Carlyle Group, a defense/military fund, has begun trading with the ChiComs.

So, why shouldn't we turn over inspection of our ports to an Arab company? There are no foreign corporations. There's only money, and money has no nationality.

Besides, it's only treason if you're caught, like John Lindh, and can't find someone on TV to defend you.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Freedom Fighter, you do realize you have exactly the same mindset as those killing over cartoons, right? You mindlessly buy into the "macho" theme of the day and can't think beyond that, and attack anyone who dares question The Prophet / Dear Leader."

Actually, it's you liberals who are just like the Moslems. You both are so kneejerk anti-American that your rhetorics are indistinguishable from each other.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm already in charge.

Why should I compromise with anyone, in any branch of the government?

If they don't like my decisions, and the people I have in place, they've got a new President coming in three years.

Tough.

Posted by: President Bush on February 20, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

howard, I'm still not convinced Freedom Fighter isn't a parody. I'm as misanthropic as the next overpaid ball player, but even I cannot believe that this level of stupidity is for real.

Posted by: shortstop on February 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Then you should apologize to Jefferson Davis for being a jackass.

Jeffrey. Not "Jefferson".

My parents claim that it never crossed their minds.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

As always, the problem with the Bush administration is not that they want to fight a war on terror. The problem is that they don't understand how to fight it...

This "war on terror" is complete bullshit. Haven't we realised this by now?

Posted by: Smokin' Dutch Cleanser on February 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

The Perrspectives Document Library has the latest news, legal documents, timelines, hearings and other key materials for the exploding Republican scandals including:

  • The NSA Domestic Spying Scandal

  • Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff

  • The Valerie Plame/CIA Leak Case

  • Abu Ghraib Torture Scandal

  • Iraq War Intelligence
  • Posted by: Eric the Red on February 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

    It's really cool that the President posts here. And you liberals think he lives in a cocoon. Ha!

    Hi, President Bush! You're the greatest.

    Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

    Since DHS is still reponsible for port security,including the 6 under the now P&O contract to be sold to DPW,I fail to grasp the level of concern. It's just business.
    Or is the reaction because DHS has shown its incompetence much as Rumsfeld has shown his. Or Condi's equal astonishment of the terrorists using planes as missiles and Hamas winning the election.
    A competent DHS would render the concerns about these ports irrelevant. But you have to guard the ports with the DHS you have,not the DHS you'd like to have.

    Posted by: TJM on February 20, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

    "Besides, it's only treason if you're caught, like John Lindh, and can't find someone on TV to defend you."

    But treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To the left, John Walker Lindh is a hero!

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

    President Bush-

    What's on your iPod right now?

    Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

    No, I can't apologize if Davis is a jackass. I never called him that. The question of whether the majority of the prisoners are innocents caught in the heat of battle has been answered to my satisfaction here. Unless you are privy to their capture and interrogations, you speak from ignorance. Basing any of your facts on the words of those released does not prove your case. The logic of their release seems to indicate that the US determined they were at least of no risk, not of innocence. That there are accounts of some of those released being killed in future actions with our or other troops shows that their report of innocence was false.
    In Michael Yon's report of the firefight where the Lt. Col. of the Deuce Four was shot and injured, the assailant had been caught before, sent to Abu Ghraib, and released. Only to attack our troops again. And what happened after the firefight? He was given medical treatment in the gurney next to the Col. he had shot. If we are so dispicable, why didn't we finish him off where he lay or torture him using his wounds as an instrument of torture? A lot of hand wringing, woe is me.

    Posted by: meatss on February 20, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

    "Hey FF, what freedoms are you fighting for? The freedom to be ruled by an unquestioned, above-the-law dictator?"

    Are you still supporting AlGore after that stunt he just pulled? Maybe you should seriously consider Sheehan/Obama for '08.

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

    Audio book...

    ..."Congo", by Mike.

    Cyber monkeys...real "California" stuff...

    LOVED the movie...book's a little...

    Posted by: President Bush on February 20, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

    Freedom Fighter nails it! John Walker Lindh was a clear and present danger to the Republic, which is why AG Ashcroft and the Justice Department prosecuted him as a traitor. I can hardly wait for his execution! Does anyone know when that'll be?

    Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

    President Bush, President Bush, was it a pretzel twist or one of those "thin stix" that brought you down like a Cheney hunting partner? And when you go to bed at 8:30, do you ever lie awake wondering what it would have been like if you'd fulfilled your real destiny: owning a chain of Texas gas stations, eating barbecue four times a week and treating yourself to season baseball tickets?

    And does it bug you that so many people are so callously disregarding Jesus' plan and questioning the divine right of your kingship? And what's up with Laura's continual purple haze?

    Posted by: shortstop on February 20, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

    FF-

    You are the Voltaire to my Bill Hicks, mon ami...

    Truly, I am typing with one of the great political satirists of my time...

    Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

    Look at what is going on in the world and you can see what a failure this Administration is:

    > In Pakistan they are attacking American commercial interests.
    > In Malaysia they are attacking our embassies.
    > In Iraq the legislature condemns the Abu Ghraib photos and wants us out as soon as possible.

    We are the pariahs of the world, folks. All the good will and sympathy we had after 9-11 is gone.

    We are no longer the "shining city on the hill" that Ronald Reagan spoke of. Bush and his foolish advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, et al) have dragged us into the sewer. Foolish Americans like Al and Happy Conservative obviously don't travel abroad, because if they did, they would realize how less safe Americans are now, as result of the condoning of torture and abusive treatment at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    We are diminished as a free people by Bush's actions and we all need to feel very, very ashamed...

    Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 20, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

    I heart Happy Conservative...you are cracking me up.

    Posted by: shortstop on February 20, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

    Freedom Fighter, my conservative comrade, who are you going to support for '08? I'm hoping for a Rick Santorum/Alan Keyes ticket myself, but I know that's a long shot. In truth, I wish President Bush could run for a third term. He could have if those Democrats hadn't passed the 22nd amendment! :(

    Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

    Nice answer, FF. You're happy to blindly support W, no matter what they do to the constitution, no matter what laws they break, no matter what lies they tell, no matter how huge a deficit he runs, no matter how many hundreds of billions he pours into Iraq.

    I guess you did answer. "Hitler's Willing Executionors" describes you perfectly.

    Viva Gore for telling the truth and standing up for real freedom and the rule of law.

    Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 20, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

    Here's the main issue.

    The Administration is basically run by an old, obviously dimwitted generation.

    Look, conservatives - if you don't like the hippies, or hated the '60s - you shouldn't want the conservatives of that time running your shit right now either.

    John Kerry sucks ass. Hated him as a candidate.

    BUT:

    Just like the hippies - the men of that time, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, are embarrassments of the past. What the Right needed was the youthful energy of their blog sphere. Excellent, nerdy types that I would play Guitar Hero with anytime. What they got was a soulless numbers genius, Karl Rove, and ancient thinking from a long forgotten cultural war, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    The disconnect for the smarter conservatives is starting to happen as we speak. Yeah, he's President, but...this has got to start feeling "Clinton" painful...knowing he's a President you want to support, but, jeez...

    Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

    "In truth, I wish President Bush could run for a third term. He could have if those Democrats hadn't passed the 22nd amendment! :("

    Huh? You mean even emperors have to run for office??

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

    Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious, Happy Conservative.

    "I trust the President and Secretary Chertoff implicitly, so I'm not worried about the ports. Can you liberals name one mistake either of them has made in the past year? Their performance has been flawless."

    It's not like they messed up on handling some predictable, natural disaster. Or didn't find weapons they predicted they'd find in Iraq. Or didn't understand how to manage Iraq after they invaded. Or didn't lose track of billions of reconstruction dollars in Iraq. Or some boneheaded plan of theirs to "fix" Social Security that wouldn't have fixed it went over like a lead balloon. Or their big leader in the House didn't go down under investigation for felonious behavior. Or the trusted Vice President didn't accidentally shoot someone in the face.

    If some of those things had happened, I might have been worried about whether they were competent to make sure all the necessary oversight was in place before handing over our port security to an Arab country that was the homeland to some of the 9/11 hijackers.

    Posted by: cowalker's Republican twin on February 20, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

    I learned in Latin class that some Roman emperors did have to run for office, at least at first. I guess that was just more liberal lies. :(

    Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

    It is unfortunate we're having this debate in the first place because every time liberals start the debate the enemy is listening. They see the debate as a sign of weakness and our lack of resolve in doing everything possible to kill the terrorists before they strike again. It emboldens the enemies to attack America again as they did on 9/11. But liberals don't care about the enemy killing Americans because they hate Bush more.

    The great thing about Al's comment is that he can re-use it in so many different threads at so many different blogs. Saves the trouble of thinking.

    Posted by: Anderson on February 20, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

    "The Administration is basically run by an old, obviously dimwitted generation.

    Look, conservatives - if you don't like the hippies, or hated the '60s - you shouldn't want the conservatives of that time running your shit right now either."

    You must be a hippie yourself. Here's a newsflash: you guys are the old farts. LOL!

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

    The problem is that they don't understand how to fight it
    I've got an idea, why don't the Democrats come up with an alternative?

    And don't rely on "terrorism is a law enforcement problem" or "we need to appease terrorists" or "let's rely on sanctions". You know, all the stuff that has already failed.

    You know, it would even be a start if you could coherently address which parts of Bush's plan are working and which aren't.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

    "I learned in Latin class that some Roman emperors did have to run for office, at least at first. I guess that was just more liberal lies. :("

    So are you saying Bush isn't in office yet? :(

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

    That there are accounts of some of those released being killed in future actions with our or other troops shows that their report of innocence was false.

    Not in the least. "You can't step into the same river twice." The man you tortured is not the same man you captured: many will have an anger and desire for revenge that they didn't have prior to being arrested. There aren't many men who forgive wrongful imprisonment. Add in torture and humiliation and sacrilege and what do you expect? "I will return to my village now and farm and lead the apolitical life of my peasant grandfather." Is that what you would do?

    And you might ask of yourself what "facts" you base your belief on that there have been released Guantanamo prisoners killed in battle.

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

    Freedom Fighter nails it! I don't trust anyone over 30. Except, I guess, for President Bush. Other than that, forget it. Oh, and Secretary Chertoff.

    Posted by: HappyConservative on February 20, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

    "Nice answer, FF. You're happy to blindly support W"

    When have I ever said I supported W, let alone blindly? I have however stated earlier in this topic that I didn't support Bush on the port issue. I guess liberals just don't know how to read.

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

    So are you saying Bush isn't in office yet? :(

    Not legally. (The 100,000 discounted Florida ballots will be with us a long, long time.)

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

    "Not legally. (The 100,000 discounted Florida ballots will be with us a long, long time.)"

    So the Supreme Court is not a legal authority? :(

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

    > And don't rely on "terrorism is a law enforcement
    > problem" [...] You know, all the stuff that has
    > already failed.

    That is actually the method that England and France have used quite successfully for over 100 years. Italy too. Rumsfeld has stated that it is US policy going forward. Evidence that this is a "failed" approach please?

    Cranky

    Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 20, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

    It is unfortunate we're having this debate in the first place because every time liberals start the debate the enemy is listening. They see the debate as a sign of weakness and our lack of resolve in doing everything possible to kill the terrorists before they strike again.

    Yeah, tyrants and their apologists never can understand the democratic process. Debate and criticism is what strengthens us Al-bot.

    Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 20, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

    Yup, FF's an AI...probably running from the Texas A&M servers...

    ...they so need to upgrade the vocabulary file on the next rev...

    Posted by: The Hague on February 20, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

    "I don't trust anyone over 30."

    Don't you mean 60? I didn't think there were too many hippies from the 60s that are still 30 years old.

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

    That is actually the method that England and France have used quite successfully for over 100 years.
    Sure, ever heard of Ulster? Catch the French riots? Any subway bombings lately in Britain? Want me to actually do some research instead of relying on stuff off the top of my head?

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

    Debate and criticism is what strengthens us Al-bot.
    Surely, but knee-jerk opposition is not debate and criticism.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

    "I will return to my village now and farm and lead the apolitical life of my peasant grandfather." Is that what you would do?

    once they see our gigantic throbbing military power, they'll be so cowed that they'll never dare even look us in the face again, let alone take up arms against us. that's how the USSR conqured Afghanistan and how Israel has subdued the Palestinians, ya know.

    Posted by: cleek on February 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

    > Want me to actually do some research
    > instead of relying on stuff off the
    > top of my head?

    That would be nice, since none of the examples you cite were allowed to rise to an existental threat to the state. Not even Ireland, though it looked that way when the "kill them all" theory ruled the day.

    The French riots could be a long-term problem if the French don't figure out how to handle immigrants, but that is not a terrorism problem at this point. Or perhaps you were thinking of the daily riots of all Moslem immigrants in Dearborn MI?

    Cranky

    Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 20, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

    Huh. I see Bush today referred to some of our oil suppliers as having "unstable governments that have fundamental differences with Americans." Well, he'd know, wouldn't he?

    Posted by: shortstop on February 20, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

    That would be nice, since none of the examples you cite were allowed to rise to an existental threat to the state.
    And you're thinking that terrorism has risen to an "existential threat" to us? That is either
    a) A pitiful attempt at deflection
    b) You are in favor of living with low level terrorism

    Now, the left was the group that was content to allow the Cold War to continue forever, so it should be (b). But somehow I get the impression that you were shooting for (a).

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

    Be afraid, con nut, be very afraid.

    Oh no, the taiirrrists is a comin'! Ma, head for high ground!

    You conservatives are the biggest bunch of bedwetters pussies I have ever seen. Aren't you supposed to be for individual rights and standing up for the bill of rights, rather than gladly handing them over to your alcoholic imcompetant daddy figure, all so you will feel safe to enjoy another day of white man's suburbs?

    Jumping like scared rabbits, and it's fricking hysterical to witness.

    Posted by: Paul Reed Smith (not the real one) on February 20, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

    Didn't FF say he was fifteen? Right now his world is informed by comic books and action figures. 'Course my eight year old nephew had a better grasp of politics than FF does, but I guess FF rides the short bus to school.

    BTW, Shortstop, hilarious stuff!

    Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on February 20, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

    Kevin, I'd disagree: the problem isn't that they want to fight a war on terror, nor is it that they don't understand how to fight it.

    It's that, for them, the whole point in fighting a War On Terror seems to be to increase political power at home. Hence the lack of interest in the details of both the WoT and the Iraq war. They don't give a flying fuck about making it work, whatever 'it' may be, so long as they can sell it as a success, or even a difficult but necessary path.

    Posted by: RT on February 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

    Oh no, the taiirrrists is a comin'! Ma, head for high ground!
    Right, and the left's plan is "We musn't do anything that might upset them." Tell me again who's scared?

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

    So the Supreme Court is not a legal authority?

    The Constitution says states shall determine their own means. The Supremes didn't let Florida do that.

    But prior to the SC even hearing a case, Florida illegally discounted double-marked ballots. They should have counted the umbiguous ones. Had they done that, Gore would have won Florida by ~30,000 votes.

    (Strange, considering our "liberal" media, the recent study by the FSU professor into the question didn't rate national coverage. Strange, wouldn't you say?)

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

    The Constitution says states shall determine their own means.
    Well, it says that State Legislatures shall determine the means. Not State Supreme Courts.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

    As always, the problem with the Bush administration is not that they want to fight a war on terror.

    On every possible issue of public notice, from torture to spying to Iraq to 9/11, even to the way they handle prosecutions, the administration has unerringly charted a course that maximizes danger to their political enemies, but also damage to the fight against terrorism.

    On issues beneath public notice, unerringly maximize damage to the fight against terrorism while minimizing the chance of increased attention. Tora Bora, handling of Saudi Arabia, the make up and operation of Homeland Security Department, Port Security are examplee.


    Posted by: Boronx on February 20, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

    I think the Right may be scared of there own strawmen, they sure have put up enough strawmen in this thread to scare a field of wheat.Hey Ditto's trolls.

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

    > And you're thinking that terrorism has
    > risen to an "existential threat" to us?
    > That is either
    > a) A pitiful attempt at deflection

    Other than an existential threat, what exactly justifies vaporizing the Constitution? Particularly the 4th Amendment, which was designed to prevent exactly what Cheney is doing today?

    > b) You are in favor of living with low level
    > terrorism

    In a world where AK-47 and M-16 knockoffs are sold at every Interstate exit (in my state at least), and machine tools with precision of 0.0005 are available for $20,000 or less, please explain to me EXACTLY how one prevents "low level terrorism"? Is "fighting them over there" going to do it, eh?

    Perhaps next you can reveal your better-than-Ralph-Nader plan for reducing car accidents to zero.

    Cranky

    Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 20, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

    I especially liked the part of Rumsfelds order where he describes how to stack naked prisoners into a pyramid.

    Give us all a break.

    If you know anything, you know that the Abu Gyraib abuse was due to a Pennasylvania prison guard who had done similar things back in Pennsylvania.
    Of course he shouldn't have been in th Guard, but Clinton had very low standards of conduct for Guardsmen...similar to his own abuse of low level employees.

    Posted by: Patton on February 20, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

    (You say Bush isn't in the office yet)Well the lights are on but nobodys home.

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

    Well, it says that State Legislatures shall determine the means. Not State Supreme Courts.

    The Florida Sec of State can't unilaterally throw out ballots either, but she did.

    Since the case wasn't ripe there was no need for the Supremes to enter.

    If the Republican Party weren't a criminal enterprise, this wouldn't have happened.

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

    Hey Patton, explain how the Pennsylvania National Guard troops infiltrated the command structure of Gitmo, too. :rolleyes:

    Posted by: RT on February 20, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

    Patton, shush. the growups are talking now.

    Posted by: cleek on February 20, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

    So Patten says, Bush lets the low level Clinton Guardsman run The War on Terror and that is why we are losing the war.Hmmm

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

    what exactly justifies vaporizing the Constitution?
    Funny you should bring that up, since your prime examples of Britain and France have weaker protections than we have now, even after our Constitution has been "vaporized". But I'd think your first task here would be to defend the statement that our Constitution has, indeed, been vaporized.

    And you're going to have to help me out with what obscure thing Cheney did today. It may have been enough to get the moonbats in an uproar, but no one else seems to have noticed.

    please explain to me EXACTLY how one prevents "low level terrorism"?
    One starts by not accepting the status quo. How's it feel to be a failure at step one?

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

    The Florida Sec of State can't unilaterally throw out ballots either, but she did.
    I doubt she did. The votes are counted in the precincts, they report results to her.

    Since the case wasn't ripe there was no need for the Supremes to enter.
    I agree, the proper response would have been from the FL Legislature. They should have cashiered the entire FL Supreme Court and then sent a slate of Bush electors.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

    The trio of con troll losers is present, with freedom fairy and his lover con nut leading the pack, with patton ever present in the background, once again worshipping his hero Clinton, a man whose accomplishments you will never match.

    Clap louder guys, you don't look that stupid with brown lipstick on, it rather suits you.

    Posted by: Git on February 20, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

    But I'd think your first task here would be to defend the statement that our Constitution has, indeed, been vaporized.

    "Only terrorists actually NEED to use their rights - so nobody ought to be entitled to them."

    Or - rather, I am asked to sacrifice my right to privacy to fight terrorism, but Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy is sacrosanct, and let's not even get started on the Executive Privilege by Fiat.

    Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 20, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK
    So it's a little humorous to see articles like these. ...Posted by:sportsfan079
    Don't just read the humorous articles, see the humor
    maority of the abuse was not ordered or condoned by the military. Mora is a lawyer. He had his opinion. There were many other lawyers involved. Where in the article are their opinions? Posted by: meatss
    Orders signed by Rumsfeld
    Bin Laden vows he won't be caught alive". I guess things are going so well and according to plan, .Posted by: Freedom Fighter
    He says that another attack is in the offing. How will having the UAE defend our ports stop it, or are you and Bush merely looking for an excuse to impose martial law?
    we may be witnessing events then end of which no one knows Do you think with another political party in office that the world would be in a different shape? Posted by: meatss
    It was and is clear to most that Iraq is a quagmire, that events have a predictable conclusion, and that Al Gore would have done everything humanly possible to prevent 9-11 whereas Bush did nothing to prevent it yet he is doing everything he can to allow another.
    My point is: you guys are hypocrites on this issue. Posted by: Freedom Fighter
    Hypocrites for wanting American security not to be off shored? You need new talking points because the ones you are using now are nonsensical.
    Are you still supporting AlGore after that stunt he just pulled? Posted by: Freedom Fighter
    Are you still supporting George W. Bush after all the incompetence, incoherence, and corruption he's shown? Maybe you should move to Iraq.
    if you don't like the hippies, or hated the '60s - you shouldn't want the conservatives of that time running your shit right nowJust like the hippies - the men of that time, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, are embarrassments of the past. Posted by: The Hague
    These moonbats buy tee-shirts that say, hippies stink. Like, is this 1968?
    You know, it would even be a start if you could coherently address which parts of Bush's plan are working and which aren't. Posted by: conspiracy nut
    Can you say what Bush's plan is? What is his exit strategy? Because to the rest of the world, no only is none of it working, it's all counter-productive.
    Not State Supreme Courts. Posted by: conspiracy nut
    Actually, yes it is up to state supreme courts it interpret state law. Even RepubliConTarians should know that. Posted by: Mike on February 20, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK
    Think of the Salem witch trials and the persistence of the infamy they spawned. How many more innocents have been tortured and killed to find our modern "witches"? It's as if the Salem puritans had Science and Technology at their beck and call.
    ~Jeffrey Davis
    f

    You know, I think this is actually a brilliant analogy. I've been looking for some way to understand what's been going on. And it's interesting that these guys are Puritans in many ways, or the fundamentalist heirs of that tradition.

    This is worth an entire essay, Jeffrey.

    Posted by: CR on February 20, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

    If there was no legal basis for the torture, everyone involved is a war criminal.

    Or am I missing something?

    Posted by: busdrivermike on February 20, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

    What you're missing is the proposition that there's no such thing as a "War Crime" - because you're always fighting for your very survival, and therefore, all means are justified.

    So if that proposition is accepted, all one needs to do is just lower the bar on the definition of what constitutes a "War" - and suddenly, no-holds-barred becomes business as usual. Yay! Republican paradise!

    Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 20, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

    Why ask if Bush is prosecuting a War on Terror ?
    Smoke and mirrors only carry you so far.
    Looks more like the Texan is building forts to house assault forces in Injun territory.
    Given the observance given to national borders during Vietnam ( joke ! ) one might surmise the restraint to expect in the future.

    Posted by: opit on February 20, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

    > One starts by not accepting the status
    > quo. How's it feel to be a failure at
    > step one?

    In other words, you have no concrete answers.

    When your Radical party is thrown out of office in Novembers 2006 and 2008, you will have no clue as to why the American people do not trust you. No clue at all.

    Cranky

    Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 20, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

    This New Yorker article is really sad. Every time I hear or read of legal manuverings thwarting the law for the "higher purpose" of stopping evil doers, I flash on the brilliant scene in A Man For All Seasons written by Robert Bolt:

    Wife Arrest him!
    Sir Thomas More For what?
    Wife He's dangerous!
    Roper For all we know he's a spy!
    Daughter Father, that man's bad!
    More There's no law against that!
    Roper There is, God's law!
    More Then let God arrest him!
    Wife While you talk he's gone!
    More And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
    Roper So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    More Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
    .
    .
    .
    So... let's go through this one more time: The Ends DO NOT justify the means regardless of how a-skeered rightwingnuts might get!

    --
    HRlaughed

    Posted by: HRlaughed on February 20, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

    I doubt she did. The votes are counted in the precincts, they report results to her.

    The important thing is to find out who directed that double marked ballots should be immediately discounted rather than to check to see if their intent could be discerned.

    Gore actually beat Bush in Florida by ~30,000 votes. And the entire Florida mechanism was used to thwart that. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident.

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

    Jeffrey Davis on February 20, 2006 at 4:51 PM

    Jeffrey. Not "Jefferson".

    Apologies...But Meatass probably owes him an apology as well, whoever he is.

    meatass on February 20, 2006 at 4:58 PM:

    No, I can't apologize if Davis is a jackass.

    Nice try at avoiding being called a jackass, you jackass...That clear things up for you, jackass?

    Unless you are privy to their capture and...blah blah RNC talking point blah blah...shows that their report of innocence was false.

    Sooooo...you didn't read the material I told you about. Oh well, can't combat willful, partisan ignorance.

    Speaking of which...

    conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 5:20 PM:

    You know, it would even be a start if you could coherently address which parts of Bush's plan are working and which aren't.

    Of course, that's assuming that Dubya actually had a plan in the first place. Can you even 'coherently address' what Dubya's plan is, much less which parts are working successfully?

    conspiracy nut on February 20, 2006 at 6:04 PM:

    the left's plan is "We musn't do anything that might upset them."

    Cite the source where you found the details of this nefarious 'lefty plan'. Bet it's a figment of your imagination.

    Patton on February 20, 2006 at 6:30 PM:

    I especially liked the part of Rumsfelds order where he describes how to stack naked prisoners into a pyramid.

    Naked manpiles excite you, do they, Patton?

    If you know anything, you know that the Abu Gyraib abuse was due to a Pennasylvania prison guard who had done similar things back in Pennsylvania.

    Were the dogs from Pennsylvania as well? Did the guard use his own camera and coerce the other prison guards into taking pictures? If you know anything, you know that the practice of torture isn't limited to Abu Ghraib...

    Of course, it could just that one guardsman, jetting to and fro in an effort to torture as many people as possible...

    Posted by: grape_crush on February 20, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

    John Yoo is obviously an undercover double agent! Recruited by NKPR agents as a junior comer, he has fulfilled his initial promise as a "unitary executive" proponent,i.e. "Kim Il Jung" clone.
    Push a big, bad ass position, on the Bush House that will make NK seem moderate by comparison, and they have achieved a political victory on the world stage. When was the last time that NK, in comparison with the US, was seen as reseasonable?
    John Yoo should be sent to Gitmo for some questions.

    Posted by: P.C.Chapman on February 20, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK


    KEVIN DRUM: It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

    Forget persuading. It's simply impossible to be the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant and hideously inhumane behavior.


    Posted by: jayarbee on February 20, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

    Move on.

    A low level lawyer in the Navy

    There is no higher level lawyer in the Department of the Navy than the General Counsel.

    Posted by: Davis X. Machina on February 20, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

    How much do you think that the Mellon Scaife propaganda mill pays C-Nut? Does it pay him/her in U.S. or Canadian dollars? I wondered since C-Nut is a Canuck and a partisan conservative who posts his/her inanity here regularly. Hmm. Maybe he/she is on the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's payroll.

    Git: The trio of con troll losers is present, with freedom fairy and his lover con nut leading the pack, with patton ever present in the background, once again worshipping his hero Clinton, a man whose accomplishments you will never match. ...Clap louder guys, you don't look that stupid with brown lipstick on, it rather suits you.

    Well said, Git. Although, let's not assume that the menag blah-blah-blah are gay. To be fair, ass licking and lapping up turd-ish swill like chocolate candy isn't exclusively a homosexual fetish. Is Brit Hume gay? Everyone at Faux News? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? However, rim jobs do seem to be prevalent amongst obedient neocons who can't think for themselves outside the GOP party line. Maybe there is another reason why Dubya christened Herr Rove, his "brain," with the nickname, Turdblossom. Dubya sure has the shit-eating smirk down pat.

    LOL!

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

    Which is more astonishing: A.) Rumsfeld et. al., establish a policy that is a complete clusterfuck, or B.) Patton posting AGAIN about Clinton's cock?

    Posted by: Pat on February 20, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

    Blah, blah, blah. The public has moved on, losers.

    Geneva convention applies to soldiers. Not to bunch of terrorists, beheading people on live TV, and setting off IED's next to Shiite mosques.

    If you hand them the benefits of Geneva, you take away incentices to follow Geneva for many third world countries. And Geneva prohibits things like blowing up civilian buses without a military objectives.


    Posted by: McA on February 20, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

    Want me to actually do some research instead of relying on stuff off the top of my head?

    There's a threat that's hard to top...

    Posted by: obscure on February 20, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

    "To the left, John Walker Lindh is a hero!"

    And that would be based on what? Oh, right: the smoke billowing out of your ass.

    Posted by: Kenji on February 20, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

    McA: Geneva convention applies to soldiers. Not to bunch of terrorists...

    Are you trying to say something un-nice about American soldiers and the Bush "regime"? Are you calling our soldiers and elected officials who thwart the Geneva Conventions terrorists?

    We live under the rule of law here in America, McA. Do you abide by the laws of Malaysia? If not, why not? Does your government torture? Is so, what law permits such barbaric tactics and why does Malaysia defy the Geneva Conventions?

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

    "I wondered since C-Nut is a Canuck and a partisan conservative who posts his/her inanity here regularly. Hmm. Maybe he/she is on the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's payroll."

    Why do liberals hate Asians?

    Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 20, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

    Why do conservatives hate to think for themselves?

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

    Does your government torture? Is so, what law permits such barbaric tactics and why does Malaysia defy the Geneva Conventions?

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

    Geneva convention applies to foreign soldiers.
    Secondly, we are third world country and don't give a shit like most other third world countries.
    If you haven't noticed international law, says nothing on barbaric local law enforcement, short of genocide.

    As to your soldiers. If they behead people on live TV and don't go to jail, they would be terrorists. I don't consider 'stress interrogation' to be the same thing.

    And drawing, ridiculous comparisons is a way to ensure nothing gets done about gross atrocities like the bombing of Shi'ite churches by insurgents.

    I appreciate your American right to hate your own country, but mind your own business, follow your elected leader and let your patriots deliver on their obligations to the Iraqi people. You break it, you fix it.

    Posted by: McA on February 20, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

    Why do conservatives hate the truth?

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

    Look at what is going on in the world and you can see what a failure this Administration is:

    > In Pakistan they are attacking American commercial interests.
    > In Malaysia they are attacking our embassies.
    > In Iraq the legislature condemns the Abu Ghraib photos and wants us out as soon as possible.

    Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 20, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

    Strangely, enough the first two are over Danish cartoons.

    Is it your position that a Democrat government would just take control of the press world-wide and keep the Muslims happy?

    You are right that things have been building up for a long time, but I would argue that the non-modernization of the Arab world is the problem.

    Posted by: McA on February 20, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

    If there is any justice in the world (a questionable proposition, I know), Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Haynes and the rest will live the rest of their lives like Pinochet -- unable to leave their homes for fear of being abducted and brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.

    These people have violated every principle that purports to make this country exceptional. Their irrational fear of the terrorist bogeymen has done more damage to our country than anything since the rebellion of the South.

    Posted by: dp on February 20, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

    McA: I appreciate your American right to hate your own country...

    Ah, one of those ridiculous comparisons, eh, McA?

    ...but mind your own business...

    Take your own advice, McA, and STFU.

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

    McA: I appreciate your American right to hate your own country...

    Ah, one of those ridiculous comparisons, eh, McA?

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

    Nope. Statement of fact. Plenty of Americans hate their own country enough to accuse their own troops of terrorist behaviour.

    Like you.

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

    unable to leave their homes for fear of being abducted and brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.

    Posted by: dp on February 20, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

    So its OK for an enemy of Bush to commit abduction?

    Basically, anything terrorists do is OK?
    But nothing your own country does is OK?
    What the fuck happened to your culture?
    If you hate yourself, jump off a cliff.
    Don't waste space they could give to a Mexican migrant, who gives more of a shit than you do.

    Posted by: McA on February 20, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

    McA: ...follow your elected leader and let your patriots deliver ...

    And what was your opinion of Nixon? BTW, are you aware that Hitler was elected, too? The Germans followed him obediently and look at what happened.

    I'll cite a fellow liberal, 3rd Paul, and quote a Repub president in response to your idealized authoritarian complex and your implied smear that liberals aren't patriotic:

    Patriotism,
    As Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918:
    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to standby the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    Now STFU with your conservative propaganda that supports giving over complete trust to an administration that can't be trusted. Tell me, McA, where are the WMDs in Iraq? Where's Osama? How many died or are still homeless due to the incompetence of Katrina Repubs? I'm waiting for your usual moronic reply.

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

    I read Jane's article and indeed it is well written and she states her information excellently. However, I do not accept her presentation uncritically, hook line and sinker, as some would say. How am I to know that she has not grossly misrepresented the reality of all the detainee events? She may not be, but again, she may be. How do I know that she is not writing without bias and just wants to get to the truth? In order to make an informed conclusion I need to read other points of view. This, afterall, is only responsible. So, while the article contributes to the debate, it cannot be looked upon as the final word. Be open my friend to all points of view on this matter.

    Posted by: lbduncan on February 20, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

    McA: Plenty of Americans hate their own country enough to accuse their own troops of terrorist behaviour. ...Like you.

    Prove it. Present the links and cite the evidence to prove your erroneous and inflammatory statement.

    You are wrong as usual, McA. Doesn't that make you the mother of all trolls? And a liar to boot!

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 20, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK
    . ..I would argue that the non-modernization of the Arab world is the problem. Posted by: McA
    You would, but that would be incorrect. The problem is that the west, for reasons of oil, has been interfering in domestic Arab affairs for a century and has supported the Zionist theft of Palestine and murder its Moslem people.
    right to hate your own country, but mind your own business, follow your elected leader and let your patriots deliver on their obligations to the Iraqi people. .Posted by: McA
    No only do Democrats not hate their country, it is obvious that there is no hated like Republican hated which permeates their ideology. Since the Bush regime is incapable of "fixing" anything, it and its supporters are not to be believed. Their obligation to the people of Iraq is being completely disregarded. Are you incapable of reading the reports from Iraq?
    Why do liberals hate Asians? Posted by: Freedom Fighter
    Don't you listen to your own Ann Coulter? She expresses Republican hatred for all non-white people. It is the Democrats who have stood for equal rights for all while Republicans demand more right for themselves.
    Geneva convention applies to soldiers. Not to bunch of terrorists, Posted by: McA o
    The Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners of war no matter how captured; and, as a treaty ratified by the United States have the full force of constitutional law. If the United States will not uphold its laws and be bound by international treaties it has signed, the United States cannot reasonably expect anyone else to do so. Posted by: Mike on February 20, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK
    What did the Vice-President do wrong today? Posted by: Cheney
    That depends on what he did today because everything he does is wrong and everything he says is a lie.

    It is surprising that anyone, in this environment of warrantless spying and right wing hostility to American freedoms, would dare pose as a member of the Bush regime. Sometime soon, there will be an agent knocking on your door for stealing the identity of an administration official. It is true: There is no limit to Republican arrogance and Republican crassitude.

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA) indeed stated our troops were terrorists
    Posted by: Cheney on

    Tail-Gunner Joe had nothing on you. There is no lie, no smear, you will not utter all the time pretending that you are a Christian.

    Posted by: Mike on February 20, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK
    P.P.S. Mike - you probably think there were no Jews in the WTC on 9/11 too, right? Posted by: Cheney
    Of course there were and many others as well. It's a shame that Bush couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the warning and try to prevent their murder; but then, if he did, he wouldn't have that excuse to wage his illegal wars. Posted by: Mike on February 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

    It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

    Actually, plainly repugnant behavior seems to be working quite well for the enemies. videos of beheadings are recruiting tools, and bombings of innocent civilians are signs of success. the brutality of the Palestinians in particular has resulted in an attempt to boycott the university professors of Israel; threats to retaliate murderously against the Danish cartoonists has resulted in apologies by the publishers. The consternation displayed by the US seems to invite attacks at least as much as any actual torture; that is, the debate about whether some coercive techniques are permissible makes the US appear indecisive. Were the US completely unblemished, the effectiveness of the terrorists would be about the same.

    The terrorist opponents do not resepct any of the Geneva agreements, and any nation could only adhere to them imperfectly (as does Israel.)

    This is a gruesome situation.

    The events you describe antedate Secretary Rice's forceful assertions that the US does not in fact engage in torture. She was quite effective last year in making that case to the Europeans.

    Posted by: republicrat on February 20, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

    I'm sure I'll hate myself for this in the morning, but what the hell:

    Basically, anything terrorists do is OK?
    But nothing your own country does is OK?
    What the fuck happened to your culture?
    If you hate yourself, jump off a cliff.
    Don't waste space they could give to a Mexican migrant, who gives more of a shit than you do.
    Posted by: McA on February 20, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

    Well, McA, please point out where I (or anyone else here) said either of these things? My culture is fine (I think), although my government leaves a lot to be desired. I don't hate myself, I'm just not crazy about the nutjobs who run my government. I'm not sure what Mexican migrants have to do with anything, but I certainly do give a shit -- if I didn't give a shit, I wouldn't care about the way the administration and its allies are destroying American values.

    Posted by: dp on February 20, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

    本站提供上海机票 深圳机票 特惠机票 打折机票 航班查询 订购机票 国际机票预定 深圳航班 深圳打折机票 国际机票 航班时刻表 航班机票 北京打折机票 购买机票 深圳机票价格 机票价格 航班时刻 昆明航班 昆明机票 国际机票查询 北京机票代理 机票预定 飞机航班 全国航班 浦东机场航班 福州机票 北京机票打折 机票查询 国际航班 机票预售 网上订机票 国际机票价格 机票厦门 特价机票 航班信息 国际航空机票 往返机票 打折机票上海 上海机票打折 机票打折 机场航班 航班时间表 查询机票 机票航班 深圳特价机票 订机票 上海航班 虹桥机场航班 上海特价机票 国际航班机票 北京上海飞机票 上海机票 机票预订 国内航班 白云机场航班 航班信息查询 机票国际 移民机票 上海机票 北京航班 上海航班查询 航班号 多伦多机票 上海机票代理 机票代理 航班查询[url] 机票定购 机票信息 买机票 折扣机票 北京机票 民航航班 航班动态 航空公司机票 便宜机票 国际航班时刻表 机票上海 航班表 哈尔滨航班 机票深圳 国际机票代理 国际机票 机票北京 国际航班查询 航班查寻 北京打折机票 上海特价机票 机票售票处 机票广州 飞机航班查询 航班订票 机票退票 新加坡机票 航班深圳 航空机票 广州航班 中国航班 机票价 新西兰机票 订票机票 预定机票 航班上海 机票美国 机票网 上海机票 广州打折机票 广州机票 航班时刻查询 查询航班 特价国际机票 机票预定上海 订机票上海 机票订购 航班北京 机票购买 上海打折机票 购机票 学生机票 机票价格查询 航空航班 飞机机票 上海机票预定 英国机票 悉尼机票 预订机票 首都机场航班 伦敦机票 航班机票 北京机票预定 国内机票价格 国内机票 航班时间 机票打折北京 香港航班 旅游机票 机票定票 机票订 国内航班查询 航班到达 加拿大机票 国际机票预订 德国机票 民航机票 航班票价 航班广州 航班价格 机票优惠 国际机票上海 成都航班 国内航班时刻表 飞机航班时刻表 如果你在此买的机票高于其它机票代理商价格,欢迎投诉!

    Posted by: David on February 21, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

    myself, I'm just not crazy about the nutjobs who run my government.

    Posted by: dp on February 20, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

    You can vote without getting shot. So do so. No need to call your own troops terrorists, is there?
    If they ran off, they'd go to jail for desertion - so its not as if they have much choice in the matter.

    Posted by: Mca on February 21, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

    If the United States will not uphold its laws and be bound by international treaties it has signed, the United States cannot reasonably expect anyone else to do so.

    Posted by: Mike on February 20, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

    Well, you passed the Iraq Liberation Act years before Bush. So you are obligated to liberate the place if you want to uphold your own laws.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

    Actually, the Geneva Convention applies to the "undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949,"...since the U.S. was one of those, WE are obliged to observe the convenent. Particularly of interest (to me anyway) is Convention III, Part I, Article 2, paragraph 3 "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." ( So... even if say, Iraq, did not sign the Geneva Convention, WE DID and we are bound by it. ) and BTW, this leaves open the question as to whether Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld will be eventually tried as war criminals....If I were any of them, I wouldn't be traveling to any foreign lands after "retiring"....foreign legal systems might not be as kind as Abu Gonzales.

    for those of you who would like to read the Plenipotentiaries' obligations, you can read them here

    Posted by: jcricket on February 21, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

    So what are you saying Cheney are troops should terrorise women and children or not?

    Posted by: Neo on February 21, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

    "The pigheaded blindness on display here is nothing short of astonishing"

    Couldn't have said it better myself, dhimmi.

    Posted by: ss on February 21, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

    pretty amazing, the wingnut ability to willingly put on the kneepads and blindfold, assume the position and open wide as the rnc orchestrates the power thrust that will inevitably lead to a 'linda lovelace moment' of realization and disgust: they don't care about you -- they just want you to shut up and do as you're told.

    that's right. don't question anything your leaders do. trust those that deal solely in power to have the best interests of you, the powerless, in mind.

    funny, in the past such lemming-like behavior wouldn't have been associated with conservatives, but it seems anyone can be called a conservative now. you don't have to want smaller government, reduced deficits or personal freedoms like the old days -- you just have to embrace your fear.

    Posted by: Progressaurus Rex on February 21, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK


    funny, in the past such lemming-like behavior wouldn't have been associated with conservatives,

    Posted by: Progressaurus Rex on February 21, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

    Funny. I read the Geneva conventions. Most didn't and are regurgitating something some idiot protestor told him.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

    The defenders of torture are out in force tonight, having girded their loins with their sodden underclothes to battle those of us who are insufficiently fearful, who dare criticize the only man who stands between us and Islamic enslavement.

    We must be made to understand that the president can only use his powers for good, that anyone we detain must be an evildoer, a threat to our very existence. We're the United States. We would never imprison or torture or execute an innocent person.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK
    Funny. I read the Geneva conventions.. Posted by: McA
    To judge by your lack of comprehension, that is a dubious statement.
    What part of the U.S. needing "maximum flexibility" to deal with terrorists, Posted by: Cheney
    The part that says dealing with terrorists. Do you mean working with them or working for them, because Bush's incompetence is so egregious, he is doing them a favor every time he speaks or acts. Since you two are such gung-ho chaps, I wonder why you don't put your skin where your mouths are: in Iraq. The military could use a couple more eager beavers.
    Well, you passed the Iraq Liberation Act years before Bush. So you are obligated to liberate the place if you want to uphold your own laws.Posted by: McA
    You should read that one also. It specifically excludes military action.

    Others have argued that while the Act does demonstrate that the U.S. was favoring regime change in Iraq as of 1998, the Act itself prohibits the use of U.S. Military force to achieve that aim and that the main aim of the Act was to restore access to U.N. inspectors. While this debate continues, it remains clear that the Act does mark a significant step in the course that ultimately led the United States to the Second Gulf War.

    Posted by: Mike on February 21, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK
    Under that stupid protocol, you could go to war with a kindergarden kid strapped to your front, and you'd be immune to prosecution. Another example of naive liberals, engaging in the promotion of evil. Posted by: McAristotle
    Not true, one would not be immune from prosecution. You are the prime example of promoting evil: You advocate actions that lead to retaliation by any means available and you espouse lawlessness, which makes a mockery of constitutional Democracy. Posted by: Mike on February 21, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

    They are obligated to follow what they signed. But what they signed allows them to declare a detainee an unlawful combatant and not a prisoner of war. There is an explicit reference in signed convention to a tribunal doing just that
    Posted by: McAristotle on February 21, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

    The term illegal (or unlawful) combatant does not appear in the Geneva Conventions at all. The US could not possibly have signed anything that allows them to declare a detainee something that did not exist/ was not recognized at the time. (As verified quite concisely here).

    Another example of willfully ignorant Bushistas blowing smoke out of their asses.

    Really, McA. Do you honestly think you are going to keep people from doing their own reading? Jesus, what a moron. .......BTW...have you finally got the FISA acronym right?

    Posted by: jcricket on February 21, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

    Funny. I read the Geneva conventions.. Posted by: McA

    What a crock of shit. If anything, you skimmed and cherry picked little snippets of sentences out of context, that to the neophyte seemed to support your twisted anti-logic.

    It matters not. You showed up here as, and still are, a shill. If you are a paid shill, I would not be surprised if the Bushistas wanted a refund.

    Posted by: jcricket on February 21, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

    From the Pentagon's draft memo on interrogation policy in January 2003, quoted in Mayer's article:

    Congress may no more regulate the Presidents ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.

    If the President were intervening in the war effort to personally direct troop movements on the battlefield, I would certainly hope Congress would put a stop to such idiocy and force him to leave such matters up to the proper military authorities in the Pentagon.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

    the Pentagon has acted quickly to rectify the wrongs Mora helped expose

    That's an interesting definition of "acted quickly". Mora first went to Wm. Haynes, legal counself for the Pentagon, to expose the vicious torture of Mohamed Al-Qahtani in mid-December 2002, and stated his opinion that this treatment was illegal. Haynes said he would act as quickly as possible. Mora then went on Christmas vacation.

    When he came back, he found that Haynes had done nothing. In the meantime, as Mora learned from David Brant, head of the Naval Criminal Investigations Service (and an opponent of torture), "Qahtani had been stripped and shaved and told to bark like a dog. Hed been forced to listen to pop music at an ear-splitting volume, deprived of sleep, and kept in a painfully cold room. Between confessing to and then recanting various terrorist plots, he had begged to be allowed to commit suicide." Furthermore, a Washington Post article had revealed that the same kinds of brutal, illegal, disorganized and useless things had been happening at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.

    Mora then went to William Haynes and declared that he was about to put the whole thing into a written and official memo. Haynes backed down, and the next day called back and said Rumsfeld had agreed to de-authorize the whole thing. Mora was elated, felt it'd just been a mistake and the system had worked. Instead, Haynes and Rumsfeld simply put together a separate team of their own lawyers (including John Yoo) to issue a memo, with the force of law, declaring the torture to be legal, up to the point of organ failure. They then went ahead and continued the "wrongs Mora helped expose" for the next 3 years.

    The Pentagon "acted quickly" to outflank Mora in a sneaky bureaucratic maneuver to allow themselves to continue torturing people without legal scrutiny. They ought to rename it the Dept. of Defense of War Criminals.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

    If anything, you skimmed and cherry picked little snippets of sentences out of context

    Posted by: jcricket on February 21, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

    Feel free to read the wikipedia links and form your own conclusions.

    But misquoting the Geneva Convention whenever its convenient to prevent international action by the US or allies, and then quoting the right of "state sovereignity" to justify torture by anti-US countries is standard liberal crap.

    The anti-war movement has been hijacked by communists, and anti-semetic groups and radical muslim terrorist enablers.

    Its impractical and unable to suggest a response to groups who will place fatwa's and burn embassies unless to impose their view on foreign countries.

    You have to give the other party an incentive to peace to have peace, surrender that rewards agression is only an incentive for another war.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention
    From Articles 4 and 5

    "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
    that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    that of carrying arms openly;
    that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "

    "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

    Combatants have responsibilities under Geneva. If you miss a tribunal can designated you a non-prisoner of war.

    'Unlawful combatant' is a spin term. But the bottom line is without the additional protocol the US didn't sign, a 'compentant tribunal' can declare you not a prisoner of war.

    The convention creates incentives to obey the 'laws and customs of war'. Which include, no hiding among civilians while firing, no hostage taking, no targeting or storing weapons in mosques, etc...

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

    while being kept as minimal as all other wars combined, collateral damage by our troops unfortunately occurs

    So, Cheney, the collateral damage in Iraq is as big as that in all other wars combined?

    Can you add? Or are you another victim of a high school in a Republican neighborhood?

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

    never mind cheney, McA, et al.

    they put their party before their country.
    partisanship is the death of america.

    Posted by: Progressaurus Rex on February 21, 2006 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

    So, Cheney, the collateral damage in Iraq is as big as that in all other wars combined?

    Can you add?

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

    Can you think or are you a liberal?. Iraq had more collateral damage than all other wars combined? You might remember that you Yanks dropped two nukes on Japan once.

    Do American liberals think or do they just copy Madonna's opinions?

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

    The most striking part of the story was the advocacy by Lt. Colonel Beaver to find a way to get an "I was just following orders" defense for the people who would be doing the torturing at Guantanamo. Another striking part of this story is that it is still going on and and that the major violators of our laws and the Geneva Convention, the laws of the United States are still coddled by the Congress of the United States. No wonder these goons fought against the World Court treaty. Under that treaty, they'd probably already be in The Hague's custody. Short of that, let's hope they are impeached and removed at the earliest opportunity. For, what kind of "democracy" are we exporting if it does not involve a belief and faith in our own laws and our own Constitution? It is not "just a scrap of paper"!

    Posted by: parrot on February 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

    It is not "just a scrap of paper"!

    Posted by: parrot on February 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

    The Geneva convention does not apply to all combatants. Its contingent on behaviour by the combatant to incentivize some civilized behaviour in a war. Terrorists fail this test.

    Liberals are stuck on stupid, repeating shit they don't understand. 'Parrot' is appropriate.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

    My my
    Isn't it interesting how the trolls come out of the woodwork to hijack a thread discussing clear evidence of the administration organizing criminal conspiracy to violate US law? We haven't seen some of these goons post for weeks!

    Posted by: joe on February 21, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

    McA, you moron, read Cheney's line. "While being kept as minimal as all other wars combined, collateral damage in Iraq..."

    "as minimal as" is an incomprehensible construction. Cheney is LITERALLY saying the collateral damage in Iraq equals that in all other wars combined. A generous interpretation would be that he meant to say collateral damage in Iraq is smaller than that in all other wars combined. But this is not particularly impressive - as even your addled brain recognizes, collateral damage in Iraq is obviousy smaller than the aggregate total caused in all other wars in history combined.

    The only clear point to emerge from Cheney's statement is that he is mathematically illiterate. Mathematical illiteracy is closely tied to an inability to reason clearly, which also explains why conservatives can't produce a balanced budget.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

    That and the United Nations can easily be rovoked - if anything is keeping the Commander-in-Chief from fighting terrorists, so be it. Most Americans would agree with us on that. Even the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    Hold on a sec, something's wrong here...

    "Da und die Nationen leicht sein kann, rovoked - wenn alles den Fuhrer von kmpfenden Terroristen hlt, so sei es. Die meisten Amerikaner wrden mit uns auf dem einverstandenSEIN. Sogar ist die Beschaffenheit nicht ein Selbstmordpakt."

    OK, much better. Remember Ayatollah Chuckles and his bed-wetting ilk the next time you're tempted to say "It Can't Happen Here."

    Posted by: Dustbin Of History on February 21, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

    Since John Yoo and OLC were in charge of Executive branch Constitutional arguments, I will stick with there judgment over Mora's - thank you very much.

    Well, Cheney, John Yoo's memos have been explicitly rescinded by his successors at OLC, so you would be the only one "sticking with his judgment". You can dress it up however you want; basically Cheney and Rumsfeld like the idea of torturing people, and they continue to find pliable shills with law degrees to issue them worthless opinions which allow them torture people, until those opinions are thrown out, at which point they knock the discussion over to some other forum and find another set of useful idiots. Meanwhile a bunch of unlucky suckers who got yanked off the streets in Pakistan by the same intelligence service that put the Taliban in power in the first place are still down in Guantanamo, with idiotic Americans barking in their faces to tell them everything they know.

    It's all twisted insanity practiced by delusional sadistic creeps. It'd be nice if a subsequent administration went ahead and prosecuted much of the Bush administration for this stuff, but it probably won't happen, for political reasons.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

    naming ONE war America has been involved with with less colateral damage than Iraq

    Panama.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

    Combatants have responsibilities under Geneva. If you miss a tribunal can designated you a non-prisoner of war.

    McA has some more gibberish for our entertainment here. What exactly would a "non-prisoner of war" be? I'm sure all the folks in Guantanamo would be tickled to find that they are not actually prisoners, or that the conflict relevant to which they were imprisoned is not actually a war, or something along those lines.

    The civilized world and the actual legal community (those, that is, who are not the mafia lawyers of the Bush Administration, paid to create novel ways of defending their illegal activities) all understand that the purpose of the 3rd Geneva Convention is to cover prisoners of war, while the purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention ("relevant to the protection of civilian persons in time of war") is to cover EVERYONE ELSE who may end up in the theater of war. The 4th Convention already contains provisions dealing with civilians who are suspected of engaging in combat activities, as well as dealing with non-nationals of combatant countries who are in combatant countries during hostilities and who may be engaging in spying, sabotage or other combat activities.

    The Geneva Conventions cover it all. We are bound by them - and it is moral and just that we enthusiastically embrace them. Any other arguments are just weaseling by criminals.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

    God, what a bunch of creepy, conservative trolls we have showing up. They crawl out of their dark cave located in the bowels of hell and start posting Satan's talking points.

    So, go back to your cave, dear trolls. You are like the serpent who poisoned the Garden of Eden with lies and deceptions. You, dear trolls, in following the instructions of your master, have decided to poison our Democracy, our Garden of Eden, with your "culture of corruption" Republicanism. You, dear trolls, follow the Prince of Lies. And all of you dear trolls have, thusly, sold your souls for thirty pieces of silver.

    Betrayers of Democracy. Betrayers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Betrayers of all that true American's hold dear...like truth and justice. So, why don't you dear trolls go spray your anti-Democracy venom elsewhere?

    Posted by: The Oracle on February 21, 2006 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

    At some point we ought to consider some of the less welcome visitors rightists, since they inevitably truckle to the men on horseback, the men in boots, our stainless protectors.

    Stout-hearted men in shitstained underwear. Cowards and bullies. Lickspittle torturers.

    In this thread, the practices they've defended precisely define the difference between America and every nation that preceded it, and they took the other side.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

    The worst thing about the rightists, in this or many other threads, is that they insist they're the prettiest girls in the room, that they're the ones in the really cool club.

    They keep telling us we're unpopular.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

    The Geneva Conventions cover it all.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

    Nope. Liar.

    The third convention specifies that a tribunal can decide you are not a prisoner of war. The fourth convention says civilians are "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities".

    If you take part in the hostilities but fail to follow the 'laws and customs' of war, you risk a tribunal deciding you do not have protection.

    Liberals regularly repeat this falsehood and are too stupid to look at source documents.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

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

    Note that the fourth convention also allows for a military court to convict and execute civilians as saboteurs provided that country has a death penalty in the first place:

    'The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person ....'

    And if you missed it the court is military 'Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts'

    Have you idiots realised that the Geneva Conventions were written in 1948?

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK

    They keep telling us we're unpopular.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 3:53 AM | PERMALINK

    Yup. People like Bush and Cheney enough to give him another term, didn't they?

    Delusional nutjob.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

    "We have a word for someone who hates his own country where I come from. Traitor."

    No, that's wrong.

    A traitor is someone who professes a great love for his country and then does everything he (or she) can to subvert its ideals, put its people at risk, degrade its economy, and create new enemies to further all those things. Above all, a traitor practices personal enrichment while lying about the sins of others.

    Hmm, who does that sound like?

    Posted by: Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 4:22 AM | PERMALINK

    The fourth convention says civilians are "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities".

    I won't call you a "liar", McA; I'll generously assume you are too dumb to have understood the Convention. Which, yes, I have read. Article 4 of the 4th Convention begins:

    "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

    Article 3, from which you gleaned the phrase "persons taking no active part in hostilities", set the minimum standards of conduct for "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties". It's intended to deal with the problem that since the other terms of the convention all apply to international conflicts, states might think they can get away with anything regarding people they find inside their own territory. It has absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq, both of which are international conflicts between "High Contracting Parties" (both Iraq and Afghanistan, like the US, having ratified the Conventions).

    So, you're full of it. But what else is new.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 4:50 AM | PERMALINK

    They keep telling us we're unpopular, disregarding the polls, which suggest that the popularity of oral sex continues to increase.

    One might infer that sucking was previously unknown, and I have anecdotal evidence (somebody's grandmother's professed ignorance) in support.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

    For your benefit, McA, here is the part of the 4th Convention which actually does concern the people we captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and are holding in Guantanamo, from Article 5:

    "Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

    "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

    I'm sure right-wingers will rush to argue that it's not yet "consistent with the security" of the US to give the Guantanamo prisoners trials - and in fact it never will be, because the War on Terror will go on forever. Since even GWB doesn't seem to know what might be meant by "winning" it.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 5:01 AM | PERMALINK

    Compare the popularity of those who admit to the pleasuring of their nether parts to that of those who insist upon the necessity of imprisoning, torturing and killing anyone who gets scooped up.

    Clinton under impeachment was more popular than Bush is now.

    Suck on that.

    Posted by: bad Jim on February 21, 2006 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK

    People like Bush and Cheney enough to give him another term, didn't they?

    Opinion polls show Bush's favorability rating at the moment of the elections was about the same as the percentage of the vote he got: 51%.

    With his favorability rating now around 40%, I doubt he'd win an election again.

    Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

    """Naked manpiles excite you, do they, Patton?"""

    Judging from the lefts re-publishing the Abu Gyraib photos over and over (NYT, WaPo, CNN), and left wing blogs reposting the photos it appears the left is obsessed with naked man pyramids.

    Although those same outlets refuse to publish the Denmark cartoons. Hmm?

    Why would these three outlets CNN, NYT, WaPo publish the Abu Gyraib photos over 1,000 TIMES and yet refuse to publish a single cartoon?

    And why do they refuse to re-publish any Sept 11th videos/photos?

    Posted by: Patton on February 21, 2006 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

    Jim spews:
    """Clinton under impeachment was more popular than Bush is now"""

    I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A POPULARITY CONTEST..I THOUGHT PRESIDENT GOT ELECTED TO IMPLEMENT THEIR AGENDA.

    CLINTONS AGENDA WAS TO BE LIKED..SO HE WILL BE A FOOT NOTE IN HISTORY.

    THE LEFT, THE MEDIA, THE POLSTERS ALL HATED REAGAN, BUT HE NEVER WAIVERED IN ENACTING HIS AGENDA. HE CHANGED THE WORLD, AND SO WILL BUSH...ALL CLINTON EVER DID WAS TREAD WATER.

    Posted by: Patton on February 21, 2006 at 6:33 AM | PERMALINK

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1023/guantanamo.html

    And given the news criticized the Pentagon for releasing some people who later rejoined the Taliban, detainees continue to threaten security...

    Remember this.

    Someday future generations will stare their liberal parents in the face and ask, "Why did you side with people who beheaded hostages? Didn't you have any principles". And you'll be silent because you don't.

    Posted by: McA on February 21, 2006 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK

    Dear karin & Mr Davis .I am 46 yrs old I find it very spooky & kooky at the same time to realize that we are surrounded by nuts. You too are the in the nut crowd. What in the hell can the UN or The RedCross do about the U S Government? We are a democracy not a peasent trove of goat ropers. People like you two are scary. I can safely bet you are under 25 and have been through The UNIVERSITY OF DUMDASS. As for the so called Detainees in GITMO what is the real interest in them? Who really cares what their circumstances are ? Answer is,you dont have a clue and I dont either. Their problem is they were captured on the battle field by young AMERICANS who were under fire from some of this vermon. The ones who protect you are the very ones you detest the most.I cant figure this out. Why not go to IRAQ or IRAN, see how far your feelings get you or how much compassion you find. NONE.Simply because you disagre politically with Mr Bush why you are willing to sell out your obligation as an AMERICAN?So because the MILITARY has the dirty job they have been handed,you despise them so much it clouds your sense of Country? It is some how so IGNORANT and mis guided it boggles the mind.Should we choose to extend our hand in good faith and peace then what? What is the next move? If we pull completly out of the Mid East and tell the world how bad we are and how mean we are and we suck and Bush sucks then what? Just what I thought... DEAD AIR.. not a clue for you. Do you really think Bush, Chaney &Rumsfeld sit back ,got drunk,and said lets start a war, yeah man and get a bunch of great kids killed ? How damn dumb is that ? Some of you people better wake the fuck up or you will be praying to the EAST or WEST wether you want to or not. Do you think this type of format would be permitted in SADAMS WORLD or by the KOOK on Irans little throne? Their are people in this world who want you DEAD simply because you are American. If you simply cant stomach war... grow up before your forty. The dirty secret is this is not a humanitarian war or a political war not even Geographic, but a religous war.If you are Christian or Jewish you are their Enemy PERIOD. All the bleeding heart, Hanoi Jane crap isn't going do you justice. They want you DEAD. So far as the rights the enemy at GITMO have is up to them. SURRENDER or sit there most of us dont care.You shoot at or kill US Soldiers you will PAY the price of war. Most people can grasp this concept.

    Posted by: Glyn Lockhart on February 21, 2006 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

    In other words, you have no concrete answers.
    Oh, I've got more. Step two is taking a look at the carrots and sticks that need to be used, but there's no sense getting into that with you until you can take the first step.

    But yours was a pretty funny statement coming from a clown that's been dodging my original question ever since I asked it.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

    Kerry was right. US troops conducting searches for insurgents did terrorize people. If you were sleeping peacefully in your own home, and your door was suddenly kicked down, you and your family were hauled out of bed, while men with guns ripped your house apart looking for "evidence," you would be pretty damn terrorized. To then claim that Kerry calls US troops "terrorists" is an epistemological stretch, worthy of Karl Rove.

    After three years of such tactics, the military in Iraq is beginning to realize that they are counterproductive, feeding sympathy for the insurgents, and drying up potential sources of humint. Counterinsurgency is not rocket science; but it clearly has not been studied by the Pentagon any time recently. This is yet another example of the incompetence and unaccountability of the Bush Administration.

    Posted by: Wombat on February 21, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

    Glyn,

    Wow. Since it's pretty early to be drinking I have to believe you really mean what you posted.

    All I can say is you really showed me. You showed me what raving looks like.

    Thanks, I think.

    I'd like to go try to get some adults elected now, okay?

    (backing away slowly)

    Posted by: Tripp on February 21, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

    Glyn,

    Oh, and since you seem to place so much emphasis on age and I outrank you in that department, I'm going to tell you this to your face:

    Listen to me, sonny. Quit your sniveling and grow a spine. I can smell your fear like piss down your leg and it sickens me. Your cowardice makes us all look bad and your panic does nothing but hurt the rest of us.

    So pull yourself together, boy, and start using your head instead of your fear before you get us all killed.

    Posted by: Tripp on February 21, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

    > But yours was a pretty funny statement
    > coming from a clown that's been dodging
    > my original question ever since I asked it.

    This tactic (make a silly statement, receive a question in response, counter the question with a question, then demand that the original questioner answer your {2nd} question before you will respond) worked for about 3 months after the Scaife Counter-Blogging Project deployed it. But it does not work anymore, even on Kevin's board. So why don't you give it up? You are just making yourself look (even more) foolish.

    Cranky

    Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 21, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

    It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

    Well, yes -- it is generally difficult to persuade people you don't torture as long as you actually torture. That's not a problem of persuasion, it's a problem of fact.

    Let's face it: the good guys don't torture people. We torture people. Ergo, we're not the good guys anymore.

    Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

    Rather than deal with hypotheticals, Cheney should find some examples where legally sanctioned torture--only to be used in special cases--did not almost immediately become institutionialized as a means of of revenge, dehumanization, and oppression (and a political and moral calamity to the country sanctioning it).

    Legally banning torture will not eradicate torture; if confronted by the hypothetical "ticking" bomb scenario, an interrogator might believe it necessary to torture. However, the interrogator will also be aware of the legal consequences of doing so.

    Posted by: Wombat on February 21, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

    receive a question in response, counter the question with a question, then demand that the original questioner answer your {2nd} question before you will respond
    2 things. First, I responded to your question (I gave you the other step). Second, it is my first question that you are not responding to. (What plan do the Dems have aside from "keep doing what didn't work"?)

    But I'm the silly one.

    Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

    It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

    Again, if you persist in plainly repugnant behavior then you are not, in fact, a good guy. No amount of "persuading" -- or, in simpler terms, "lying" -- about it will change that simple fact. Someone who engages in plainly evil behavior is, quite simply, evil.

    Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

    Of course there were and many others as well. It's a shame that Bush couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the warning and try to prevent their murder; but then, if he did, he wouldn't have that excuse to wage his illegal wars.

    I think that's it. He didn't anticipate that the al Qaida target would be so huge, but he would use whatever happened as the foundation for his presidency. For a moment there, while reading My Pet Goat (tremulous title), he looked horrified at what he'd allowed to happen. Just frozen to his seat.

    But, after a while, he realized there were tax breaks to pass. Oil royalty payments to "forgive". Time was wastin'. So, with a heart braced for the day, he got up and set to makin' an honest dollar.

    Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

    cheney just above complaining about someone cherry-picking....


    thanks.....that was funny....

    Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

    Glyn Lockhart on February 21, 2006 at 8:07 AM, shitting his pants in fear:

    I am 46 yrs old I find it very spooky & kooky at the same time to realize that we are surrounded by nuts.

    So you've finally moved out of your parent's basement and into the treehouse. Groovy.

    I can safely bet you are under 25 and have been through The UNIVERSITY OF DUMDASS.

    While you are cowering under your table in fear, apparently ignorant of how to spell 'dumbass', you dumbass.

    As for the so called Detainees in GITMO what is the real interest in them?

    If they aren't of interest, then they probably should be allowed to go home, right?

    Who really cares what their circumstances are?

    Their families. Themselves. Justice-loving Americans.

    Answer is, you dont have a clue and I dont either.

    Your half right...You have no clue.

    Their problem is they were captured on the battle field by young AMERICANS who were under fire from some of this vermon.

    Actually, many were kidnapped off the street and passed off to the US as al Quaeda operatives for the reward money.

    I cant figure this out.

    Does that happen to you often?

    Why not go to IRAQ or IRAN, see how far your feelings get you or how much compassion you find.

    Probably not, especially after Dubya has fucked things up so bad over there.

    Simply because you disagre politically with Mr Bush why you are willing to sell out your obligation as an AMERICAN?

    And what obligaton is that, Mr. Scaredy McFearbutt?

    So because the MILITARY has the dirty job they have been handed,you despise them so much it clouds your sense of Country?

    You'd be hard-pressed to find any examples of anyone who 'despises' the military. That's a figment of your cowardly imagination.

    Should we choose to extend our hand in good faith and peace then what?

    Actually, I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

    If we pull completly out of the Mid East and tell the world how bad we are and how mean we are

    Not we; just the Bush administration. And there's no need to tell them; they can examine the available evidence and make their own judgement.

    and we suck and Bush sucks

    You could just say 'Republicans suck' and cover all the bases at once!

    Just what I thought... DEAD AIR.. not a clue for you.

    Having another conversation with yourself?

    Do you really think Bush, Chaney &Rumsfeld sit back ,got drunk, and said lets start a war, yeah man and get a bunch of great kids killed?

    Like they give a shit about soldiers getting killed. The rest of what you said is almost believable.

    How damn dumb is that?

    Pretty dumb, if you ask me.

    Some of you people better wake the fuck up or you will be praying to the EAST or WEST wether you want to or not.

    Will we be allowed to pray to the NORTH and SOUTH as well?...Glyn, look! The terruhists are attacking your treehouse!...Better go get your mommy and daddy to fetch you another clean pair of pants...

    Do you think this type of format would be permitted in SADAMS WORLD or by the KOOK on Irans little throne?

    Shorter Glyn: (laying on his treehouse floor in fetal position, in a spreading pool of his own urine, sucking on his thumb) T-t-t-they're gonna take away my b-b-buh-blanky...

    Their are people in this world who want you DEAD simply because you are American.

    And to keep us safe, we should kill everyone who isn't American?

    If you simply cant stomach war... grow up before your forty.

    It's the torture, secret prisons, napalming children, and people like you shitting your pants, willing to give up the freedom that your ancestors fought for, that I can't stomach...

    The dirty secret is this is not a humanitarian war or a political war not even Geographic, but a religous war.

    Actually, US involvement in Iraq is more of an economic war...But thanks for letting us know the source of your irrational anger toward Islam.

    If you are Christian or Jewish you are their Enemy PERIOD.

    I'm neither, so no worries for me, right?

    They want you DEAD.

    No, they want you AFRAID...and it appears that they have succeded in your case.

    Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

    McAnus: Have you idiots realised that the Geneva Conventions were written in 1948?

    Do you realize the Bible was written longer ago than that?

    And the Constitution?

    And the Declaration of Independence?

    Posted by: Advocate for God on February 21, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

    P.S. Apollo 13: perhaps you missed where Senator John Kerry (D-MA) indeed stated our troops were terrorists - maybe you need a juicy quote from Mother Cheehan...

    ROTF! Cheney/Charlie/Chuckles is back!

    No, Chuckles, I didn't miss it because Kerry did not say, "our troops were terrorists" and your CBS Face The Nation excerpt shows that he didn't. Thanks for proving yourself wrong! [Buzz!] You lose!

    However, I will give you a second chance. Provide the Kerry quote, that states, to quote you, "our troops were terrorists" in context with links so we can evaluate whether you can tell the whole truth. And please don't serve up another wingnutty Captain's Quarters' false POV or Limbaugh truth-twisting tirade that distorts Kerry's words into a lie as you did at 12:03 AM. Can't help yourself, can you, Chuckles?

    Anti-Kerry parrot want a cracker? I'm sure you will fly back later to squawk some more entertaining parodies.

    But isn't there a better way to make the point than calling American soldiers terrorists?"

    Kerry didn't call American soldiers terrorists so your point is irrelevant, Chuckles. LOL! Again, you mischaracterized Kerry's words.

    But let me ask you: Is there a reason that American soldiers need to go into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing (as in "frightening") kids and women? Yes or no, Chuckles/Cheney?

    And wouldn't it be less offensive and inflammatory to Iraqi civilians for Iraqi security forces to search Iraqi homes inhabited by women and kids, I mean, if the Bushies are serious about winning the "hearts and minds" of the people whose country we occupy? Yes or no, Chuckles/Cheney?

    Also, if some American soldiers did torture Iraqis, and we know some did, would those torturers be pilloried by the administration as cruel or inhuman? Yes or no, Chuckles/Cheney?

    Now, think before you answer because Bush or Rummy may contradict your answers. The CBS Face The Nation snippet you cut and pasted that was broadcast on Dec. 4, 2005, clearly shows that Kerry states "with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority" to the Iraqis. Sounds reasonable since 210,000 would be a bigger force that the U.S. military presence in Iraq! But that administration figure was false. Straight from the horse's ass, Rummy brayed on Feb. 23, 2004: Today the Iraqis are the biggest partners in the coalition with "over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces." But unfortunately, Rummy was "all hat, no cattle" on that score as Congress learned back in September. Repubs McCain, Graham, and Collins reacted negatively as did Dem senators to top U.S. Generals' testimony on Sept. 29, 2005, that cited a decline in the number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help. The generals disclosed "that only one of Iraq's 86 army battalions is ready to fight on its own."

    Nonetheless, it was reasonable for Kerry to propose that it would be better for Iraqis than Americans to search the homes of Iraqi women and children since, as Bush conceded on Nov. 30, 2005, al-Qaeda is "the smallest" faction of the insurgency, and, in fact, unlike you and the wingnut propaganda machine so obsessed with smearing Dems and liberals with false accusations and disinformation, Kerry was actually agreeing with Bush. Kerry did so on Face The Nation just a few days after Dubya's Strategy for Victory in Iraq speech at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. Follow what Bush says:

    Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq -- and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot.
    Iraqis know their people, they know their language, and they know their culture -- and they know who the terrorists are. Iraqi forces are earning the trust of their countrymen -- who are willing to help them in the fight against the enemy. As the Iraqi forces grow in number, they're helping to keep a better hold on the cities taken from the enemy. And as the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight... [Emphasis added. Strategy for Victory in Iraq, Nov. 30, 2005]

    Dang. Dubya's training strategy sounds awful similar to one of Kerry's four points to fix our Iraq policy from the 2004 presidential campaign. And coincidentally, William Kristol queried in August 2005 in The Weekly Standard, whether the Bush WH owed Kerry an apology for morphing his GWOT strategy into Rummy's GSAVE.

    In short, because Bush-Cheney did not have a post-war plan before the Iraq invasion, and after two and a half years of Bushwacko bungling the Iraq occupation and reconstruction, there is no reason for American soldiers to be scaring the shit out of Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night (and thus, inflaming the locals and fostering the insurgency further against the U.S.) other than the gross incompetence and shortsightedness of Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for not getting Iraqi forces rapidly trained (among other blunders like disbanding the Iraqi army to begin with) to take over their own country, a nation that gave us no provocation to invade in the first place.

    Lastly, regarding torture, which fits an aspect of terrorism as the "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group," is there any excuse, or would you consider it an acceptable interrogation tactic, to sodomize young Iraqi boys in front of their mother with the cameras rolling, a video that could also be used to further intimidate and humiliate Iraqi civilians? Yes or no, Chuckles/Cheney?

    And wouldn't barbaric criminal behavior such as raping boys on camera be something an evil-doer might do? Yes or no, Chuckles/Cheney?

    I don't understand the denial of the evil that humans -- some Americans and some non-Americans in uniform or out of uniform -- have been proven to have committed in living color and by eyewitnesses. But I do understand that projection is a powerful defense mechanism for the emotionally fragile or immature and a political tool for partisan hacks.

    As for Cindy Sheehan, Chuckles, the quotes you provided at 11:45 PM do not support your statement that "our troops were terrorists." Calling Bush "the biggest terrorist" doesn't qualify. But you knew that deep down inside, didn't you, Chuckles/Cheney?

    Perhaps, Chuckles, you don't possess a sense of fair play or a moral compass since using the words of a heartbroken mother who lost her son in Iraq due to Bush's decision to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the greatest strategic disaster in United States history is just too tempting for a "I've got to be right" pigheaded partisan if not a sadistic clown like you to pass up in attempting to score points on a discussion thread. Showing your true colors you are, Chuckles. Shameful, disingenuous, and totally without empathy.

    ...or are you claiming they are not an Americans now (I wish)?

    See, you give yourself away as Chuckles with the above question. The (I wish) is so like Charlie the troll. The thing that's missing is the usual Charlie/Chuckles smirk. ; )

    Cheney/Charlie/Chuckles to Mike: Are you still there - did you see the Kerry quote from above? Most Americans were apprehensive about trusting Kerry and his party with national security because of exactly this: "Terrrorizing" women and children?

    I challenge you to cite a legitimate news source that demonstrates that Americans were apprehensive (and didn't vote for Kerry) because of exactly his CBS Face The Nation statements. "Proof" for your overreaching claim will be fun to read since Kerry made his statements more than a year after the November 2004 election. LOL!

    Chuckles, you are so busted! I bet your amigos think you're doing a "heck of a job." ROTFLMAO!

    Why would we transfer something like that to the Iraqi security forces in the first place?

    Maybe because we were supposed to be greeted as liberators. LOL! But why don't you ask Bush and Rummy since they are all for it? See my cites of Bush's Nov. 30, 2005, speech and Rummy's remarks of Feb. 23, 2004 above. I'm sure that Google can provide more.

    Isn't the point to go after terrorists?

    Yes, and that may help to explain why a majority of us Americans think the war is a mistake and who now oppose the Iraq War [Cite].

    But thanks, Chuckles, for reminding us how wrong Operation FUBAR in Iraq is! The terrorist leaders behind 9/11 were in Afghanistan. That was the right war and that's where Osama and AQ were before Bush FUBAR'd Iraq. Where is the mastermind of 9/11 and AQ now? Only a fraction of the Iraqi insurgents are AQ as Bush has finally told us. Still OBL continues to threaten us, doesn't he? And from somewhere in Afghanistan or in Pakistan at or near the Pakistani-Afghan border. Not Iraq.

    Maybe we can disagree about HOW to do that most effectively, but we at least agree with the goal, right?

    The only shared goal I can see at this time is getting that spring back inside your head. Boing! Boing!

    I'm LMAO at you, Chuckles/Cheney! Fisking a troll like you is fun and so easy to do. Thanks for the entertainment!

    For the record, I've answered every question brooksfoe posed to me on this thread - I do not think it unreasonable to request the same courtesy in return.

    ROTF! Classic Charlie indignation! I bet you pursed your purdy lips with restraint when you wrote the above politely-penned huff. LOL!

    For the record, Cheney/Charlie/Chuckles, I don't think brooksfoe gives a crap about your sense of courtesy. And neither do I since you have demonstrated repeatedly over the years that you are beyond reasoned debate. You deserve to be ridiculed mercilessly and frequently.

    Your premise is faulty, Stefan.

    No, your "ticking time bomb scenario" is a faulty premise. I bet you can't find one ticking time bomb example from U.S. history.

    Good guys torture in the ticking bomb scenario...

    So you might like to fantasize! The ticking time bomb hypothetical is mental masturbation for cretins like you. So go play with yourself. I rebuke torture any time, anywhere, and for any reason. And I am not a social conservative though I believe in the teachings of Jesus like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Can you believe it?! Even I get that one!

    for instance - even Kevin has admitted such. Or, don't you think he and Dershowitz are "good guys" anymore?

    So what? Although no one should ever trust what you, Chuckles/Cheney, post as being true. Ever.

    Can't wait to see how you prove that Kerry's 2005 CBS Face The Nation comments made Americans apprehensive about his national security creds in 2004.

    LOL!

    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

    McAsslicker: We have a word for someone who hates his own country where I come from. Traitor.

    Where you come from, people are beaten, arrested, and tortured for protesting as they were in Operation Lalang. I guess the brainwashing worked. You think such people are traitors.

    BTW, American politicians looking to win votes in November don't care what you think or say. You can't vote in our elections and I can't vote in yours (Do you have elections?). However, posting your pathological "follow Dear Leader" crapola won't get you into America any sooner either and that must really irk you.

    LOL! You off-shore neocon trolls must get paid by the word for posting propaganda on liberal blogs.

    Listen up! Dissent is patriotic and American. A citizen does not betray America by denouncing or even despising one's opponents. Prove me wrong. But you can't. Unless you wish to concede that the Repub Congress-critters hated America and were/are traitors for having attacked Clinton. Is that what you are trying to say, McA? That Clinton-hating Repubs are/were American traitors?

    Is retired Lt. General Odom a traitor for describing Bush's decision to invade Iraq as the greatest strategic disaster in United States history? Oh, I forgot. You have been brainwashed into thinking that protesting or criticizing Dear Leader is treason.

    As I referred to earlier in the Teddy Roosevelt quote at 11:20 PM:

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to standby the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."


    Props to Grape_Crush. Excellent work!


    Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

    To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular
    source of income. Despite invitations from credit
    card issuers
    , you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
    before they grant you credit.
    The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
    card application
    , you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
    report
    to make sure it is accurate. Credit
    cards by type
    could be following:

    0% Intro Low APR credit cards
    - 0% Intro Low APR credit cards
    ,

    Rewards credit cards
    - Rewards credit cards ,

    Instant Approval credit cards
    - Instant Approval credit cards,

    Airline Miles Cards
    - Airline Miles Cards,

    Business Credit Cards
    - Business Credit Cards,

    Gas Credit Cards
    - Gas Credit Cards,

    Student Credit Cards
    - Student Credit Cards ,

    Low Interest Credit Cards
    - Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

    American Express credit cards
    ,

    Bank Of America credit cards
    - Bank Of America credit cards,

    Chase credit cards
    - Chase Manhattan credit cards,

    CitiBank credit cards
    - Citibank credit cards

    Columbus Bank credit cards
    - Columbus Bank credit cards,

    Discover credit cards
    - discover credit cards

    HSBC Bank credit cards
    ,

    New Millennium Bank credit cards
    - Millennium Bank credit cards, and

    U.S. Bank credit cards

    Calculator
    Mortgage
    - calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

    Mortgage
    Calculator
    calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator, calculator
    mortgage
    .

    Read more about personal
    finance
    , earnings,
    stock
    markets
    and economy
    at online business news. More offers
    can be found at credit cards
    offers
    .

    Visa credit cards visa credit
    cards

    Visa gift cards
    visa gift card

    Visa platinum
    visa platinum

    Chase visa chase
    visa

    Aspire visa
    Aspire visa

    Aspire visa
    Card
    Aspire visa Card

    Visa Master
    card
    Visa Master card

    Royal bank visa
    Royal bank visa

    Capital One
    Visa
    Capital One Visa

    Prepaid Visa
    Prepaid Visa

    Bank of America
    Visa
    Bank of America Visa

    Visa Gold Visa
    Gold

    MBNA visa MBNA
    visa

    Visa
    student credit card
    Visa student credit card

    Secured visa
    Secured visa

    Visa
    credit card application
    Visa credit card application

    Bank One Visa
    Bank One Visa

    Prepaid
    visa credit card
    Prepaid visa credit card

    Chase Visa card
    Chase Visa card

    Worldperks Visa
    Worldperks Visa

    Bad credit
    visa card
    Bad credit visa card

    Visa debit card
    Visa debit card


    Master card

    Master Cards and Mastercards best offers

    Chase master card

    Chase master cards offers


    Master Card
    gift card


    Master card gif cards listings


    Platinum Master
    Card


    Platinum master card listings


    Prepaid Master
    Card


    prepaid master card offers


    Citibank master
    card


    Citibank master card offers


    Master Card credit cards

    Master Card credit cards top offers


    Citi master
    card


    Citi master card offers


    Shell Master Card

    Shell master card best offer!


    Orchard bank
    master card


    Orchard bank master card - get here!


    Gold Master Card

    Gold Master Card best offers


    Bad Credit
    Master Card


    Bad Credit Master Card offers


    HSBC master card

    HSBC master card listings


    Master credit card

    Master credit card listings


    You can search, compare and apply for
    a credit card online
    - and in some cases even get a credit
    decision
    within 60 seconds!


    Low Interest
    Credit cards
    low interest credit cards

    Cash Back Credit
    Cards
    cash back credit cards

    Fixed APR Credit
    Cards
    fixed APR credit cards

    Balance Transfer
    Cards
    balance transfer credit cards

    Reward credit cards
    reward credit cards

    Gas Rebate Cards gas
    rebate cards

    Shopping Rebate
    Cards
    shopping rebate cards

    Travel Rebate Cards
    travel rebate credit cards

    Airline Credit
    Cards
    airline miles credit cards

    Business Credit
    Cards
    business credit cards

    Student Credit
    Cards
    student credit cards

    Pre-paid Debit
    Cards
    prepaid debit cards

    Bad Credit
    Credit Cards
    bad credit credit cards

    Catalog Credit
    Cards
    catalog credit cards



    Advanta credit
    cards
    advanta credit cards

    Amex credit cards
    amex credit cards

    Chase credit cards
    chase credit cards

    Citibank credit
    cards
    citibank credit cards

    Aspire visa card
    aspire visa card

    Discover credit
    cards
    discover credit cards

    HSBC Bank credit
    cards
    HSBC bank credit cards

    New Millennium
    Bank credit cards
    New Millenium Bank credit cards

    Pulaski Bank credit
    cards
    Pulaski bank credit cards

    Worlperks visa
    credit card
    Worldperks visa credit card


    Credit Reports credit
    reports

    Mortgage Loans mortgage
    loans refinance

    Credit card application Credit card
    application

    Credit card online application Credit
    card online application


    Dish Network Satellite,
    dish network satellite

    Dish Satellite, Dish satellite

    Dish Satellite TV, dish
    satellite TV

    Dish TV, Dish TV

    Dish main Dish Main

    and dish network satellite
    TV
    dish network satellite TV.

    If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested
    in the following:

    Auto Insurance Quote auto
    insurance quote

    Car insurance car insurance

    Car insurance quote car
    insurance quote

    Car
    cheap insurance
    car cheap insurance

    Auto
    cheap insurance
    Auto cheap insurance

    Car
    insurance rate
    Car insurance rate

    Car
    insurance online
    car insurance online

    Car
    insurance online quote
    car insurance online quote

    Car
    company insurance
    car company insurance

    Auto
    insurance online
    auto insurance online

    Auto
    insurance company
    Auto insurance company

    Auto
    insurance progressive
    auto insurance progressive

    Car
    cheapest insurance
    car cheapest insurance

    Car
    geico insurance
    car geico insurance

    Online
    car insurance
    Online car insurance

    Auto
    discount insurance
    auto discount insurance

    Auto loans auto loans

    Car loans car loans

    Vehicle loans vehicle loans deals

    motorcycle
    insurance
    motorcycle insurance

    Insurance company Insurance company

    Insurance quotes insurance quotes

    Insurance Broker Insurance Broker

    travel insurance
    insurance travel

    home insurance
    home insurance

    insurance
    recreation vehicle
    insurance recreation vehicle

    farmer insurance
    farmer insurance

    allstate insurance
    allstate insurance

    geico insurance
    geico insurance

    progressive
    insurance
    progressive insurance

    dental insurance
    dental insurance

    medical insurance
    medical insurance

    insurance life insurance life

    dog health
    insurance
    dog health insurance

    insurance quote insurance
    quotes

    life
    insurance quote
    insurance life quotes

    health
    insurance quote
    health insurance quotes

    Term
    life insurance quote
    term life insurance quote

    Online insurance quote Online
    insurance quotes, insurance online quote

    Free insurance quote Free
    insurance quotes

    Home
    owner insurance quote
    home owner insurance quotes

    Allstate insurance allstate insurance
    quotes

    allstate insurance company allstate
    insurance company

    allstate
    auto insurance
    allstate auto insurance,

    allstate
    car insurance
    allstate car insurance,

    allstate insurance agent allstate
    insurance agent,

    allstate
    home owner insurance
    allstate home owner insurance,

    allstate
    home insurance
    allstate home insurance,

    allstate
    life insurance
    allstate life insurance


    Home equity loans Home
    equity loans

    Home loans Home loans

    Loan mortgage mortgage loans

    Equity loans equity loans

    home
    improvement loan
    home improvement loans

    home equity loan rate home
    equity loan rates

    consolidation
    loans
    consolidation loans

    fast loans
    fast loans

    unsecured
    loans
    unsecured loans

    refinance
    loans
    refinance loans

    florida
    home loan
    florida home loans

    bad
    credit home loan
    bad credit home loans

    real estate
    loan
    real estate loans

    bad
    credit home equity loan
    bad credit home equity loan

    california
    loan mortgage
    california loan mortgage

    loan
    mortgage refinance
    loan mortgage refinance

    california
    home loan
    california home loans

    home equity loans home equity
    loans and mortgages

    Debt consolidation debt consolidation,
    debt counseling, debt reduction

    Bad credit debt consolidation
    Bad credit debt consolidation

    online debt consolidation online
    debt consolidation

    credit card debt consolidation
    credit card debt consolidation

    debt consolidation loan debt
    consolidation loan

    debt consolidation services
    debt consolidation services

    free debt consolidation free
    debt consolidation

    debt consolidation program debt
    consolidation program

    bad credit debt consolidation loan
    bad credit debt consolidation loan

    debt consolidation counseling
    debt consolidation counseling

    personal debt consolidation loan
    personal debt consolidation loan

    debt consolidation help debt
    consolidation help

    debt consolidation mortgage
    debt consolidation mortgage

    debt consolidation credit counseling
    debt consolidation credit counseling

    credit debt consolidation credit
    debt consolidation

    credit card debt consolidation loan
    credit card debt consolidation loan

    debt
    consolidation quote
    debt consolidation quote

    debt consolidation information
    debt consolidation information

    consumer debt consolidation
    consumer debt consolidation

    debt consolidation mortgage loan
    debt consolidation mortgage loan

    personal debt consolidation
    personal debt consolidation

    debt consolidation financing
    debt consolidation financing

    debt consolidation refinance
    debt consolidation refinance

    debt consolidation home loan
    debt consolidation home loan

    business
    debt consolidation
    business debt consolidation

    free debt consolidation services
    free debt consolidation services

    debt consolidation and management
    debt consolidation and management

    Home equity loan Home equity loan

    Home loan home loan

    Home equity
    loan rate
    Home equity loan rate

    Home equity
    loan rates
    Home equity loan rates

    Bad
    credit home equity loan
    Bad credit home equity loan

    Home equity loan online Home equity
    loan online

    California home equity loan California
    home equity loan

    Florida home equity loan Florida
    home equity loan

    Home equity loan calculator Home
    equity loan calculator

    Texas home equity loan Texas home
    equity loan

    Home equity loan refinancing Home
    equity loan refinancing

    Refinance home equity loan Refinance
    home equity loan

    Home equity loan company Home
    equity loan company

    auto loan auto loan

    bad credit car loan
    bad credit car loan

    new car loan new car
    loan

    used car loan used
    car loan

    car loan calculator
    car loan calculator

    car title loan car
    title loan

    refinance car loan
    refinance car loan

    online car loan
    online car loan

    car loan chicago
    car loan chicago

    car loan houston
    car loan houston

    car loan rate car
    loan rate

    car loan refinancing
    car loan refinancing

    car loan pittsburgh
    car loan pittsburgh

    car loan washington
    dc
    car loan washington dc

    car loan st louis
    car loan st louis

    no credit car loan
    no credit car loan

    car loan los angeles
    car loan los angeles

    car loan detroit
    car loan detroit

    car loan interest
    rate
    car loan interest rate

    car loan minneapolis
    car loan minneapolis

    car loan boston
    car loan boston

    car loan dallas
    car loan dallas

    car loan oakland
    car loan oakland

    car loan philadelphia
    car loan philadelphia

    bankruptcy car loan
    bankruptcy car loan

    used car loan rate
    used car loan rate

    low rate car loan
    low rate car loan

    car loan phoenix
    car loan phoenix

    gmac car loan gmac car loan

    cheap car loan cheap
    car loan

    car loan for people with bad credit car
    loan for people with bad credit

    car loan
    payment calculator
    car loan payment calculator

    car loan value car
    loan value

    car loan uk car loan
    uk

    student car loan
    student car loan

    bad credit
    used car loan
    bad credit used car loan

    car loan riverside
    car loan riverside

    new car loan rate
    new car loan rate

    car loan new york
    car loan new york

    used car auto loan
    used car auto loan

    car finance loan
    car finance loan

    car loan fort worth
    car loan fort worth

    car loan seattle
    car loan seattle

    car loan financing
    car loan financing

    car loan baltimore
    car loan baltimore

    car loan austin
    car loan austin

    auto car loan auto car loan

    car loan san antonio
    car loan san antonio

    car loan indianapolis
    car loan indianapolis

    car loan columbus
    ohio
    car loan columbus ohio

    car loan denver
    car loan denver

    car loan after
    bankruptcy
    car loan after bankruptcy

    atlanta car loan
    atlanta car loan

    car loan
    finance calculator
    car loan finance calculator



    Affiliate programs are
    the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of web
    affiliate programs
    available now, so each webmaster could find affiliate
    program
    suitable to his/her web site category. Check out web affiliate
    resources
    section for the best information on affiliate events and how to
    set up your own affiliate program
    or tools to help affiliates.

    Affiliate
    networks
    Affiliate networks

    Top affiliate program Top
    affiliate program

    Free affiliate program
    Free affiliate program

    Best affiliate program
    Best affiliate program

    Pay
    per click affiliate program
    Pay per click affiliate program

    Casino
    affiliate program
    Casino affiliate program

    Online affiliate program
    Online affiliate program

    Affiliate
    software
    Affiliate software

    Affiliate
    program software
    Affiliate program software

    Affiliate
    sales program
    Affiliate sales program

    Web
    master affiliate program
    Web master affiliate program


    Mp4 player Mp4 player

    Mp4 video player Mp4 video player

    Digital mp4 player Digital mp4 player

    Mp3 player Mp3 player

    Mp3 players Mp3 players

    Portable mp3 players Portable mp3 players

    Cheap mp3 players Cheap mp3 players

    Best mp3 players Best mp3 players

    iPod mp3 players iPod mp3 players

    Flash mp3 players Flash mp3 players

    Top mp3 players Top mp3 players

    Mp3 video player Mp3 video player

    Digital mp3 player Digital mp3 player

    Buy mp3 player Buy mp3 player

    Mp3 players for sale Mp3 players for
    sale

    Cheap portable mp3 players Cheap portable
    mp3 players

    Wholesale mp3 players Wholesale mp3
    players


    home security home security

    x10 x10

    home
    security system
    home security system

    barking
    dog alarm
    barking dog alarm

    voice
    dialer
    voice dialer

    x10 home automation x10 home automation

    home automation software home automation
    software

    assisted
    living
    assisted living

    wireless
    camera
    wireless camera

    xray vision
    xray vision

    x10 cameras x10 cameras

    entertainment
    entertainment

    wireless cameras wireless cameras

    home automation home automation

    nanny cam
    nanny cam

    nanny camera
    nanny camera

    home
    security system
    home security system

    home automation kits home automation kits

    wireless
    camera systems
    wireless camera systems

    universal
    remotes
    universal remotes

    camera
    systems
    camera systems

    home
    automation
    home automation

    home
    security systems
    home security systems

    broadband broadband

    wireless cellular
    wireless cellular

    cell phone rebates cell phone
    rebates

    broadband phone broadband phone

    broadband
    internet
    broadband internet

    broadband wireless broadband
    wireless


    Posted by: credit cards on February 21, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

    credit card,

    Yeah, fine, but do you have any ideas on where I could get some good dealz? Like on credit cards?

    Posted by: Tripp on February 22, 2006 at 11:22 AM | 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