The Prism Warden takes Sullivan to task for his seeming abandonment of principle:
Surely, given his personal history with outing and his apparent distaste for Rogers’ tactics, one would think Sullivan would condemn this activity and not give it the time of day.
You’d be wrong. Here is the Andrew Sullivan of today:
DREIER PUSHED ASIDE: Any bets that James Dobson and Karl Rove vetoed? Any bets why?
It seems attacking Republicans is a far higher priority for Mr. Sullivan than his principles. Once against the outing tactics of people like Mike Rogers, he now finds them a handy reference guide for grinding his political axe.
Andrew Sullivan – a man with no shame whatsoever.
There are a lot of reasons for being angry at this administration, but Andrew recently has, sadly, read like a Kos diary. Even when I agree with him.
I want the old Andrew Sullivan back.
Lines
I want the old Andrew Sullivan back that embraced the Bell Curve like it was his personal lover!
Oh, and just for the record:
Republicans nix Dreier because of his sexuality
yarf
Any reasons given for the far right’s aversion to Drier? Is this a bellweather for 08 Presidential nominees?
Steve
Roll Call reported: “Republican leaders also heard a vocal outcry from outside conservative groups and activists who objected to Dreier’s elevation.” You can read into that what you will, but I don’t think Roll Call will be mistaken for a dkos diary. It’s fair to ask what the outcry was all about.
What’s going on here is that a number of Republicans who are not personally anti-gay think of the anti-gay movement within their party as a fringe and angrily oppose any efforts to talk about it. Well, maybe it’s a fringe, and maybe it’s not. One good way to find out is to get to the bottom of this Dreier decision.
DougJ
Hate the new Andrew. Hate the old Andrew. Hate him when he’s talking about “fifth columns”, hate him when he’s obsessing about James Dobson.
kenB
Was the old AS any better? I’ve never found his blog particularly worth reading, even when I agree with him — it’s just a dumping ground for his first reactions and uninformed opinions. He’s better in magazine articles, when he’s taken more time to digest and research.
John Cole
Steve- There were conservative movements afoot last year to oust Dreier from his seat because of immigration and for other non-homosexual reasons.
Read here.
Hell, read here.
Or check these stories out.
KC
I know K. Drum laid the smackdown on liberal bloggers who insist on running with the Dreier is gay excuse yesterday. After all, it is Congress and it is a leadership position. Whether Dreier’s gay or not, I bet Blunt was pretty pissed at being passed up for the position.
slide
You mean the one that looked the other way when it came to corruption, cronyism, and incompetence in the Bush adminstration just because he agreed (like you) with their Iraq policy? That Andrew Sullivan?
One thing Sullivan has been very strong on has been the torture scandal that seems to grow every day. Today a judge rejected the Bush adminstration’s attempt to prevent the release of the Abu Gharib photos and videos that the ACLU had requested via a FOIL request. More bad news for an adminstration already reeling.
Caroline
The old Andrew? Maybe his Bush apologia reached its expiration date.
Defense Guy
slide
Bad news for the troops and for the Iraqis. Nothing new will be added, but it will help to stroke the fires of resentment and lead to more violence.
slide
Defense Guy:
Unfortunatly, that is true. But necessary. The one’s that endangered our troops were the civilians in the Penatagon and the Justice Department that thought torture (or as close to it as you can get) would be a good idea. They, unlike Senator McCain who has some credibility on the matter, as well as all the service’s JAG corp, didn’t realize how dangerous such a policy is for OUR troops. They were TOLD by the JAG’s that these policies put our troops at risk, but like so much that we have seen, their warnings went unheeded by the gang that has taken over our government.
Again the right loves to shoot the messenger. Don’t show them what WE did because that would endanger our troops. No, we must show the world that torture is NOT what America stands for. That we will NOT cover it up. That good Americans are OUTRAGED that we engaged in these policies. And that we will take the necessary steps to hold those accountable (and I don’t mean Private England and the poor lower ranking troops). So far all we have had from the Pentagon investigations are whitewashes.
Jim Allen
John C —
Re: “There were conservative movements afoot last year to oust Dreier from his seat because of immigration and for other non-homosexual reasons.”
Do you really think that the “vocal outcry from outside conservative groups and activists” was because of Dreier’s stand on immigration policy?
Defense Guy
But you support the troops right? I shouldn’t question your commitment to reducing the risk to them, instead I should focus on those that put them in harms way to begin with and disregard those actions that will make the risk worse. You say it’s necessary, I say bullshit.
So tell me what exactly will be gained that is worth the violence that this will bring? No dodges about past deeds, or anything like that, tell me what the release of more pictures of a situation that we already are aware of will give us?
Buckaroo
Look, I hate where this is going as well, but I agree with slide. What will be gained? How about right triumphing. If this is really as endemic as some believe, than it must be stomped out, loudly and with great vigor.
Wrong is wrong, and must be investigated, and righted.
Shygetz
Defense Guy-Perhaps it will gain us a true accountability of whoever made these practices possible. Perhaps it will cause us to take steps to ensure that things like this do not happen again. Perhaps it will help to shine the light of public awareness on the questionable practices that are still ongoing, and are a current stain on America’s honor and dignity (like extraordinary rendition). Perhaps it will viscerally remind all Americans what torture really looks like, and help convince some that maybe torture really is a big deal and really is bad for America, and something really should be done about it.
You do think that Americans torturing people is a big deal and is bad for America, right?
stickler
Defense guy writes this:
Translation: Covering up a scandal is good and necessary. The truth can, and should, be hidden for as long as possible. We’re No. 1! USA! USA!
Mac Buckets
Necessary? For what? For the Dems to try and get a few hit points on Bush and Rumsfeld? Who cares if a few dozen US soldiers die because of it, and a few dozen Iraqi citizens, as long as Durbin gets to whine more about how Bush is a Gulag Commander? The important thing is the elections, not the soldiers!
But the liberals support the troops, except when they are trying to get them killed. Absolute ruthless bastards.
jg
It won’t end so long as its hidden and it has to end.
Mac Buckets
In case you haven’t been following the news, the “scandal” has already been broken, indictments have been made, trials held, convictions obtained, sentences determined.
There’s nothing to break. Releasing these pictures to the Jihad is a bad idea, and will certianly result in deaths.
slide
Defense Guy:
Do you think the insurgents will be any more ferocious in their attacks on us? Do you really think they need some “motivation” at this point. THEY know what went on in Abu Gharib. So we are not really talking about a direct linea increase in violence but rather that America would be “hated” even more in the general Muslim world and that could possibly lead to increased terrorism? BINGO. That is what those of us on the left have been saying all along. The WAR in Iraq has INCREASED terrorism. Using TORTURE has INCREASED terrorism. Glad to see that you are finally see the light and understand the unintended consequencesthat our policies may have.
as Rummy once said, Democracy is messy. The American public have a RIGHT to see what is being done in their name by their political leaders. Only then can democracy operate the way it was intended. Isn’t that what we are fighting for? I belive in transparency in government. Thats what keeps dishonest men honest. Secrecy, unless absolutely necessary, is anti-democracy. Thats the general principle, but to be more specific, I want the OUTRAGE over the photos to give Senators McCain and Graham (two Republicans by the way) more wind at their back in trying to put into effect safeguards against the Executive branch making these decisons in the future. I want the OUTRAGE to cause policies to be put into place so that this doesn’t happen again. I want the OUTRAGE to safeguard our troops should they be captured in some future war by letting the world know that we dont think this is acceptable. I want our country to stand for the ideals that make it the great country that it is, and not what some renengade neocon gang has turned it into over these last few years.
Sunlight my friend is the best disinfectant, and we have a lot of deadly viruses to kill with this adminstration.
jg
So you think torturing iraqis won’t get our troops killed but talking about it and saying its barbaric and has to end will get our troops killed? You seriously think that the only way Iraqis will find out about what we do to prisoners is from reading Newsweek? If we don’t talk about it no one will know about it?
Rovian logic at work. Anyone says something that will interfere with their plan and they hate the troops. They don’t hate the war or the barbaric treatment thats been condoned by the civilian leadership, they hate the troops. You people are such fucking tools and you don’t even know it. You enable them to avoid facing the truth. They have a strategy for ducking accountability and you’re the strategy. Hows it feel? To be a tool I mean?
John S.
Don’t froget about when they slash their funding, reduce their benefits, send them to war without the necessary equipment and cripple the VA from being able to properly assist them when they come home.
Oh, I’m sorry…you were trying to convince us that liberals are trying to get our troops killed, and here I go spouting off all the stuff conservatives do.
My mistake.
Defense Guy
OK, three interesting responses. One at a time.
First, these are not new pictures of another incident, they are more pictures of an incident in which there is already an investigation. Second, the pictures are not being released for use in an investigation, they are being released because the press wants to run them.
I do, and I think it will end up being bad for the troops as well, the ones NOT involved in this stuff. It will enrage to the point of violence those who before were not going to be a problem. I think it will not be an added problem for those troops captured by our enemy, because their fate is sealed by the fact that men like Zarqawi are worse.
As to the other part of your post, see what I wrote above. This is not new information, it is a rehash of old information where nothing new is going to be learned, but it will help to stretch out the outrage. Will we be seeing someting similiar in another 6 months, another request for more pictures of the same event?
Frankly, I shouldn’t even respond to this drivel and you should stop drinking the bongwater. If you insist, try to change it once in a while, have some respect for your body since you don’t seem to respect your mind.
Read this next part slowly, it may help. It can hardly be a coverup if it is already out in the open, has been investigated, and is continuing to be dealt with. This is an attempt to extend the outrage. It will put people in harms way even more than they already are. Some of those people will be innocent bystanders. Some of those people will be our troops.
John S.
Well since Mac Buckets named himself after a tool, he must be accustomed to it.
And buckets are very useful, as far as tools go…they can be used for carrying water, dirt, shit – whatever you can fill ’em up with.
Defense Guy
slide
It is fascinating to see you dissect the motivations of the insurgents/terrorists. Let me just say that perhaps there are some who are on the fence about which side to come out on. Our enemy will very much seek to capitalize on this.
I would remind you once again that this is a rehash of facts already known, it is a new picture of the same events, it will give us nothing and our enemy something.
You say it’s necessary and I vehemently disagree. I’m not sure what else there is to say.
Mac Buckets
Why did you leave out “publishing pictures for the Sunnis to put on placards to help recruit murderers to kill our troops?” That’s what we’re talking about here, not thoughtful discussion. Just curious why you’d frame it in the “let’s just talk about it” mode, when we’ve already had that discussion long ago, when the first pictures came out.
No, they don’t necessarily hate the troops. They just care more about their political agenda, obviously, that they do about the troops. Hear me again: Publishing more AG pics will result in more American troops being killed than if they were not published. How does that make you feel?
Either you slept through the first set of pics from AG, or you are just retarded. I can’t tell the difference. Everyone in the world has “faced the truth” on this issue already. Publishing more pictures serves no purpose except to get more troops and Iraqis killed for the actions of those who have already been held accountable.
slide
Defense Guy:
Are you really this naive, or just carrying water for Rummy and his gang of incompetents. The pentagon conveniently cleared all of its top people with regards to these scandals. They are only investigating and prosecuting the poor low raking soldiers that were only doing what they thought they were supposed to be doing.
The guy that was ultimately in charge of Abu Gharib, and from all accounts, seemed to be very involved in its day to day policies, General Sanchez, is up for a promotion. Accountability? In this adminstration? Slam Dunk Tenant medal of freedom ring a bell? Where is the 8 billion dollars Paul Bremer getting awards? Ring a bell? No, my friend, this adminstration has no credibility whatsoever to investigate itself. And that is all we have had so far. Whitewashes.
Davebo
Defense Guy
Perhaps the answer is to ensure it’s impossible or at least highly unlikely that any more torture photos can be taken?
Seems Sen. McCain has offered up legislation promoting the idea and it’s being fought by the Administration as well as most of the GOP.
“It can hardly be a coverup if it is already out in the open, has been investigated, and is continuing to be dealt with.”
Is there an investigation into all of it? Do you know what acts are committed in those pictures and films?
All I’ve seen is a “coverup/investigation” busting a few E-5’s and below for doing what they were obviously told to do.
John S.
Sorry DG, but that is pure bullshit. You insinuate that a liberal is drinking bongwater, but that is an entirely false premise. A pot smoking hippie knows NOT to drink the bongwater. I’d wager a conservative would be more apt to drink bongwater since chances are they have no clue what it is.
If you’re going to snark, make it a little more believable.
Davebo
for the actions of those who have already been held accountable.
Hilarious really. Still waiting on that Easter Bunny?
slide
And who’s fucking fault is that? Who was the brilliant thinker that thought torture might “soften” up the detainees and we might get useful information? Who’s idea was it to use rendition to send people to coutries so that they could torture them? Who’s idea was it to send Gen Miller to Abu Garib so he could Gitmoize it? Who’s idea was it to write a Justice Department memo to do back flips to give legal cover to abuse prisoners? Who was it that said the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply?
You are right, the enemy will exploit the stupidity of this administration. Bin Laden’s best friend is George Bush.
Defense Guy
slide
You think any of that, even if true, is going to be rectified by publishing more pictures of this? It’s funny that you call ME naive. I guess the deaths of more innocent Iraqi’s and the increased risk to our troops is worth it for the ability to attempt to get the man.
That the attempt will fail hardly matters, as more dead troops actually will help the ’cause’ right?
Mac Buckets
In lieu of evidence, go with the Easter Bunny reference. Cute. The Bunny is more real than the frog march, pal.
DougJ
This is news to you? The whole British press contingent here — Sully, Snitchens, Tina Brown, and the rest — are bottom feeders, pure and simple. Snitchens said so himself on Hardball a few years back (though he didn’t include himself, of course). To describe them as “liberal” or “conservative” or “former Trotskyite” or whatever is misleading: their defining characteristic is their lack of shame.
Mac Buckets
So you don’t care if it kills more soldiers, because you think it’s Bush’s or Rumsfeld’s fault. As long as it’s the GOP’s fault, let the soldiers die! The depths of partisan depravity — I expect no less from the likes of you.
Otto Man
So says the guy who mocks a Medal of Honor winner’s missing arm because he didn’t vote for poor Judge Roberts.
jg
So this is there only source of motivation? You think their ISP blocks Nowthatsfuckedup.com? Plenty of pictures of dead iraqis and US troops posing with corpses. Same shit.
Once again though you say that its not the toruring thats wrong, its making it public thats wrong.
If they are just old pictures of stuff we already know about how would it inflame the insurgents more? They are being published so jackasses like you who think it was just fraternity pranks will see what really happened. Arouse public sentiment and get this shit stopped. Unless you think its already stopped since England was put on trial. I don’t think its possible to piss off muslims more than we have.
We knocked over a guy who torured his people so we could torture his people, only he was evil and we have noble purpose. Save an american, torture an iraqi.
This whole thing was a complete clusterfuck from the beginning, lets end it not prolong it. Hiding this issue will prolong the occupation.
John S.
That does seem to be the Republican motto. You know, you got to war with the army you got and all that. And don’t forget to cut the soldiers benefits and the VA’s budget while you’re at it.
So long as you’re not an unpatriotic Demoncrat, right?
slide
I love this concern for the safety of the troops. I may have missed it Defense Guy and Mac Buckets but did you guys scream and yell at the adminstration for:
Not planning for the post invastion?
Not having our troops outfitted with body armor?
Not having the humvees armored?
Not sending sufficient troops as Gen Shenseki advised?
Disbanding the Iraq army?
The above decisions KILLED americans. Not in theory, but in reality. But your side supports the troops right? and our side doesn’t? what hypocrits. Talk about ruthless.
Gratefulcub
This is just a difference of opionion. I respect your point that we don’t need graphic photos of acts that have already been made public. And, I do realize that releasing more graphic photos can and will enrage some in the ME. It can actually make the job of the troops more difficult, and more dangerous. That is extremely regrettable.
On the other hand, the reason I think these pictures have to be released is this: The American people don’t yet get it. there is still a large chunk of Americans that believe the pyramids are what we are talking about. They see it as fraternity pranks, and no big deal. it has to be shown that it was systemic, and much worse than the pictures we have seen so far. The multiple reports don’t seem to work, the American people need pictures. People were beaten to death. I wish the pictures weren’t necessary.
Transparency is the key to our republic. It is based on an ‘informed populace.’ that means the government can’t hide politically sensitive information. While they are prosecuting Lyndie Englands and sending them to prison and still saying a few bad apples, there is a cover up. Or, if that is really what happened, then release the pictures, have real senate hearings, and prove that it wasn’t systemic and much worse than pyramids. Then we can all stop arguing about it.
Yes, it will endanger the troops. Sometimes doing the right thing endangers our soldiers. Sending them to Iraq endangered them, but if it was the right thing to do, then that is the price we pay.
jg
Bush is going nowhere. This is not about removing him from office. Its about gettin gour troops out of a place where people are trying to kill them. I’m against the torture because there is nothing to gain from it and a lot to lose. Otherwise fuck all the iraqis for all I care.
Defense Guy
John S.
Good point re: bongwater issue.
jg
The first two they’re still trying to blame on Kerry.
We didn’t have the number of troops Shinseki called for, thats why they found someone who agreed that it could be done ‘with the army you have’. How can someone say they used the tools available at teh time when they chose the time. If they weren’t ready, wait!
slide
Speaking of Sullivan, he hits the nail on the head with this:
.
Defense Guy
slide
You are now changing the subject. Those are all seperate issues, each with it’s own set of facts and opinions. Try to stay on subject, which at current is your choice of the release of new pictures or something related to gayness in DC.
Jim Allen
Mac Buckets, perhaps you should check out nowthatsfuckedup.com (I think that’s the website — if not I’ll post a correction later). There are plenty of non-Abu Ghraib pictures there that can be used to rile up the insurgents. Pictures of American troops posing with bodies and body parts, smiling like they’re posing with a deer they just bagged. And guess what? They were sent in by soldiers themselves.
Why do our troops hate our troops?
slide
Does BUSH support the troops? This is from an AP article today:
slide
defense Guy:
Sorry buddy, you don’t tell me what to disuss, especially when my postion is bastardized to mean that I somehow don’t support the troops. I resent that and I will not let you get away with it without demonstrating that two can plan at that little rhetorical game. The above issues KILLED American troops. Bush was responsible for those decisions. Therefore Bush killed US TROOPS. Right? Or can one only play that game when its attacking liberals? Please tell me the rules once again.
Shygetz
So, let’s see…
or
So let me see if I understand the reasoning. The world is already as outraged as it will possibly get about torture due to the last pics, and is already motivated to the maximum to end the practice of torture and punish whoever is behind it. Except for the Middle East, where they are not yet fully aware of the horrors of Abu Gharib, and more pictures would further motivate them to kill Americans.
Um, no. Chances are, no one in the world has discussed Abu Gharib more than the Iraqis. Thinking that more pictures are going to get them more pissed off, but the rest of the world will be totally non-plussed is stupid. It is more likely to be the other way around–Iraqis have already been saturated with anti-American torture propoganda from Al Jazeera and insurgents; however, the rest of the world hasn’t done much about it (including us).
Defense Guy
slide
Of course, use whatever tactics you wish, but you conceded yourself that the release of these photos will put the troops at more risk then they already are. I happen to believe that what will be gained by the release is not worth the price. Nothing new will be learned.
slide
I strongly disagree with your very convenient position. Let leave it at that shall we?
Mac Buckets
Changing the subject because you can’t defend your subhuman argument? I suspected as much.
Shygetz
Mac Buckets–Did you vote for Bush? Did his administration do those things?
Why do you want to kill our troops just to install your political candidate? Ruthless bastard.
Defense Guy
I’m not sure how you determine it’s convenient, but I would agree that we have both taken our positions as far as they can go against each others arguments.
Mac Buckets
The world knows that abuses happened. We’ve had the investigation, the indictments, the trials. What more do hope to gain, reforms-wise, from rehashing an old issue?
Outrage, though finite in lifespan, is an infinitely renewable resource. Bear in mind, these pictures are allegedly “worse” than the first batch, which were cited over and over again as a justification for killing American soldiers. I absolutely guarantee you that the Sunni leaders will use any new torture pictures to call for more violence.
Compare that risk to the non-existence of any new benefit in terms of reforms.
Mac Buckets
That doesn’t make any sense on any level.
slide
They are just subhuman. Faux patriots. Just like the adminstration. Patriots when it suits them. Put on a nice flag pin on their lapel and vote against burning the flag. What patriots. Funny though how every single high raking administration offical managed to avoid serving their nation at a time of war. I can’t think of one combat vet in this adminstration? Running down the names… lets see:
Geroge Bush – nope
Dick Cheney – nope
Steven Hadley – nope
Scooter Libby – nope
Scotty – nope
John Boulton – nope
Dennis Hasstert – nope
Bill Frist – nope
Tom Delay – nope
Paul Wolfowitz – nope
Doug Feith – nope
DiResta – nope
Damn… gotta be some hawks that found the time to actually serve their nation at time of war.. how about the tough talking supporters:
Rush Limbaugh – nope
Sean Vannity – nope
Bill o’Reilly – nope
Bill Bennett – nope
Mike Savage – nope
Oh well. They do SUPPORT our troops now don’t they?
Defense Guy
slide
You forgot to add Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Franklin to your list of faux patriot chickenhawks list.
Gratefulcub
MB
The world knows ‘abuses’ took place. But some americans seem to think they were just pyramids, and frat pranks. America isn’t outraged, and I hope it is because they don’t understand what happened. They have to be beaten over the head with visual proof. When the public demands that it is stopped, when rendition is stopped, then we won’t need pictures.
Our soldiers are fighting for our freedom and our way of life. That way of life is our republic. A republic that is based on an informed populace, we can’t be informed without transparency. The government can’t hide politically sensitive information. Sometimes the unintended consequences of our system are unfortunate. this is one of those times, but I don’t want to head down the alternate path, where torture is allowed and hidden. And much of it has been hidden from the public. Pyramids at Abu Ghraib are the tip of the perverbial iceburg.
Rick
Hey, my heroes are having their patriotism questioned! That is so totally out of bounds, dood. Their dissent from your viewpoint *is* patriotic. The highest form of it; not the “last refuge” type, either.
This high dudgeon can be great sometimes.
Cordially…
Mac Buckets
I never said it was the only motivation. I believe that the main motivation is to get AG back in the headlines to try to hammer Bush and Rumsfeld for political gain. The unintended side effect will be getting American soldiers killed.
So why did the “insurgency” make such a big deal out of the original AG pics? Why did they cite those over and over, if they had unfettered access to that site (a site which is abominable if it contains what you say)? Obviously, their access to the AG pics is a great deal better than their access to whatever website that is. So these pictures released by US sources must mean a great deal to the insurgency, right?
Show me where I said that. You are dead wrong.
Again, show me where I said it was just “pranks.” You know nothing of my views. Stop pretending you do.
What issue, the AG issue that was the single biggest story of last year? Hiding???
Why and how will not publishing a new batch of pictures covering an old story extend our troops’ time in Iraq (not an occupation, btw)? It’s a much easier argument that re-energizing the insurgency with new AG pics will inflame the violence and that will extend our troops’ presense in Iraq.
Blue Neponset
Abe Lincoln served in the IL militia.
John S.
Fabulous specious analogy, DG. The most recent guy on your list died, what, 60 years ago? But by all means compare those in power now with folks who died centuries ago (and whom lived in entirely different times under very different circumstances).
For an encore, will you be comparing the Iraqis to our founding fathers?
Also, I do not recall all of those people sending this country to war or even being terribly EMBRACIVE of war, which as you know is the very definition of a chickenhawk.
Defense Guy
Scratch Lincoln. Good call.
Matt
I thought Christopher Hitchens had cornered the market on that.
OldManRick
Hey, Defense Guy,
The agenda for publishing them is right in front of you.
Gratefulclub said:
The American people don’t yet get it.
The reason that he wants them published is that the American people don’t agree with him. They need to be educated more. More pictures, more press, more “re-education’. He was not happy with the results the first time they were published so he (and his ilk) are going for a do over.
gratefulclub, Slide, all of you guys –
It’s pointless publishing these pictures. You will get all hyper (again), and you will get ignored (again). You’ve made your point and had your arguement. Those that bought it, bought it. Those that didn’t, didn’t. The vast middle accepts that the the Army found the perps and punished them. The middle wants this behind them.
You think that if you do it just one more time, the scales will fall off everyone’s eyes and Bush will be impeached. It won’t happen. The middle is just going to get tired of the constant whining. This is now officially old news. Bringing it up again will not change any minds. It will make you feel “good” (you know Bush and Rummy are the devils – see the pictures), but you’re going to have to photoshop Bush and Rummy into the pictures to have any effect. And then the effect you will have is showing the middle how desperate you are. You will loose more.
Do a realistic cost benefits trade. You are more likely to loose support for
1. Endangering the troops – a valid argument.
2. Appearing stuck in the past
3. Tiring people with your constant carping.
Than gain support with the impact of new pictures of what everyone has absorbed.
It may make you feel good to get all indignant about this again, but it won’t help your cause. Read Sun-Tse, know when the fight is over. Listen to Kenny Rodgers, know when to fold.
Defense Guy
I’ll leave that to Michael Moore.
What history books are you getting your ‘facts’ from?
JoeTx
Bingo!
The torture WILL NOT STOP until those in power are held accountable. This administration has a sad history of not holding people accountable, not just that but promoting them instead. I am so sick and tired of the partisan BS. The world does not see Republicans or Democrats torturing and killing people, they see AMERICANS killing people. And frankly it disgusts me.
Lines
whats a faux-chickenhawk?
All of them are proven to be Chickenhawks. Screaming for murder and death in a foreign country while other people’s children die and kill and torture.
But at least they all have someone like you to suck their hard-ons and smile your cum-stained teeth back at them at the end of the day.
Jim Allen
You might want to scratch FDR for that whole polio thing, too.
Mac Buckets
So for the sake of “winning over” the 1% of Americans who think we just stacked up pyramids of Iraqis and that’s all, some are willing to jeopardize Americans’ soldiers lives. Stupid, just stupid.
The idea of the “people rising up and effecting change” is really quaint and all, but what Joe Sixpack thinks of “abusing” Iraqi prisoners a) likely won’t be changed by new pictures, and b) won’t have even the smallest effect on policy, mainly because the policy is not to abuse the prisoners in this way in the first place (hence the trials and the convictions). Bear in mind that these “new” pics were included in the previous investigations — they just weren’t made public. And rendition has nothing to do with AG, so it is not even likely to be in the conversation.
I hope that every politician you admire goes on every talk show he/she can saying that he’s willing to risk getting more of our troops killed just to get prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, an issue that has already being investigated and prosecuted, back into the headlines.
I guess the left will also stop moaning about US casualty counts, since now soldiers are no more than “unintended consequences” of their partisan political aspirations.
Defense Guy
Cheney has a heart condition, does he get off too?
Defense Guy
Lines
Brave words from an anonymous asshole.
Blue Neponset
I thought Cheney got out of Viet Nam because he, “had better things to do” not because of a heart condition.
BTW, FDR was 35 and Asst. Secretary of the Navy when WWI broke out. I think that might qualify as military service.
Lines
DG, I’d take you any day. You’re the one that wants fascism to rule, the one that wants to shove the truth under the carpet, because its always Party before Country with you.
Do you realize how disgusting you are? Do you understand that your stance on this is pro-torture, pro-cover up? Do you get it? Or are you too much of a stooge for your party to ever admit it?
and if you want, we can organize a meet up point halfway between us, pull our knives and chop each other to bits. I’ll gladly pay for it, if you’d care to step up.
rayabacus
Bush served in the TANG (Texas Militia)
Not all but Lincoln and FDR certainly did – with far more US casualties than the current war in Iraq will ever approach.
Defense Guy
Lines
You’re clearly insane. Seek immediate help to have your head removed from your ass.
Lines
Run like the little cockroach you are, you pathetic worm. The smell of offal and urine will follow you into your rotton nest, where you gleefully keep your trophies. Your pictures of bloated bodies in NOLA, your headless corpse doll simulating the beheaded in Iraq, your M16 that you fondle every hour, imagining yourself standing atop a pile of brown skinned Iraqi’s, howling like a madman.
You poor thing, all you can do is call names when confronted, just like the rest of your pathetic party.
Defense Guy
OldManRick
Don’t know how I missed this.
Yeah, I know. I pointed this out too, or rather, I was succesful in getting them to point it out for me.
Blue Neponset
How many Black Hawk Indians did Bush expect to have shooting at him while he served in the TANG? Lincoln joined the IL militia in during the Black Hawk war. He didn’t see any action, but it wasn’t from lack of trying.
Defense Guy
Lines
Good lord man, you are insane. Too much crystal meth rotted the old synapses. Be careful about threats, they have a way of coming back to bite you.
If you can’t compete in the arena of written argument, perhaps you should just fuck off. There’s a good boy.
OldManRick
Again, you show your agenda.
Which argument do you think will win?
1. The American People don’t get it yet. The torture WILL NOT STOP until those in power are held accountable. These pictures show that we need investigate again until Bush and company are found guilty.
2. (JoeTx, Slide, and gratefulclub) think the American People are too stupid to understand and they need to be reminded again and again until they see it the right way. J, S, and G think people didn’t make the right decision the first time, so we will revote. The fact that we haven’t had a similar incident reported since Abu Grab means nothing to J, S, and G. The fact they people were punished means nothing to J, S, and G. The fact that it may add risk to the troop means nothing to J, S, and G. J, S, and G will continue this until the American people see it as J jr, S jr, and G jr.
I think the second will prevail. For those who have already absorbed the Abu Grab scandal, you are just telling tham that you think they are stupid, and you will keep hounding them until they agree with you. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. Rehashing Abu Grab is a looser.
rayabacus
Huh? You talking to yourself, Lines?
Defense Guy
I suppose your posts are just fire and forget stupid torpedos, eh douchebag? I really do suspect it is a weak mind and too many drugs that allows you to live in such a rich delusional fantasyland. Your first post was an insult you moron.
rayabacus
Seems I heard the same about Bush.
Lines
You mean a written argument such as: Party before Country?
You mean a written argument like most of the sane people have written? Why havn’t the people who condoned, encouraged and ordered the torture been brought to justice? Why havn’t those that have used foreign agents and countries as torturers been tried or at least charged?
Why are those that oversaw the abuses getting medals and promotions?
Because its all about party and power, not about country and integrity.
John S.
I’d ask you the same question, DG.
– Second Inaugural Address Given by James Madison
– Thomas Jefferson
– Abraham Lincoln
– Benjamin Frnaklin
– FDR
These guys sure do sound like a bunch of chickenhawks to me, because they seem SO keen on war.
Blue Neponset
What!?! If Bush was so hot to get into combat why didn’t he volunteer for active duty?
slide
Here is another reason why the photos/videos must be published:
rayabacus
He did. They turned him down.
rayabacus
So if AS says it, it *must* be true?
Defense Guy
John S
Well, it’s no full contact drunken mousetrap, but I accept your challenge of drunken quote matching. I will endevour to a) get drunk, and b) find opposing quotes. It will have to wait until later unfortunately.
Game on mother trucker.
slide
For those of you on the right… this has nothing to do with protecting the troops and everything to do with protecting the administration. And we all know it, dont’ we boys and girls?
Lines
They can’t admit that, slide, and you know it. They’ll keep up their disgusting game of blaming it all on liberals because taking responsibility isn’t part of their character.
Gratefulcub
MacB/Old Man Rick
The military has investigated it. They have tried and convicted low level soldiers for leashes and pyramids. They have made scapegoats out of a few. This is not an issue that has been investigated as it should be.
So, maybe I am naïve, maybe the American people know exactly what has happened, and they don’t care. But “The reason that he wants them published is that the American people don’t agree with him. They need to be educated more. More pictures, more press, more “re-education’. He was not happy with the results the first time they were published so he (and his ilk) are going for a do over” is BS.
We live by the rule of law, not the law of man. The laws on the books say the pictures should be released. No one is above the law, and our government does not have the right to withhold information based on expected domestic or foreign outrage. Transparency, informed public, all of that hippie dippie jeffersonian free republic BS.
But, I do believe that many in America don’t realize the extent of what happened. I shouldn’t have used exagerration and rhetoric by saying ‘just pyramids.’ The pictures shouldn’t be released BECAUSE of education, er, re-education.
Reports are that people died, were raped, beaten regularly, etc. Reports are that it was systematic. Other reports contradict these statements. I am more than willing to say that I don’t know what happened. But, I want an intensive investigation to find out what exactly happened, why, and how. The military can’t run this investigation. Not because I think our military is evil, but because NO ONE can investigate themselves.
Mac Buckets
And for those on the left, this certainly has nothing to do with protecting the troops (some of whom will most likely die because of the new pictures), and everything to do with attacking the administration to win a few votes next election. And you all know it, boys and girls.
Defense Guy
Why, because you say so? I could just as easily turn it around and say it has nothing to do with ensuring justice and everything to do with getting this administration.
Defense Guy
So why don’t we print the names of rape victims?
Blue Neponset
Have you no shame?
slide
Mac Buckets said:
Well, in a way yes. That is what democracy is all about pal. Policy decisions have consequences. We the voter, have a right to see the consequences of a politician’s decisions. Many of us on the left think that the decisions of this adminstration have been un-American and very very dangerous to our country. Your not wanting to let the american public see the consequences of their decisions tells me that you think the voter will see it the same way I do. So you want to censor what they can see. For their own good of course, as you know best what is good for them.
You make it sound as if all politics is bad in and of itself. That we want to hammer Bush and Rumsfeld because we just want power and not because we think that their policies are very harmful to our nation. Don’t you think people should fight for what they believe in? Well, I for one believe that Rumsfeld’s decisions regarding all aspects of the Iraq war need to be hammered. To me it is patriotic to hammer policy decisions that hurt our nation – a hell of a lot more patriotic than to want to censor what our government is doing. Stalin censored the news. Hitler censored the news. Saddam censored the news. I’m glad I’m on the other side of that argument.
Gratefulcub
I can only speak for myself:
It has nothing to do with protecting the troops. More pictures won’t protect the troops. If anything, it will cause them more harm. I can admit that. It doesn’t mean I don’t ‘support the troops’ and it definitely doesn’t mean I want them dead.
It isn’t about Bush and Rumsfeld. There is no way this ever gets all the way to them unless they wrote memos saying that torture is grand, with little drawings of their favorite types of torture.
It sure the hell isn’t about who did and who didn’t serve in the military.
For me it is simple:
The pictures should be released because, by law, they should be released. What the media should do with them is another issue entirely.
An investigation should happen. Not a few soldiers getting court martialed. Not investigations into a few individual crimes. An investigation, that is independent, that looks into whether or not this was systematic, and if so, how it happened, and why it happened.
I don’t care about scoring points against Bush. I happen to live in one of the few countries, in one of the few eras, in which I can say, my government functions for the people by the people. I want to live in a nation that is above some of the stories I have heard. So, find out if they are true or not. And make sure it stops, or has been stopped.
John S.
I wasn’t drunk when I found the quotes, but if it enhances your abilities, then be my guest.
Have at you!
David Rossie
Defense Guy,
The troop-endangering argument doesn’t fly. Our government wants insurgents to come and fight them.
Remember “bring it on”?
Remember “we fight terrorists in Iraq so they don’t come here”?
Remember the calls to flatten Fallujah and engage the Sadr army head on? Don’t you think those actions would stir resentment more than the publication of photos?
Iraq’s occupation was certainly meant to be a showdown between the US and terrorists, so why hide from that in this instance? It does not pass the smell test.
slide
Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn’t it the default policy in this country to have freedom of the press? To have open government? Transparency? Isn’t that what the Freedom of Information Act is all about. It is not I that wants to change the rules, it is your side that wants to violate the law of the land because you want to pick and choose what information the American public should get to see or not see. Who the fuck made you the arbitor of my freedoms?
Gratefulcub
MacB
I don’t get the argument. We do print the name of the rapist. We aren’t investigating the victims of torture. If the pictures need to be released without the faces of the victims, I am ok with that. I really don’t care about the pictures all that much, as much as it may have sounded like I do above. I just think they have to be released because, that is the law. Again, what the media should do with them is a separate issue.
We can have an investigation without releasing the names of rape victims.
Gratefulcub
Because we protect individuals right to privacy, we don’t protect the goverments right to keep secrets, hence the transparency.
(and yes, I do know that we do, and must, protect the governments right to keep secrets. This just isn’t one of those instances.)
DougJ
Do you blame them?
Mac Buckets
Call me nutty, but I firmly believe that the laws of the US should not effectively serve death sentences to our men and women in uniform. There must be some consideration of human lives.
The good news is, this case isn’t over by a long shot, and no pictures will be released for many months, if the US justice system runs per normal.
Like Gen. Abizaid said, “When we continue to pick at the wound and show the pictures over and over again it just creates the image — a false image — like this is the sort of stuff that is happening anew, and it’s not.”
To you, maybe. To the ACLU…
It’s 100% political to them, and they don’t care what soldiers get killed in the process, as long as they get to cast blame on the “leaders” who let this happen “on their watch” — Bush and Rumsfeld.
Lines
Putting them in a hostile country with lies and little to no intelligence is a little more dangerous to our troops than pictures of chemical lights in anuses, don’t you think?
But what you do in your own time is your own business, thanks to democrats and the ACLU :)
Mac Buckets
As “un-American and dangerous” as releasing old photos that will be used as new justification to kill American soldiers, just to score political points against a politician you happen to hate? Now that is, by definition, un-American and dangerous.
Have you never heard of classified documents before? Are you under some naive illusion that you get to see every bit of information that the President and Senators get to see? It’s not censoring the news — it’s protecting American lives.
slide
Mac Buckets incredibly said:
Wow, you REALLY don’t belive in democracy do you? The public effecting change is “quaint”. fuckin Quaint? lol Ok
I think Republican Senator Linsey Graham (former JAG officer) has it right when he said:
Supposedly the new photos and videos that have now been ordered to be released shows the rapes of young boys. I don’t think that is “old news”. That was NOT shown before as I recall, and I think it should be if asswipes like Rush Limbaugh want to keep calling it nothing more than fraternity hijinks.
DougJ
Come on people, what happened is just like a big frat prank. You know how a lot of frats shove chemical lights up the pledges anuses and sodomize young box.
slide
Two points:
1) it IS still happening
2) when a General starts deciding what the American public should see or not see its time to move to Toronto.
Defense Guy
John S.
For your pleasure. Meet Madison.
James Madison
4th President of the United States
Wars – the war of 1812 vs. Great Britain
Some key quotes from that speech
Another unrelated quote
As he served in the 1st through the 4th Congress, it would be intersting to look up his voting records on other conflicts, and to seek out some quotes during the run up to the revolutionary war. I’m not going to do either right now.
I haven’t even had 1 drink yet.
Gratefulcub
how do you know it isn’t happening now? We are still sending people to be interrogated in ME nations that we know torture. I am not saying it is happening, but we have no way of knowing, except the general says it isn’t. I want an investigation.
You’re NUTTY!!:)
Sending soldiers to war is dangerous. (that is not snark) I do understand that releasing pictures could cause more deaths. For the sake of argument, let’s just say that they most definitely WILL cause more deaths. That is part of what makes this a shitty issue to have to deal with. But, what are they fighting for? They signed up to protect America, not just our lives, our land, and our way of life…..but that silly peice of paper that spells out our way of life. Our constitution, and our laws, must be adhered to even more strictly in a time of war, because that is when it is most vulnerable. Sometimes our system bites us in the ass, but we have to take it. We have to take the bad with the good. We can’t allow our government to withhold information they have no right withholding (national security is the only reason I can come up with). I don’t believe this is a national security issue.
Defense Guy
You’ve been around long enough to know better than to ask this question. Why do you hate rape victims?
rayabacus
Cheap shot.
Defense Guy
I admit, it’s a crap argument.
DougJ
Defense Guy, Mac, and the other Rovites here. I have a question for you: if all that happened was essentially the equivalent of a frat prank, then why shouldn’t the pictures be released? Won’t the public just shrug and say “boys will be boys”?
So which of the following is not true.
(a) What happened wasn’t that bad.
or
(b) What the pictures show is so awful it shouldn’t be released.
They can’t both be true. So which Rovian story is false, I ask you?
slide
and you want the policy makers to make that decision do you? Everything can be done in the guise of “protecting American lives”. You have a very low threshold of what freedom means. Wonder if you would have the same feeling if the administration were a liberal Democrats? ya think? lol
Defense Guy
DougJ
If the dual purposes of protecting the troops and investigating the offenses can be served without releasing the photos, which they can, then why release them?
An investigation can be impaneled and the pictures kept out of the jihadists hands. It seems like a win for both ‘sides’ of the debate.
It’s cute when you start calling people Rovites. I prefer BushBot but whatever.
Gratefulcub
Slide,
But would you be so vocal about wanting pictures released that were going to hurt that liberal democrat?
I too want to think “Hell yeah I would”, but really isn’t it more like “Well, I guess it is the law.”
Gratefulcub
Two completely different issues. These specific pictures serve very little purpose in the investigation that isn’t happening. what investigating has been done, did use these pictures.
The pictures have to be released because no administration gets to disregard the laws on the books, FOIA, when it is politically convenient. There is no legal argument for withholding the pictures, except “protecting american lives.” And that argument is not absolute, or it could be used for almost anything, any administration wants to do.
Defense Guy
There you have it. No purpose will be served in furthering justice. It will put American lives at risk, as well as innocent Iraqi’s, but thats just too bad. Fantastic.
slide
See that is where you are wrong. I am not a partisan Democrat and I have contempt for most politicians on both sides of the aisle. I want good government. And you can only have good government when you have complete transparency. I am not supporting the release of the photos for “cheap politial points’ as someone suggested, but because I truly belive we have way too much secrecy going on currently. Yes there are things that need to be classified, but that is being tremendously abused by this adminstraion particularly to keep unpleasent information out of the hands of the American public.
so Dem or repub.. makes no difference to me (or to the ACLU I would imagine) I want it all out there. Let the American public decide what is or is not important, not some Brownie at an government agency.
Gratefulcub
slide,
I wasn’t attacking you personally. And i agree with every single word you said. Wellstone is dead, the rest are hacks.
i was just sayin’……human nature being what it is and all…..
slide
Defense guy:
because in America we have the right to see what our government is doing. Don’t you get it? I know things would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship like Bush once mused, but we dont’ live in a dictatorship. The Government doesn’t get to decide what we get to see or not see because if they did have that power we all know they would invariably that authority.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press can always lead to unpleasant consequences for a government. During the civil rights period, should we have censored the inflamatory language of some of the black militants, if it were believed that their speech would increase the chances of deadly riots? One could always make an argument that we should give us certain freedoms because of the harmful consequences of those freedoms. But it doesn’t work that way, thank God. Have a little more trust in our founding fathers, don’t hate America so much.
Gratefulcub
Fantastic take on my words. No purpose will be served in furthering justice, well, I’m not Batman, and my job isn’t to further justice. This isn’t about justice. It is about our system of government. They can’t hide unpleasant facts without a solid legal basis to do so.
I have heard since the war started that our soldiers are ‘fighting for our way of life.’ What the fuck is that way of life? Are they fighting for McDonald’s and Starbucks, or are they fighting for our political system and our constitution that protects the ideals of our way of life? i think it is the latter. So, why is it so wrong to ask them to fight for our way of life when it includes not letting the government withhold information. That is a gigantic part of our way of life. Are these pictures being released that important. Of course not, but the principle is. The principle is worth fighting for. Or as you say, American lives at risk, as well as innocent Iraqi’s, but thats just too bad.
DougJ
DG, I decided BushBot sounded too insulting. Rovians not really not insulting.
slide
I hear you.
rayabacus
While I somewhat agree with you regarding open government, we are never going to have complete transparency. I do believe that there is information (be it pictures or whatever) that citizens should not have access to. While I would be a poor arbiter of what information that would be, I think the courts can decide.
As you note, I used the plural of courts. While a single judge is the initial arbiter, that judge should not be the final arbiter. His/her opinion will undoubtedly be reviewed by a full panel of that court and possible the Appeals Court and the SCOTUS.
DougJ
I understand the argument. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other.
I just find it amusing that the Rovians (you’re not really a Rovian, I shouldn’t call you one) have spent the past year talking about how the abuse isn’t a big deal, just a frat prank, and now they’re saying the stuff is too awful to be released. It’s funny how fast they change their stories. I’m beginning think the stuff about what they would do if Bush ate a baby isn’t that far-fetched.
Gratefulcub
Agreed, and they have. You are right, this won’t be the last court to decide. but, there is no way the pictures won’t eventually be released. There is just no legal argument against the release, even if there are moral and ethical arguments.
Lines
shorter rayabacus:
“I’m ok with the governement censoring information”
Laura
I don’t post often, but this is a subject that disturbs me greatly – not only the fact that we torture detainees, but that so many Americans excuse it or ignore it. Maybe these vile images are what this country needs to wake people up. The photos also need to be shown because the only way this Administration will cease its torture policy is if there’s political fall out. A media blackout (an affront to democracy, by the way) might be helpful to the troops in the short term. But they’d be far better served if Bush fired Rumsfeld and wrote policy clearly defining and condemning torture (which in my book begins long before organ failure or sodomy). These photos being published might actually push Bush to do the right thing. As far the pictures causing deaths to our troops, I think the acts of torture, not the pictures, are the problem. And even if you think this war is legitimate, surely you recognize that the arrogance and incompetence of Bush and company in managing this war has been far more harmful to our troops than any photo could ever be. Also, if releasing these photos can get Americans to understand that torture or “fraternity pranks” are more than just “a few bad apples,” then their release will have been well worth it. The buck doesn’t stop with a handful of low-level soldiers. It stops in the Oval Office.
DougJ
Why won’t any of you Rovians answer me? If the pictures just depict frat pranks then why shouldn’t they be released?
slide
so where does it end for your side? Should the press be prohibited from reporting stories that may inflame our enemy? like when we bombed that wedding party by mistake in Iraq? Should Newsweek have been prohibited from reporting on the Koran desecration? Where does it end? Do we create a bureaucracy to decide what information is just too dangerous to let out? An Information Ministry perhaps? A damn slippey sloap when you start deciding that information that Americans have a right to know is just too dangerous for our own good. It gives me shivers just thinking of the type of nation you guys want to live in.
Hey, and don’t forget, it won’t always be Republicans in power. It could be a Democrat that wants to “shield” you from the dangerous truth that just may reflect poorly on them. If you set a precedent that its ok now… it will be ok for a President Hillary too you know.
Dont’ hate American so much. Trust our form of govenment and stop chipping away at our freedoms otherwise one day you might find a country you dont’ recognize anymore.
Gratefulcub
All of the pictures are just frat pranks, obviously. But, if the pictures are released, the libruls will distort what they mean. Michael Moore will make a movie about it, and his fat ass will lie. He will dub his movie in Arabic, and play it on al jazeera. This will cause the Hajis to kill our soldiers.
So both of the Rovian ‘Truisms’ are true.
Gratefulcub
Sorry DougJ, that was a pathetic effort, I just don’t have your stunning ability of satire.
jg
Honestly, how much more danger will the troops be in? Are the insurgents going to be angrier? Will they pray to Allah harder as they press the suicide bomb button? I just don’t understand the whole ‘endangering the troops’ crap. How much worse can it get? Do you think they’ve been holding back on us? waiting to unleash their super weapon once we really piss them off? Rovians come up with some weak ass shit to deflect their own incompetence but this is just pathetic. It can’t get worse. It might even get easier. Once we know EVRYONE there hates the troops then they don’t have to worry about who their firing at, they’re all enemies, no more innocent civilians.
You represent the peeps who say that. As long as I’m lumped in with liberals because I think Bush is the worst president ever then I’ll feel free to lump you in with a larger crowd. Sorry if its incorrect but it hasn’t stopped anyone from putting me on the left.
slide
Laura I couldn’t have said it better myself… even if I have tried with two dozen posts to do so…
DougJ
I think that is more or less their answer, gratefulcub.
And I think their inability to answer the question goes to what is wrong with their argument. The truth is that there were serious abuses and that these abuses were serious enough and widespread enough to indicate the complicity of higher ups. And the truth is that the higher ups will cover their own asses until the stuff becomes public.
If any heads had rolled after the Abu Ghraib scandal, I’d be in the camp of saying that maybe we don’t need to release this stuff. But the fact is, the Rovians said Abu Ghraib was just a big frat prank and no one except the few “bad apples” had to be punished for it.
rayabacus
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. Wipe your nose, change your diaper and go get a teat to suck on somewhere. Appears to me you’re a mental midget.
DougJ
I think realistically, we can only say that he is the worst of our lifetimes. Harding and Hoover might have been worse. And some of those guys from the 1850s were supposed to be unbelievably bad.
DougJ
Rayabacus, if these are just frat pranks, then why shouldn’t the pictures be released? If you want to say you don’t consider them frat pranks, that’s a valid answer.
Tim F
“protecting the troops” sounds like a gross oversimplification. If individual soldiers commit gross acts that contravene everything America stands for, then why ‘protect’ them when it seems more appropriate to prosecute them?
Gratefulcub
Worst President ever? Seriously doubt it. 1870-1900 saw some real winners.
Speaking of that time period, anyone notice how it compares with today? Corporate control of everything, cronies running amuck, corruption is rampant….the only difference is we invaded iraq and gilded it a little too.
Lines
Dougj:
Bill Bennett believes its only ok if its a black baby, because by Bush eatting a black baby it would be reducing crime, therefore proving that Bush is a doer not just an empty suit.
rayabacus
DougJ,
I was never in this conversation, but I don’t mind answering your question. I have never said they were just frat pranks – I have never opined whether the pictures should be released or not. If the law says that they should be released, then they should be released.
If anyone has any problem with the law, they need to work to get it changed, not disobey it. I have some personal lines that I would not cross in interrogating detainees (prisoners, terrorists or whatever you call them) and all of the pictures I saw crossed that line.
The point I was making was that we will never see complete transparency when it comes to government. There are papers and pictures (satellite, etc) that will never see the light of day and shouldn’t. Those items that are classified due to National Security should not be aired in public.
DougJ
In fairness, they’re not saying that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted, just that the material shouldn’t be released to the public.
I *do* understand their point. But there are three problems with their argument: (1) they were the same people saying these were just frat pranks a few months ago, (2) this is evidence that there were not just a few “bad apples” and as such it needs to be made public in order for the Pentagon to get serious about stopping this stuff, and (3) none of this really matters because the ultimate judgement is legal not moral or strategic.
jg
‘Sixteen tons and what do you get
another day older and deeper in debt….’
These are the people in charge, they’re back. No gov’t regulation of industry, no labor laws, no benefits, cheap pay so you owe the company because you need advances, Prohibition (which seems a lot like gay-marriage or flag burning amendments). Lead us straight to the great depression.
jg
BTW, from what I’ve read the US soldiers did not rape anyone, they just allowed it to happen, enabled it to achieve their ends. Still shitty but less than if a soldier actually molested a child or raped a prisoners wife or mother.
DougJ
Okay, rayabacus, fair enough. I agree with you.
The one quibble I have is this: I’m sure that the soldiers went way over whatever official line exists in the military, but I have to believe that some higher ups were partly responsible. (I don’t claim to know this for a fact.)
Tim F
It’s sad that this government simply will not act on anything unless it ends up in the papers first. They love nothing more than firing an auditor who has the temerity to do his job.
In my view these acts are an infected boil that the administration would love nothing more than to cover up and ignore. As painful and gross as it will be in the short term, it’s in our country’s interest to lance it now and let the pus run. At the very least our armed forces deserve to know for a change what is tolerable behavior and what is not. If they keep on in this permissive gray area, the discipline and proffesionality will rot out of our armed forces entirely.
If this administration cannot and will not act without a public bloodletting, then I refuse to accept that anybody but themselves are to blame when a public bloodletting is what they get.
Tim F
‘…professionalism…’
I took a writing course once. Yep.
rayabacus
That is a thorny issue. When I was in the USMC I was responsible, to a certain extent, for the conduct of my men. To the extent that they violated standing orders, Marine Corps regulations, etc. and I knew it or condoned it, I was administratively responsible for their conduct.
If there was an officer (other than the General demoted) being charged as responsible I can’t recall. I have encountered NCO’s that were “Little Dictators” and ruled their fiefdoms as if they answered to no one. They were usually efficient and productive and thus could hide their dereliction rather ingeniously. I don’t know what the current makeup is of the current military, except to say they appear to be of high quality.
srv
Trust the govm’t.
As long as we can keep it secret from the people, we can get away with it. Makes for a great democracy.
John S.
DG-
I’m still not entirely convinced that Madison was a warmongering chickenhawk based on what your provided, but your excerpts certainly seem to paint a picture of a man not adverse to war.
Now, good luck portraying Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln as thus. You will definitely need several drinks to do so, or would you rather end this now and retract this statement:
On the basis that it was mostly a kneejerk bullshit response?
rayabacus
TimF
I’m not as sure as you apparantly are that this is true. I’m sure there are many instances where personnel have been disciplined and/or investigated that we have never read in the papers. It’s like the news. What we see in the papers and on the tube is roughly 1% or 2% of the “happenings of the day”. The other 98% just wasn’t newsworthy because……it wasn’t bad, or funny, or stupid or whatever.
rayabacus
Are you saying that the public should see the raw intelligence data of ongoing or current intelligence operations? Do you think it makes sense to air the intelligence reports from operators in the field? Surely those types of reports or intelligence analyses that brief the Sec’y of State and the head of the CIA shouldn’t see the light of day. That would sure put a crimp in the freeflow of information from operatives to end users.
DougJ
Ray and Tim, I think it *is* true that the administration won’t act until something ends up in the papers. I do *not* think that is true of the military, however.
The prisoner abuse stuff is on the boundary between the administration’s and the military’s jurisdiction. I think the military is getting a lot of pressure to keep up the “few bad apples” theory, because otherwise this makes the war and the Pentagon look bad.
I have a lot of respect for our military in general. I have zero respect for this administration. I think that unfortunately, the administration is weakening the moral fiber of the military, the same way it did the CIA, the DOJ, EPA, FEMA, and probably countless other agencies.
It’s sad and I wish it weren’t so. But I think the truth is this all a lot worse than any of us knows.
jg
I think the gov’t needs to keep some things secret in order to function as a security apparatus. But that leads to them deciding that things need to be secret for security purposes. Stuff like whether or not we’re treating prisoners like the NVA treats prisoners or exactly how Pat Tillman died are not things that need to be secret.
jg
There are a good many people who just can not see that distinction.
Davebo
rayabacus
Don’t be ridiculous. There are some very important reasons to release these images and videos.
First, how many rape convictions have there been over Abu Ghraib?
None. Yet at least one GOP Senator who saw the additional film claims they contain footage of rapes and murders.
How could that be if indeed this has been exhaustively investigated and soldiers held accountable?
How is it that the only convictions to date come from the released photos only? Are we to assume that all of the additional photos show the same old folks?
I seriously doubt it.
rayabacus
Or, it could be not as bad as you think it is. Not knowing, I have to take what little knowledge I have and form my opinions that way. I realize that not everyone agrees with me on many opinions I have and that they have formed their opinions based on data they have. Maybe my training impels me to refrain from forming opinions or making decisions unitl I have sufficient facts to do so.
rayabacus
Jeeeeesus!!! Read my posts!!! I have never said anything about not releasing those photos, except to say that the law should be obeyed. If you would read the posts and understand the context, we wouldn’t be doing this right now.
jg
People who have seen the tapes and pics say they show rapes. Is that not a part of the data you’ve recieved? Now that you’ve heard it how does it effect your opinion?
rayabacus
jg,
Do you not read posts either? I was in no way referring to those pictures. Go back up and read the post I was referencing.
DougJ
I hope you’re right. BTW, I don’t mean the abuse. I have no idea how bad about any of that really is, none whatsoever. I mean the extent to which this administration has compromised the military and other agencies. I had no idea they were making people like Michael Brown the head of agencies like FEMA.
I feel like every month or so I learn some new horrifying thing about the White House operates, whether it’s demoting and firing people for telling the truth about the costs of their plans, paying columnists to write favorable stories, putting Karl Rove in charge of nearly every important decision, hiring horse breeders to run disaster management agencies. It keeps getting and worse and worse. So I’ve got to believe the worst is yet to be seen.
But with the abuse, I don’t have any opinion about how bad it is. My only opinion is that this White House has corrupted the military. I base this on Rumsfeld’s decision to fire Shineski and ignore the Army War College’s pre-war reports, among other things.
jg
Well shit Ray I’m sorry but it looked to me like DougJ meant the extent of the abuse. He even went so far as to point out that the wasn’t talking about that. Guess my mistake ain’t all that bad.
Lighten the fuck up dude.
Krista
Hey, what’s wrong with the rest of Canada? :)
EXCELLENT point. We haven’t heard so much as a peep about anybody besides the people in those photos that we all saw.
DougJ
Ray’s taking it a bit from all sides here, jg, and being pretty reasonable all in all if you ask me. I’d cut him a little slack.
jg
We actually did but Durbin used the ‘N’ word and calls for sedition against a democrat congressman last longer than accusations against the administration.
jg
I’m not cutting him shit. I made a mistake and he handles it that way? I got no slack, why should he? Look back at how he responds to people who don’t absorb his every key stroke perfectly.
Jon H
Defense Guy writes: “So tell me what exactly will be gained that is worth the violence that this will bring? ”
Maybe it will remind the military brass, and the civilians who command them, the pragmatic reasons why torture is a bad idea.
They seem to have forgotten. They clearly don’t give a crap about the legal, moral, and ethical arguments against torture.
rayabacus
Look at the post directly above the one I addressed to you. I had just addressed that very issue and envisioned working my fingers to the bone typing denials of things I never said for every latecomer to this thread.
srv
Well, all their little secrets did absolutely nothing to protect us from 9/11. I guess we were better off in the dark? For these people, ‘National Security’ is synonymous with ‘no accountability’. It’s what enables their fiefdoms.
When I was in H.S., I’d read the public CIA report to Congress every year. You would think the Soviets were 10′ tall. The report read exacly the same until 1991.
What would ‘raw’ intelligence from Iraq have told us, say earlier in 2004? That the administration and military leadership was lying to us about who we were fighting – they would have had us believe it was a bunch of foreign fighters. Remember there is no insurgency? They knew exactly who we were fighting.
We wouldn’t be in this war in the first place, if the people knew what crap was used to justify it.
For every extreme case someone can make for keeping us in the dark (that’s a good sheep), I can come up with 3000 or so in return.
rayabacus
srv,
I guess then that we should either shitcan all of out intelligence operatives and agencies or else have them file their reports via the NY Times. If I have to choose between the two, I suggest getting rid of the intelligence agencies. We could save a hell of a lot of money that way.
jg
Its my fault that his post appeared between the time I saw your post that I quoted and the time I typed and posted mine?
DougJ
SRV, again, I have to blame some of these intelligence failures on the administration. Not 9/11, but certainly the prewar intelligence about Iraq. I’m sure they made some errors on their own, but isn’t it funny that the made just the sort of errors that bolstered the administration’s case. That sort of thing doesn’t happen by accident.
I think we already more or less shit-canned the CIA when we put Porter Goss in charge. In another year or two, it will be nothing more than an arm of the White House. And if we get hit with another terrorist attack, their MO will be to blame it on local official or Cindy Sheehan.
Sorry if I sound bitter and pessimistic. I probably should only write joke posts.
Pb
Riddle me this: if we wanted to protect the troops and not inflame sentiments at home and abroad, wouldn’t we work towards upholding the Geneva Conventions, having transparency in our policies regarding treatment of prisoners, and generally try to treat people humanely? Defense Guy and macbuckets, I might not have been around at the time–were you guys shouting this loudly about the DoJ’s opinions on torture and detainment before? Is it also considered protecting the troops when a US soldier is savagely beaten and suffers brain damage because he was mistaken for a prisoner at Gitmo? How about when it happens to actual prisoners?
srv
Rayabacus,
Yea, at least no one has illusions about the NYT’s accuracy.
DougJ,
As Porter, Rummy and Negroponte turn intelligence into a more faith based model, it will no doubt fail us even more spectacularly.
I used to be cynical, but I’ve realized what this administration is doing is exactly the thing most likely to fulfill their mushroom cloud dreams. Think of it as evolution in action. Most of us will be better off in the long run.
jg
Wasn’t that an interrogation training exercise? I remember reading something like that.
Narvy
ACLU:
Mac Buckets:
So we can conclude that Mac does not believe that “leaders” should not be held accountable for things that happen on their watch. We can also conclude that Mac believes that organizations that demand accountability do so only because they want to politically damage the “leaders”. And we can infer that putting “leaders” in quotes implies that Mac believes that the people referred to aren’t really leaders.
DougJ
Wow, this is really getting me depressed. I think I have to go back to just being a parodist. It’s more fun.
rayabacus
I surrender. You’re right. I’m wrong. Far be it from me to ever consider that you could ever be mistaken about something. Lord, it sure is glorious to be in the midst of someone so infallible and perfect.
I bow to you mightiness.
Pb
jg,
It was supposed to be a training drill. Of course the people beating him didn’t know that. I guess they failed, but he was the real loser in this one.
The army investigated, and found no one responsible. Now they are being sued over it. On the plus side, their training is “as realistic as possible”. And even after this, it sounds like all he really wants to do is get it resolved and get back into the Army.
Tim F
Rayabacus,
I’m sure that some digging will turn up a name or two, and I won’t ask you to do that. I will say any dismissal or demotion that I’ve seen in this administration that had anything to do with job performance, involved whistleblowers and auditors trying to do their jobs. After enough of those it became clear to me that if you give it a choice this administration will always choose to cover up.
DougJ,
Your post tangentially touches on what I think is the most important point of this entire debate – the degree to which a corrupt executive branch corrupts the armed forces. We have civilian leaders who endorsed torture, and who actively avoided knowing what was happening. They demoted “whistleblowers,” they removed JAG officers from detention facilities and they refused to pass on any clear standards for conduct with prisoners. There are mistakes that George H.W. Bush empatically did not make in 1991.
An army without discipline becomes an undisciplined army. Sounds like a truism but IMO right now it should be considered a Nobel-worthy insight. We can’t afford not to make a big deal out of these crimes.
Narvy
I don’t think most of the arguments put forth by either side in this debate are compelling. There is perhaps some risk of increased danger to the troops, but how much more than they already have? More attacks? More IEDs? How would the greater danger be manifested?
And the legalistic argument that the pictures should be released because of FOIA doesn’t do much for me. If they should be released, it should be for the purpose of persuading the American people to demand that it stop, that responsibility should be assigned to everyone who allowed or encouraged it, and that those responsible should answer for their actions (or inaction). This is not because Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the people at the top, it’s because whoever is at the top has been at best criminally negligent.
The argument that the pictures shouldn’t be published because they’re old news doesn’t work. That assumes that the scope of what was done was limited to what we’ve already seen, but apparently that’s not the case. As a citizen, I would like to know how extensive the practice was and whether any there are any more bad apples. Were there ten cases? A hundred? Five hundred? The pictures may give us a clue to its magnitude.
I do agree with those who say that the whole affair shames the US and belies American claims to superior virtue, and I think we need some sort of cleansing ritual, like a real unbiased open investigation, to calm our consciences and restore some credibility to us.
Narvy
Is there some mystical significance tha Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, issued a legal opinion that led to Abu Ghraib?
jg
I admitted I was wrong. That parts over and done with. But then you came back with story about the guy who posted above me. All I said was his post wasn’t there when I wrote mine. Just pointing out that the excuse you gave me for being a dick to me is bogus. If his post had been around for hours you’d have a point, it wasn’t, you don’t. Now you’ve gone on a new journey to deflect from you being a dick to someone who made a mistake. Let it go.
jg
Why do you say ‘supposed’? The guy who was beaten was pretending to be a terrorist, nothing changed that.
John S.
Only if something cataclysmic happens in the next few years that will force us to mark a new era of time with the moniker A.G. (after George).
texas dem
I haven’t read this comment thread, but I’ve just got to say that I think it’s fucking ridiculous that we’re criticizing Andy Sullivan for “outing” David Dreier. What a load of shit. EVERYONE in DC knows Dreier is gay, but somehow putting that into print so the rest of us citizens can find out what they already know is a crime. How elitist, cynical, and insidery can you be? This isn’t Ed Schrock, married with kids and authentically on the downlow. Dreier lives in a great big house with his CHIEF-OF-STAFF. He’s not hiding. He’s ON THE RECORD as refusing to say that he’s straight. At a certain point, the only victim of this charade is regular Americans.
Andy Sullivan isn’t “outing” anybody. Certainly not with that relatively, and probably deliberately, circumspect comment. I can’t believe I’m even typing this.
Pb
jg,
I would call it–at best–a training drill gone horribly wrong. I just hope that it was the only one to go south in that manner, and fear that the ‘realism’ the army was apparently shooting for there was all too real. Do you have any other comment on it?
jg
My only point is that it was a drill. Just because it went to shit doesn’t change it to ‘supposedly’ a drill. I was just curious about your word choice, that’s all.
Narvy
A man after my own heart. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
David Rossie
Worst president ever? C’mon. It has to be Johnson. Give Bush a break. Even though I’m totally against our presence in iraq, the war is quite minor an offense compared to what some other presidents have done.
jg
I don’t hand that out just for his handling of Iraq. It goes much further.
He wasn’t AG then was he?
narvy
Why do you hate Harding?
But you have a point. After all, Johnson did not attempt to pay for his war with tax cuts for the wealthiest thus burdening our children and grandchildren with a monumental debt, improve the social security system to by encouraging workers to put their savings at risk, shred the Constitution with the USA PATRIOT Act, or cater to Christian fundamentalists and give taxpayers’ money to religious organizations. And he had the temerity to launch a program that attempted to eliminate poverty. That’s a terrible record for a president to have.
narvy
No, but he is now. That doesn’t negate the joke, which didn’t even imply that he was AG at the time of the opinion. You do understand that it was a joke, don’t you? Or are you trying to be even more pedantic than I am? Well, if that’s the case, buddy, you have a real fight on your hands.
Mac Buckets
slide ranted:
Is a Government 101 lesson really necessary? If we lived in a democracy, you might have a point. We don’t. We live in a representative republic, and as long as leaders represent us, there is a buffer between what “The Public” wants and what the Government will do, and that’s a very good thing, as The Public tends to be overbusy with daily life and not so concerned or informed about, say, monetary policy or foreign relations.
So yes, the notion of people seeing new rounds of old Abu Ghraib pictures and becoming outraged and somehow forcing the military to change their policies — although why they’d need to change is anyone’s guess, since obviously they don’t condone the stated behavior (hence the convictions and courtmartials) — is quaint, a little romantic, with a small side order of “we know better than you” arrogance. Put another way, the track record of “people’s movements” is long on anger and romanticism and short on results.
On what authority do you have that information? Or do you take it on faith?
Yet you quoted Graham talking about it after Rumsfeld’s testimony last year! That’s pretty much the definition of “old news.”
Straw man — he’s not deciding anything. He has an opinion… like yours, only informed.
Yeah, and why listen to someone who has experienced the post-Abu Ghraib backlash in Iraq firsthand, and who would prefer that the men under his command not be murdered because of new rounds of “old news” pictures that would be spun GUARANTEED as “current events” by the Arab demogogues? What insight could he possibly have, compared to yours, Joe?
jg
I just couldn’t remember if he was AG then. And yeah, I knew it was a joke.
David Rossie
I hate to be defending Bush like this, but I am a marginal thinker and on the margin I would not take Johnson over Bush…
risk: what’s the problem with risk? It’s the removal of risk that leads to stagnation. I’d rather determine my own level of risk than be thrown in the boat with whatever plan the gov’t is forcing on me… which currently sucks for someone in their 20’s like me.
war on poverty: complete economic ignorance, with the force of government behind it. It’s not bad enough that so much wealth has been confiscated from producers and given willy-nilly to net-consumers, the central planners couldnt stick with just paying off people: they had to devise these and those plans to direct where funding would go. The war on poverty might have been a workable plan if the gov’t simply gave money to poor people and said “do what you want.” But liberals are just as moralistic as conservatives and seek to control how poor people utilize gov’t aid.
patriot act: why should bush respect the constitution? it’s political suicide to actually limit the functions of government, and all presidents lately have known that.
cater to fundamentalists: as if any other president did not cater to his buddies. Bush is not special… his critics are merely loud and people have short-term memories.
I would never vote for Bush, but don’t put him up their with Johnson. And you wouldn’t want to hear what I think about Roosevelt.
Mac Buckets
Please.
Our relative virtues are not determined by what some dipshit soldier does to a prisoner with a lightstick, especially when that soldier is courtmartialed and convicted. It’s determined by our goals vs. their goals: freedom vs. tyranny, democracy vs. despotism, religious tolerance vs. religious murders, fighting terrorism vs. performing terrorism.
You can morally equate yourself with an Iraqi terrorist if you wish (I don’t know you), but I’m comfortable in America’s “superior virtue.”
Mac Buckets
And way to go, slide! Way to hijack the thread! A dozen or so on-topic posts and 200 Abu Ghraib posts.
narvy
Interesting calculus. How do you arrive at
equals
Let’s keep it that way.
anon
Mac Buckets sez:
How dare you question jose slides’s patriotism?
Slide claims he’s spent 20 years in “law enforcement”
But you know? Does anyone have the feeling that this guy wasn’t/isn’t a real cop?
Who knows. Maybe he has a part time job at a Krispy Kreme Doughnuts.
narvy
It’s nice that you’re comfortable. I envy you. I feel that my claim to virtue as an American citizen has been compromised.
Impeccable goals. I’d feel that we were closer to achieving them if the USA PATRIOT Act supported freedom vs. tyranny, and if drawing congressional districts to ensure that one party remained in control and passing laws that benefited organizations with money and favors to give at the expense of the citizenry at large supported democracy. I grant you that we have achieved a minimal religious murder rate (and racial and political as well, which you omitted). But I don’t think of fighting terrorism as a goal. It’s a means to achieving the goal of protecting ourselves from mayhem, destruction, and the death of innocents, which is arguably a moral goal but equally arguably a goal of no more than survival.
Sorry for the complicated sentence structure, but it’s late.
anon
narvy sez:
Narvy, when did you immigrate to this planet?
You really think the the Repubs were the first ones to redraw congressional districts to their advantage?
This has been done for decades, if not centuries, by BOTH parties.
Pb
anon,
No doubt of that–before there were Democrats vs. Republicans, there was gerrymandering in America.
anon
Pb sez:
Yeah, but if you look at the history, the only thing that has changed are the names of the main politcal parties.
The Republican/Democratic party of the early 19th century would eventualy be known as the Democratic party (1820s, Andrew Jackson, I believe), and the Federalists morphed into what is now known as the Republican party (1850s).
Boronx
Shorter Defense Guy: Demonstrating to Iraqis how a free and open society is supposed to work will make the Iraqis hate us and get our troops killed. We must teach them the fine art of the coverup and its constant companion, the smear.
All day Republicans lined up to question the integrity of Ronnie Earl, an officer of the law, again without a shred of evidence. Never heard anyone call anyone on this utterly disgraceful tactic.
Slide
MacBuckets ignorantly stated:
Now that we’ve establised that you don’t know what you are talking about shall we move on?
buckets continued in his uninformed way:
Jesus, you take the record for the most amount of stupidy jammed into one sentence.
So you think it is quaint and romantic to think that an outraged American public could force a change in policy? Hey, I just witnessed how an outraged public forced Bush to handle an oncoming hurricane quite differently. Of course the public has the power (indirectly moron) to effect change. The whole history of our country demonstrates that over and over. Civil rights, woman’s rights, Viet Nam war are all examples where public outrage shaped policy.
And as for your other absurd comment that the convictions and prosecutions are demonstrated proof that the policy doesn’t need to be changed is so ridiculous it is almost laughable. Why then is the adminstration fighting the changes that two republican senators (McCain and Graham) want to make regarding this issue? Listen I’m not even going to argue this further, I think to most objective people it is clear that we STILL have a problem regarding prisoner abuse. If you want to live in your Kool-aid world fine with me. Enjoy your delusions, they must be comforting.
ape
but everything about Dreier’s voting record on gay issues means that, if he’s a practising homosexual, he’s a cast-iron case of a legitimate ‘outing’.
Slide
buckets:
It was entirely my pleasure.
Narvy
And I said that (rising inflection) where…?
One thing that I find particularly annoying in these discussions is the throwing a statement that says nothing about a political party back at the author as a partisan accusation. What the Republicans did in Texas has been done in California by Democrats. I see THAT as undemocratic. I am in favor of taking redistricting out of the hands of state legislatures and giving it to presumably non-partisan panels. (Schwartzenegger is pushing a ballot measure in CA that does that.)
Does that make you feel better? Or can you construct a new partisan accusation out of it. Here’s a thought: Before you post, ask yourself exactly where the idiot you’re responding to said what you claim he said. If you can’t find it, don’t post.
Narvy
anon —
Why did you not comment on the rest of my post? Especially the part about the USA PATRIOT Act. Was it too easy to understand? Too hard to twist? Too true?
Defense Guy
Shorter Boronx
I could give a shit about putting the troops in greater danger as long as it teaches the administration a lesson. I will call it a coverup because I’m too stupid to realize that these pictures are rehashes of what is already known in the public.
DougJ
So no one here will go on record saying Nixon was worse than Bush?
Defense Guy
John S. – assuming you are still around
Thomas Jefferson
3rd President of the United States (1801-1809)
Wars: War of Tripoli (Tripolitan War / First Barbary War)
Author of the Declaration of Independence, which came after the first skirmishes, made war with England inevitable.
Jefferson’s War – the first American war on foreign soil
Vice President under Adams in which the Quasi-War with France was engaged.
Some quotes on the military
John S.
DG-
I think we’ve gotten off track with this entire charade, since based on the definiton of a chickenhawk as:
Wikipedia
The emphasis is mine, but I hope you get the point. You may succesfully prove that Madison, Jefferson or FDR fulfilled the first portion of the definiton of chickenhawk, however I think you are wide of the mark on the second part.
Lincoln served in the militia, so he automatically doesn’t fit the definition. Franklin never voted for war, supported war, commanded a war, or developed war policy, so he fails to fit the definition as well (not to mention that war is antithetical to Quaker ideology).
Therefore, based on the accepted definition of a chickenhawk as given above, would you like to continue asserting that this statement is accurate:
Or will you concede that you were mistaken?
Defense Guy
Which second part? The especially clause?
John S.
The part that indicates your flawed use of the term since:
John S.
As an afterthought, I might add how amusing I am finding all this, especially after you ‘questioned’ my grasp of history.
Defense Guy
I see, you classify them as Defense Wars. Ok, no point in continuing. If you want to feel you won something, be my guest.
john moulder
I discovered Sullivan through blogging, which I began doing about 4 mos ago. Before that I had seen his name enough to know he was a writer but knew nothing else about him. I liked his essays, which I thought well-written.
I deleted him from my blogroll when he started early with the Katrina Bush-bashing. I think he couldn’t resist piling on because is an elitist. Bush, with his drawl, down-home public personality & lack of smooth, glib speaking skills is way too common for sophisticates like Andrew – so the Katrina media storm, with its universal MSM blame-Bush hysteria was perhaps just too tempting of an opportunity.
Mac Buckets
How dare I think that we live in a representative republic? Where could I have possibly ever read that, except maybe on page one of every textbook ever written on American government? Perhaps you should read one of them, and your uninformed rants will seem less silly.
The public could force a change (strange things do happen very occasionally, as you point out), but what’s quaint is to take for granted, like the original poster did, that they will succeed through the sheer force of their convictions.
Then “most objective people” are taking a faith-based perspective that is not based on verified evidence, and many, including Gen. Abizaid, strongly think they are wrong. After Abu Ghraib, these soldiers know what they can and cannot do — to suggest that they were told to carry on as usual after that scandal (and the convictions of involved soldiers!) is laughable. If they violate procedures, they know they will be courtmartialed.
Narvy
How about this: Nixon, famous for being an unindicted co-conspirator, conspired to perform a criminal act that could very well be legal under Bush’s USA PATRIOT Act. (Not the B&E part, the obtaining records part.) So maybe that one time he was worse than Bush.
It amazes me that Nixon managed to rehab his reputation and that there are a lot of Republicans who revere him, but then I’m easily amazed.
Mac Buckets
Sigh, here we go with the street-corner rhetoric. Why stop at the Patriot Act? Where’s the screed about “How can we have ‘freedom’ with all these laws, man? Anarchy!!!” If you feel that the Patriot Act has impinged your freedom to any real extent, then you are one in a million, and you’re probably wrong, to boot.
So we’ve never had a democracy in America? We’ve been living under the despotism of gerrymandering and big-money influence since the early 1800’s, and we didn’t know it? Pass that on to slide, because he also thinks we live under a democracy. He’ll be shocked to know that we have been so oppressed for almost 200 years. Technically, all the Voting Rights Acts also work against democracy — let’s repeal them!
jg
I would say he’s too common to be president. Not to mention unqualified.
AFAIK we live in a republic in that for the most part we don’t vote on issues we elect people to represent us on issues.
John S.
There is no point in continuing. You made a bullshit statement. I called you out on it. Franklin and Jefferson were clearly NOT chickenhawks, and neither was Lincoln.
It’s not a question of winning. It is a question of not allowing you to spout nonsensical crap that the casual observer might accept as fact.
Glad you were able to put up a decent argument, though.
/sarcasm off
Defense Guy
It was a decent argument. I pointed out that 2 former founding father presidents, who never served in wars when they had a chance, did take this country to war. Your insistance on clinging to 1 quote each as proof that they were dovish and providing no proof of the wars being defensive in nature are NOT evidence of anything.
I sunk your battleship. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings.
John S.
What about the other three? Convenient how you forget them, and your string of quotes no better proves anything than my quotes. At some point, logic and reason have to come into play.
Your insistence on relating the wars that EITHER of the two you cited led this country to with the current war in Iraq is pure nonsense.
To mimic you, what history books are YOU reading? You want to explain how Jefferson or Franklin were really hawkish and NOT dovish? Good luck with that one. And the defensive war thing that you have latched onto is merely one part of the flaw in your nonsensical statement.
This is just too funny. You make a completley bullshit statement that has more holes in it than swiss chesse, and you sunk MY battleship? Ok, I guess this asinine quip is as good your ‘awesome’ argument thus far:
I realize you made a stupid statement, and you’re trying desperately to deflect from that and turn everything around 180 degrees of reality, but you should be adult enough to admit when you are wrong.
I guess you ARE just the petulent child most people around here take you for. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, clearly I was mistaken.
Defense Guy
I’ll simply avoid trying to have a rational conversation with you in the future. You ask, I answer, and then you act as if the answer I give does not meet the terms of the ‘contest’. Further, you accuse me of acting like a petulant child over a stupid game of match the quotes.
You provide no further proof of your statements, while I provide large blocks of fact to back up mine, and then you act as if I insulted you. One of us is a child all right.
It was I who made the mistake in assuming you were the reasonable sort. I mistake I will not make again.
John S.
That seems obvious since you are incapable of such a thing.
More like you bob and weave, bob and weave…if you had yet addressed any of the questions I posed to you, we wouldn’t find ourselves in this charade.
Hey, come up with your own lines. As I said, your attempt to turn things around are futile.
You made a foolish statement that you cannot defend. You attempted to defend it. You made yourselves look like a fool – again.
Your retort of ‘nanny nanny boo-boo’ doesn’t do much to dispel your shroud of foolishness, but you seem not to care very much about such things.
You are a fool, who makes foolish comments and then foolishly tries to defend them by calling others foolish. You are clearly unreasonable, and shall be treated as thus.
I weep for those that must interact with you on a daily basis.
Defense Guy
So you devolve to name calling. Nice, but not unexpected. I made a statement. You asked me to back it up. I did with the first two names on the list. You decided to change the rules. Now you want to cry about how unfair life is when you have to bring fact to support your allegations. You should weep, as thinking and arguing are clearly not your strong suits.
Fine, you want concession. I concede. Everything you said is correct and all of the facts I culled from history books are in fact lies compared to your quotes from an anti-war site. You win. Hope your happy.
John S.
So you devolve to name calling. Nice, but not unexpected. You made a statement. I asked you to back it up. You attempted to with the first two names on the list. Then you decided to pretend I changed the rules so you could avoid addressing the other three. Now you want to cry about how unfair life is when you have to bring fact to support your allegations. You should weep, as thinking and arguing are clearly not your strong suits.
But you couldn’t resist piling on more bullshit, could you?
I actually conceded Madison may fit the bill. Then when I challenged you on Jefferson, you had a hissy fit. I hate to break it to you, but the facts I culled did not come from anti-war sites. They came from government website biographies on those Presidents and other historical references.
But if cynicism and derision are the only tools to avail you when you make such ridiculous statements, then I leave you with your methods of choice.
Defense Guy
It’s too easy to wind you up man. I’m not sure what hissy fit you are refering to, but if words on a page must be taken in a negative tone from you, perhaps you should just read my posts in a silly voice. Try it, it’ll help.
I’ll stop now and declare you the winner. Take whatever parting shot you wish.
Narvy
Regarding “Where’s the screed … Anarchy”: What’s your point? I’ve never said anything that would lead a reasonable person to think that this is what I think.
I do feel uncomfortable, if not actually at risk, with a law that gives government agents the authority to make arrests, search homes, and obtain records without a judicial warrant to moderate potential abuse.
I feel uncomfortable with a law that allows government agents to obtain public library records and forbids the librarians to disclose the act.
I feel uncomfortable with a law that, according to that bastion of liberalism The Washington Times,
causes
And I’m not the only one who feels that way:
How such a law comports with the goal of “freedom vs. tyranny” eludes me. If you’re comfortable with it, great. But you might want to read the Wikipedia article on the Act before you get too comfortable.
John S.
Yawn.
Consider that my salvo.
Mac Buckets
Of course, it was never the argument that every facet of our existence and every law in our books are geared toward maximum liberty and minimum intrusion. The point was only that on the great line graph in the sky, the US would stand toward the far right end labelled “freedom” and the Islamofascists would be at the far left end labelled “tyranny.”
In many, many, many cases, it has been seen as a necessity to curtail the rights of a few to promote the safety of the populace. It didn’t start with the Patriot Act, or with seatbelt laws, or with “reasonable suspicion” for searches, none of which, of course, means that we don’t generally stand for what we call “freedom” — it just means we don’t define freedom as an anarchal amount of personal liberty afforded to every citizen. Our citizens routinely reject such notions. I likewise think you would have a very hard time defining the Patriot Act as “tyrannical” and make it compelling.
Roger Drowne EC
Hay Nazi Girls… CK THIS OUT and SING Your Love
Welcome to… One Global Community .com
A Global Project of Earth Citizens
Click here… http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com
__________
Jump In… Anytime… Help Create…
A Global Network of People & Community Centers
In Every Neighborhood, Village, Town, Tribe & City
All Connected Together With ( Web Sites ) ( & Blogs )
Created, Built & Maintained By and 4 All of Us
Every-Where – All Around – Our – Planet Earth
___________
Continue reading at http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com