NationStates Jolt Archive

So let me get this straight--Dick Durbin goes on the floor of the Senate and makes an accurate factual comparison about the actions of some in our military in their treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, and gets pilloried for it, not only in the media (with only a few exceptions), but Karl Rove states in a speech last night that liberals are trying to get US soldiers killed and no one around here has a problem with that.

Here's the direct quote from Rove for those who won't believe my paraphrase: Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

I think my paraphrase is accurate, although I'd welcome alternate interpretations.

I just have a couple of things to say to Rove. First, if I were actually trying to get troops killed, I can't think of a better way to do it than to send them into an unnecessary war without the equipment they need to do their job effectively.(Note--I'm not saying that Bush & Co were looking to get troops killed per se--I'm merely suggesting that they're incompetent and are more concerned with politics than with the lives of soldiers.) Second, if you ever say something like that to my face, you'll be picking your fucking teeth out of the back of your neck.

And that goes for any other SOB who wants to question my patriotism, or worse, accuse me of wanting US soldiers dead.

You can't silence dissent if you don't demonize. What easier route, since calling liberals 'commies' is starting to wear out, than to claim they want American soldiers dead...

I find it strange that the conservative right doesn't understand that questioning/opposing your govt. is not in any way shape or form the same as hating the military (Since I thought it was a Republican belief that the govt. is a foe and not a friend). I think that the right should keep up this kind of rhetoric as long as possible though - it seems as though they get more brazen as time goes on and I can't wait to see so many of these "people" who think they are all powerful go down in flames when the American public/world writes them a reality check for the downright idiotic things that we so often hear them say.

Personally, I think Karl Rove does more damage to his cause by speaking than anybody else could do criticising him about it. :p

So let me get this straight--Dick Durbin goes on the floor of the Senate and makes an accurate factual comparison about the actions of some in our military in their treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, and gets pilloried for it, not only in the media (with only a few exceptions), but Karl Rove states in a speech last night that liberals are trying to get US soldiers killed and no one around here has a problem with that.

Here's the direct quote from Rove for those who won't believe my paraphrase:

I think my paraphrase is accurate, although I'd welcome alternate interpretations.

I just have a couple of things to say to Rove. First, if I were actually trying to get troops killed, I can't think of a better way to do it than to send them into an unnecessary war without the equipment they need to do their job effectively. Second, if you ever say something like that to my face, you'll be picking your fucking teeth out of the back of your neck.

And that goes for any other SOB who wants to question my patriotism, or worse, accuse me of wanting US soldiers dead.


That'll go over really with my friends currently or recently in the military. (I know about a dozen enlisted, and a couple of officers, a few of whom are on their second tours in or around Iraq) Several of them had high school education or less ogin into the military, and every single one now identifies on the liberal side of the fence. More than two thirds were conservatives in 2000. I'm sure they would love to know that they aim to get themselves killed in Iraq.

The thing that bugs me most of all about this is that it seems deliberate. In the press gaggle today when Scott McClellan was asked about whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize he said, "Of course not, Jessica. This is simply talking about different philosophies and different approaches. And I think you have to look at it in that context." There's more to the quote, but that's the gist of it--in short, he backed up Rove's statement. He reiterated that liberal philosophy is that we want to get soldiers killed.

And as for Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC (same job Howard Dean holds for the Democrats, for some context here), he said there was no need for Rove to apologize because "what Karl Rove said was true."

So I'm calling you out, oh righties on the board. Time to stand with Rove or distance yourself--do you agree that liberals, and by extension, Democrats, hate the troops and are looking to get them killed? Or do you say that Rove went too far? I can already predict how certain of you will answer--please, please surprise me. Restore my faith in humanity.

I think it's true except of course for the line about the motives of liberals. That's just retarded, everyone knows that no one right or left wants to see US soldiers in danger. Of course not as bad as half the blaming that gets put on Bush from conspiracy therories about 9/11 to Iraq or whatever. But that doesn't matter because those arn't politicians making those statments.

Personally, I think all this is stupid. Durbin was wrong in the first place by what he said and don't say that I think that because I'm conservative, his remarks outraged millions in the mushy middle and liberals I'm sure as well. If the Daily Show thinks it's too harsh, than it's too harsh. They probally did put more soldiers in harms way a small amount but there's enough anti-Americanism out in the world to help that.

Rove took a cheap shot but he won't have to appologize and because of one reason. Durbin insulted the soldiers and not the Republicans directly, therefore the majority of Americans don't care. Rove just insulted Democrats but Howard Dean has been doing nothing but insulting Republicans for the last few months so who cares.

So let me get this straight--Dick Durbin goes on the floor of the Senate and makes an accurate factual comparison about the actions of some in our military in their treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, and gets pilloried for it, not only in the media (with only a few exceptions), but Karl Rove states in a speech last night that liberals are trying to get US soldiers killed and no one around here has a problem with that.

Here's the direct quote from Rove for those who won't believe my paraphrase:

I think my paraphrase is accurate, although I'd welcome alternate interpretations.

I just have a couple of things to say to Rove. First, if I were actually trying to get troops killed, I can't think of a better way to do it than to send them into an unnecessary war without the equipment they need to do their job effectively.(Note--I'm not saying that Bush & Co were looking to get troops killed per se--I'm merely suggesting that they're incompetent and are more concerned with politics than with the lives of soldiers.) Second, if you ever say something like that to my face, you'll be picking your fucking teeth out of the back of your neck.

And that goes for any other SOB who wants to question my patriotism, or worse, accuse me of wanting US soldiers dead.
You know what? I would SO love it if you tried to put my fucking teeth into the back of my neck. :D

You know what? I would SO love it if you tried to put my fucking teeth into the back of my neck. :D
So, then, that's "Yes, I believe that liberals want US soldiers dead?"

So, as a self-proclaimed 'centrist,' does this not imply that half of you wants the soldiers dead? Or is it that "wanting US soldiers dead" is part of the core liberal idealogy that pushes you center?

In essense, are you that ridiculous?

Actually, this part of his quote:
Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger
is pretty much completely factual and the part of it that is speculation is pretty likely speculation. Now, as to whether that was the intent of Durbin when he opened his big yap, I doubt it.

You know what? I would SO love it if you tried to put my fucking teeth into the back of my neck. :D
Are you suggesting that I'm out to get soldiers killed? And are you willing to do it to my face?

You may be trying to be light-hearted with that smiley at the end Eutrusca, but be assured that I take that kind of insult most seriously. I'm not a violent man, but I will defend my honor vigorously, which is why Karl Rove is in a world of shit as far as I'm concerned.

And by the way, you never answered the main question--do you stand with Rove or do you disavow him? Did he go too far?

Are you suggesting that I'm out to get soldiers killed? And are you willing to do it to my face?

You may be trying to be light-hearted with that smiley at the end Eutrusca, but be assured that I take that kind of insult most seriously. I'm not a violent man, but I will defend my honor vigorously, which is why Karl Rove is in a world of shit as far as I'm concerned.

And by the way, you never answered the main question--do you stand with Rove or do you disavow him? Did he go too far?
LOL! Rove overstated the case, obviously. It's specious to assume that all of any particular political group wants US soldiers dead, of course.

I seriously doubt that Senator Durbin's statements were either "factual," as you alledge, or that they truly reflect how the Senator feels about American servicemen and servicewomen. They were definitely what many refer to as "intemperate," and they definitely have been used by various terrorist media to great effect. Unfortunately, his supposed "apologies" have been anything but.

As to my "suggesting that [ you are ] out to get soldiers killed," I obviously cannot see into your mind. That is a question only you can answer. However, when you repeatedly toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo, it makes me wonder as to your motivation. The detainees at Guantanamo are not being mistreated. If anything, they are being mollycoddled in an effort to avoid further specious allegations about military personnel, largely by leftists with an ax to grind.

The sort of statements being made by many on the left, both here and abroad, cannot help but give aid and comfort to those determined to kill as many American servicemen and servicewomen as possible, else why would terrorist media be so quick to jump on statements like those made by Senator Durbin?

During WWII there was a saying: "Loose lips sink ships." For today's world it could be: "Pass on lies, another American dies."

As to my "suggesting that [ you are ] out to get soldiers killed," I obviously cannot see into your mind. That is a question only you can answer. However, when you repeatedly toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo, it makes me wonder as to your motivation. The detainees at Guantanamo are not being mistreated. If anything, they are being mollycoddled in an effort to avoid further specious allegations about military personnel, largely by leftists with an ax to grind.

The sort of statements being made by many on the left, both here and abroad, cannot help but give aid and comfort to those determined to kill as many American servicemen and servicewomen as possible, else why would terrorist media be so quick to jump on statements like those made by Senator Durbin?

During WWII there was a saying: "Loose lips sink ships." For today's world it could be: "Pass on lies, another American dies."
I could just as easily say that your refusal to admit that there are abuses going on at Guantanamo, Baghram and elsewhere makes me wonder as to your blind loyalty to this administration and your own political viewpoint. At least I have proof--FBI reports, military reports, news reports and reports from human rights groups ranging from the UN to the IRC--that prisoners have been abused by members of the US military. CBS reported earlier that as many as 108 prisoners have died in US custody and that fully a quarter of those deaths have been investigated because there's serious reason to think that they came as a result of abuse. ABC reported today that doctors at Gitmo are being forced to share information with interrogators--right now--in order to help interrogators refine their stress techniques.

And still you say nothing is going on down there.

And don't give me that "statements give aid and comfort to enemies abroad" bullshit. The actions of those members of the US military and the higher-ups who excuse them or even order them have done far more damage to the US's reputation and have offered more motivation than any remarks made from the floor of the Senate ever could.

I'll give you the last one--pass on lies, another American dies. But it's not me who's doing the lying, Eutrusca. It's your president and his cronies who are doing it.

... your refusal to admit that there are abuses going on at Guantanamo, Baghram and elsewhere ....

And still you say nothing is going on down there.

And don't give me that "statements give aid and comfort to enemies abroad" bullshit.
Please quote any statement I have made denying that there have been cases of abuse of prisoners, or where I have said tthat "nothing is going on down there." I would love to see my words to that effect.

Why would you say that making wild accusations about American servicemen and servicewomen on the floor of the United States Senate NOT give aid and comfort to the terrorists? If such statements do NOT give aid and comfort to them, then why oh why do they pounce on them with such unrestrained glee?

Please quote any statement I have made denying that there have been cases of abuse of prisoners, or where I have said tthat "nothing is going on down there." I would love to see my words to that effect.

Why would you say that making wild accusations about American servicemen and servicewomen on the floor of the United States Senate NOT give aid and comfort to the terrorists? If such statements do NOT give aid and comfort to them, then why oh why do they pounce on them with such unrestrained glee?My apologies--you said that I "toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo" and I took that to mean that you were denying the accusations I've made, especially considering that my accusations are all documented. I don't need to make shit up because it's actually happening.

And those wild accusations as you refer to them would carry no weight if that's all they were. Problem is, they're not wild accusations--they have substance, and the whole damn world knows it. It's the actions that are fucking us over, Eutrusca, and even Republican congresspeople are starting to realize that. But rather than deal with the real problem--the abuse of prisoners--the talking heads on the right would rather scream "he said Nazi!" as though their leader, Rush Limbaugh, doesn't use the damn word every day when referring to liberal women. So save it when you're suggesting that Durbin's words are the problem--the problem is that his words are accurate and the Bush administration would rather scapegoat than stop abusing prisoners.

My apologies--you said that I "toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo" and I took that to mean that you were denying the accusations I've made, especially considering that my accusations are all documented. I don't need to make shit up because it's actually happening.

And those wild accusations as you refer to them would carry no weight if that's all they were. Problem is, they're not wild accusations--they have substance, and the whole damn world knows it. It's the actions that are fucking us over, Eutrusca, and even Republican congresspeople are starting to realize that. But rather than deal with the real problem--the abuse of prisoners--the talking heads on the right would rather scream "he said Nazi!" as though their leader, Rush Limbaugh, doesn't use the damn word every day when referring to liberal women. So save it when you're suggesting that Durbin's words are the problem--the problem is that his words are accurate and the Bush administration would rather scapegoat than stop abusing prisoners.
Sigh.

The problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to military swine.

You seem to forget that I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse. In the wonderful town of San Francisco, I myself was called "baby-killer" and spat upon. And this is how it all begins. Some Senator or Congressman, trying to make a political career over the dead bodies of American soldiers, makes the sort of wild, libelous accusations that Durbin made; the media, being the media, pick it up and repeat it; our opponents abroad pick it up, magnifiy it and pass it on; those at home who either hate the military for whatever reason, or who have some sort of ax to grind, expand the original accusations to cover all military personnel; eventually, some unrestrained idiot burns a flag, or spits on a soldier, or self-immolates in "protest."

Ever hear of Hegelian Dialectics? It's a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

I see things like people on here, or Senator Durbin, or any of a dozen others I could name, using the dialectic today, whether consciously or unconsciously is largely irrelevant.

If a particular American serviceman or servicewoman has transgressed, then try them for it and punish them accordingly. But I refuse to allow things like the Durbin allegations to stand without doing my best to point out exactly what they are: an attempt to use Hegelian Dialectic to alter perceptions in favor of their own anti-American-military agenda.

Sigh.

The problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to military swine.

You seem to forget that I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse. In the wonderful town of San Francisco, I myself was called "baby-killer" and spat upon. And this is how it all begins. Some Senator or Congressman, trying to make a political career over the dead bodies of American soldiers, makes the sort of wild, libelous accusations that Durbin made; the media, being the media, pick it up and repeat it; our opponents abroad pick it up, magnifiy it and pass it on; those at home who either hate the military for whatever reason, or who have some sort of ax to grind, expand the original accusations to cover all military personnel; eventually, some unrestrained idiot burns a flag, or spits on a soldier, or self-immolates in "protest."

Ever hear of Hegelian Dialectics? It's a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

I see things like people on here, or Senator Durbin, or any of a dozen others I could name, using the dialectic today, whether consciously or unconsciously is largely irrelevant.

If a particular American serviceman or servicewoman has transgressed, then try them for it and punish them accordingly. But I refuse to allow things like the Durbin allegations to stand without doing my best to point out exactly what they are: an attempt to use Hegelian Dialectic to alter perceptions in favor of their own anti-American-military agenda.
If anyone's guilty of using Hegelian dialectics, it's you, Eutrusca. You do a pretty good job of fooling the kids around here with your "I'm a centrist" schtick, sort of like the way O'Reilley does it on tv, taking just enough contrarian positions to act as though you're open-minded, but at the end of the day, you're as conservative as they come, and you try to move conversations in the same way.

For instance, your assertion that Durbin's comments were anti-military, when in fact, they show a great deal of concern for what's being done to the military and pointed out that a large part of the reason for why our military is in such danger in Iraq is because of these tactics. I'd argue that, for all the pro-military rhetoric you spout, Durbin is far more pro-military than you, because he sees that our actions at Gitmo and elsewhere are making them less safe.

Go ahead--spout your asides about how "the military is investigating and getting the people responsible"--the people really responsible for what's happening there are sitting in offices in Washington and will likely never be touched, and in the meantime, our actions help al Qaeda recruit more and more people to continue the fight. It's not the words that are the problem--it's the fact that we're continuing to abuse people, that we've taken our moral high ground and shat on it, that we're hypocrites of the highest order and the whole world knows it that's the problem. And more and more, the American people are starting to realize it's the problem as well, no matter how much the right tries to use Hegel's dialectics to shadow the truth.

If anyone's guilty of using Hegelian dialectics, it's you, Eutrusca. You do a pretty good job of fooling the kids around here with your "I'm a centrist" schtick, sort of like the way O'Reilley does it on tv, taking just enough contrarian positions to act as though you're open-minded, but at the end of the day, you're as conservative as they come, and you try to move conversations in the same way.

For instance, your assertion that Durbin's comments were anti-military, when in fact, they show a great deal of concern for what's being done to the military and pointed out that a large part of the reason for why our military is in such danger in Iraq is because of these tactics. I'd argue that, for all the pro-military rhetoric you spout, Durbin is far more pro-military than you, because he sees that our actions at Gitmo and elsewhere are making them less safe.

Go ahead--spout your asides about how "the military is investigating and getting the people responsible"--the people really responsible for what's happening there are sitting in offices in Washington and will likely never be touched, and in the meantime, our actions help al Qaeda recruit more and more people to continue the fight. It's not the words that are the problem--it's the fact that we're continuing to abuse people, that we've taken our moral high ground and shat on it, that we're hypocrites of the highest order and the whole world knows it that's the problem. And more and more, the American people are starting to realize it's the problem as well, no matter how much the right tries to use Hegel's dialectics to shadow the truth.
Well, I see that's the end of the conversation. I did my best to be as straight-forward and logical as possible, but you obviously have no intention of giving anything I say a fair hearing. Have a nice day.

NOTE: This article brought to you courtesy of Al Jazeera media and the Hegelian Dialectic.


US senator stands by Nazi remark (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm)


Thursday 16 June 2005, 21:38 Makka Time, 18:38 GMT

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a "mad regime" like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Illinois Republican party chairman Andy McKenna had demanded he apologise.

"Senator Durbin's comments come as a great disservice to our military personnel in Guantanamo," he said.

"They are also a great disservice to all US soldiers and veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to overcome evil regimes and spread democracy around the world."

Durbin did not plan to apologise for the comments, spokesman Joe Shoemaker said.

"This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," Durbin had said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Attack

During a speech on Tuesday, Durbin, the Senate's number two Democrat, quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the naval base in Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.

"You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings"

US Senator Dick Durbin

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

Durbin is not alone in his criticism.

Human-rights groups have long accused the administration of unjustly detaining suspects at the prison camp. Amnesty International last month called the detention centre the "gulag of our times".

Rebuttal

President George Bush and other administration officials, however, have strongly resisted such comparisons and questioned Amnesty's objectivity.

"It's difficult to explain to a mom and dad who's lost their son or daughter how you can have someone in Guantanamo Bay, release them and then they kill your son and daughter"

"I take strong exception to any characterisations that try to
diminish what our military is doing and the standards and values that they adhere to," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The Bush administration calls the Guantanamo prisoners enemy combatants who are entitled to fewer legal protections than those afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Defence

According to US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday, the US government often considers whether it would be better to stop detaining prisoners at Guantanamo.

"That's a question that is evaluated, I would say, quite often," he said in Sheffield, England, where he will attend a meeting of G8 interior ministers on Thursday and Friday.

On Wednesday, he had said "there will of course be an end", but did not specify when.

He also pointed out that about a dozen of those who had been released had returned to fight against the US.

"It's difficult to explain to a mom and dad who's lost their son or daughter how you can have someone in Guantanamo Bay, release them and then they kill your son and daughter," he said.

Since the camp was set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, 167 detainees have been freed and 67 others released to the custody of their home governments.

About 520 detainees from about 40 countries remain at Guantanamo. Only 12 have been handed over to military commissions for investigation of possible war crimes and four have been charged.

Debate

In a three-hour hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, legal experts from the US military and the Justice Department said the US had a right under the Geneva Conventions to hold enemy combatants.

But committee chairman Senator Arlen Specter suggested lawmakers would have to clarify what he called a "crazy quilt" of laws and regulations governing the detentions.

Some lawmakers want the facility closed, saying it has become a liability that inflames Muslims against the United States.

"Guantanamo is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and it remains a festering threat to our security," Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said.

Survey

A Pew Research Centre poll, taken over the weekend, indicated most Americans agree that reports of abuse at Guantanamo are isolated incidents, and 39% think the news media is paying too much attention to the issue.

The poll found a sharp partisan divide on the issue - Democrats believing the abuses to be systemic and Republicans saying they were isolated incidents.

What's wrong with having an anti-American-military agenda? Damn thing is running amok.

i, for one, am sick and fucking tired of politicians apologizing everytime they say soemthing that doesn't poll quite right. for sticking to his guns ALONE, i will gladly run Durbin through for another term in senate. i like a politician who wears his balls, as opposed to the countless empty suits who shelve theirs for four years at a time.

That'll go over really with my friends currently or recently in the military. (I know about a dozen enlisted, and a couple of officers, a few of whom are on their second tours in or around Iraq) Several of them had high school education or less ogin into the military, and every single one now identifies on the liberal side of the fence. More than two thirds were conservatives in 2000. I'm sure they would love to know that they aim to get themselves killed in Iraq.

Hmm. I have the opposite experience. I know large numbers of people in the Army and Marines who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all of them love Bush, and all have VOLUNTEERED to go back for another go-round. Some of them re-enlisted just to do that.

Last I heard, you couldn't get into the Army without a high school diploma or GED. Certainly not the Air Force or Navy.

NOTE: This article brought to you courtesy of Al Jazeera media and the Hegelian Dialectic.


US senator stands by Nazi remark (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm)
So what you're saying is that Durbin's attempts to get the military to stop torturing prisoners is a Hegelian move away from torture and toward humane treatment. Sounds good to me, considering that the movement in the opposite direction--toward torture and away from humane treatment--is precisely what the Republican party has been advocatng for the last four years.

Face it, Eutrusca--your party is on the wrong side of this one, and has been since it began. You can't claim to be moral and then abuse prisoners. You can't claim to be the good guys and then torture people--that's beyond Hegelian. It's Orwellian, and you damn well know it.

And you know what's the saddest out of all this? The fact that you still argue that Durbin's words are somehow doing more damage than the actual torture is doing. That's pathetic. If that's what you call centrism, then I'll stay with being a partisan, thanks very much--it's more honest.

So let me get this straight--Dick Durbin goes on the floor of the Senate and makes an accurate factual comparison about the actions of some in our military in their treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, and gets pilloried for it, not only in the media (with only a few exceptions), but Karl Rove states in a speech last night that liberals are trying to get US soldiers killed and no one around here has a problem with that.



That "liberal media" must be "circling the wagons" around Karl Rove just like Rush always says.

:confused:

And you know what's the saddest out of all this? The fact that you still argue that Durbin's words are somehow doing more damage than the actual torture is doing. That's pathetic. If that's what you call centrism, then I'll stay with being a partisan, thanks very much--it's more honest.

Speaking as a Republican who enlisted and served in combat, per your Operation Yellow Elephant, and who has carried out US foreign policy in a violent manner in accordance with his personal and political beliefs, I have no sympathy at all for any detainees in Guantanamo who were captured while they were under arms.

It's war. We're fighting a war. Not a traditional, conventional war. And we either fight the war, or we let them have us.

I've met many soldiers - and I know many soldiers. I haven't heard ANY of them criticize the Iraq war - they believe it's the right thing. And I haven't heard of any who sympathize with the people in Guantanamo. And I haven't heard of any who believe that any unauthorized techniques are being used there. Techniques that differ in no way from the techniques used by the UK on IRA prisoners. Or by the French SDECE on people they kidnap from African countries, bring back to France, and interrogate.

Speaking as a Republican who enlisted and served in combat, per your Operation Yellow Elephant, and who has carried out US foreign policy in a violent manner in accordance with his personal and political beliefs, I have no sympathy at all for any detainees in Guantanamo who were captured while they were under arms.

It's war. We're fighting a war. Not a traditional, conventional war. And we either fight the war, or we let them have us.

I've met many soldiers - and I know many soldiers. I haven't heard ANY of them criticize the Iraq war - they believe it's the right thing. And I haven't heard of any who sympathize with the people in Guantanamo. And I haven't heard of any who believe that any unauthorized techniques are being used there. Techniques that differ in no way from the techniques used by the UK on IRA prisoners. Or by the French SDECE on people they kidnap from African countries, bring back to France, and interrogate.
Let's trace the chain of abuse.

Abu Ghraib: Detainees had broomsticks shoved up their asses, were attacked naked by dogs, etc (there are worse incidents, but we all remember them).

Government Memo: Techniques at Abu Ghraib came directly from the orders concerning Guantanamo Bay.

Guantanamo Bay: God knows what's going on down there.

Then, to your post:
I have plenty of sympathy for the people in Guantanamo. You know why? Because most of them aren't terrorists. That's right: no useful information has been gleaned from Guantanamo. Further, all of the stories coming out of the prison are innocent people imprisoned there unjustly, and because they couldn't get lawyers, had no way to get out of there. Summary: Innocent people are being tortured and we've gained absolutely nothing from it. Kudos to Dick Durbin.

Abu Ghraib: Detainees had broomsticks shoved up their asses, were attacked naked by dogs, etc (there are worse incidents, but we all remember them).

All of which was unauthorized.

Government Memo: Techniques at Abu Ghraib came directly from the orders concerning Guantanamo Bay.
Only a few of them. Please read the memo.

Guantanamo Bay: God knows what's going on down there.


Considering that the ICRC has been present there since day one, and there have been over 1000 reporters there off and on since day one, and since both the ICRC and some reporters have attended some of the interrogations (including one I heard on NPR), I don't believe that what you think is going on down there is going on down there.

Over 240 have been released because it was determined that they knew nothing.

The information needed to apprehend Khalid Sheik Mohammed WAS from interrogations at Guantanamo - and they captured him as a result. Many al-Q people have been identified by interrogation results at Guantanamo - and most of those have been assassinated.

There seems to be a new official policy. If you're about to capture someone very high ranking in al-Q, you capture them. If they're found to be small fry, you don't capture them - you just shoot them on the spot.

That way, we don't bring many new tenants to Guantanamo anymore.

The problem with this war is that there really isn't a good way to deal with suspected terrorists.

Any solution I have heard proposed either is completely ineffective or is going to lower our moral standing in the world's eyes.

Though I disagree with most of what Bush does. I have to say that "Gitmo", assuming nothing worse that what has been reported is going on, is the least of many possible evils. I only wish he would agree to allow an independant commission fully investigate so that we can be certain. If we are doing nothing wrong; we have nothing to lose.

I have to say that I'm more than a bit disturbed by the lack of distancing from Rove's comments by the right-wingers on the board. So far, only Eutrusca has said that Rove went too far--no one else has stepped up.

So I'll ask it again--do the right-wingers really believe that liberals want US soldiers killed? Or did Rove go a step too far?

I have to say that I'm more than a bit disturbed by the lack of distancing from Rove's comments by the right-wingers on the board. So far, only Eutrusca has said that Rove went too far--no one else has stepped up.

So I'll ask it again--do the right-wingers really believe that liberals want US soldiers killed? Or did Rove go a step too far?

I would but since I am a liberal, it doesn't help you any.

NOTE: This article brought to you courtesy of Al Jazeera media and the Hegelian Dialectic.


US senator stands by Nazi remark (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm)


Thursday 16 June 2005, 21:38 Makka Time, 18:38 GMT

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a "mad regime" like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Illinois Republican party chairman Andy McKenna had demanded he apologise.

"Senator Durbin's comments come as a great disservice to our military personnel in Guantanamo," he said.

"They are also a great disservice to all US soldiers and veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to overcome evil regimes and spread democracy around the world."

Durbin did not plan to apologise for the comments, spokesman Joe Shoemaker said.

"This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," Durbin had said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

Don't you love when the papers lie? If you notice they say he said only that and out of context. Than later show what he really said which is totally different!
I love the comment democracy spreading. Please America doesn't even have that. We are a Representative Republic, deal with it Mr. McKenna.


Attack

During a speech on Tuesday, Durbin, the Senate's number two Democrat, quoted from an FBI agent's report describing detainees at the naval base in Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.

"You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings"

US Senator Dick Durbin

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

I agree believing that Russian Gulags or Nazi's would do that is more believable than Americans. What is the issue? I totally agree, the stories you hear abiout the Nazi's makes this exactly as like them. Are the Nazi's back? Sadly nope, Soldiers from America did.


Durbin is not alone in his criticism.

Human-rights groups have long accused the administration of unjustly detaining suspects at the prison camp. Amnesty International last month called the detention centre the "gulag of our times".

Rebuttal

President George Bush and other administration officials, however, have strongly resisted such comparisons and questioned Amnesty's objectivity.

"It's difficult to explain to a mom and dad who's lost their son or daughter how you can have someone in Guantanamo Bay, release them and then they kill your son and daughter"

"I take strong exception to any characterisations that try to
diminish what our military is doing and the standards and values that they adhere to," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The Bush administration calls the Guantanamo prisoners enemy combatants who are entitled to fewer legal protections than those afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

When you read the first quoting in this section, it appears Bush speaks but later you find out only McClellan did. I agree I take strong exception to Guantanamo Bay. Glad we agree Mr. McClellan.

Defence

According to US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday, the US government often considers whether it would be better to stop detaining prisoners at Guantanamo.

"That's a question that is evaluated, I would say, quite often," he said in Sheffield, England, where he will attend a meeting of G8 interior ministers on Thursday and Friday.

On Wednesday, he had said "there will of course be an end", but did not specify when.

He also pointed out that about a dozen of those who had been released had returned to fight against the US.

"It's difficult to explain to a mom and dad who's lost their son or daughter how you can have someone in Guantanamo Bay, release them and then they kill your son and daughter," he said.

Since the camp was set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, 167 detainees have been freed and 67 others released to the custody of their home governments.

About 520 detainees from about 40 countries remain at Guantanamo. Only 12 have been handed over to military commissions for investigation of possible war crimes and four have been charged.

So out of the number released 12 were guilty. 167/12= 13.somehing. So Every 13 we release 1 will actually be guilty or hate America now and attack us. Not bad odds.
So only 4 out of 520 + whatever number have been there and only 4 were charged. And they were only charged because the Supreme Court said to do it.

Debate

In a three-hour hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, legal experts from the US military and the Justice Department said the US had a right under the Geneva Conventions to hold enemy combatants.

But committee chairman Senator Arlen Specter suggested lawmakers would have to clarify what he called a "crazy quilt" of laws and regulations governing the detentions.

Some lawmakers want the facility closed, saying it has become a liability that inflames Muslims against the United States.

"Guantanamo is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and it remains a festering threat to our security," Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said.

Well anyone can say they hav a right, but have they proven that. I agree that it inflames people from all places and religions not just Muslims.

Survey

A Pew Research Centre poll, taken over the weekend, indicated most Americans agree that reports of abuse at Guantanamo are isolated incidents, and 39% think the news media is paying too much attention to the issue.

The poll found a sharp partisan divide on the issue - Democrats believing the abuses to be systemic and Republicans saying they were isolated incidents.

So what is most?
39% is too much attention, k'
That leaves 61 %. If we give 31 % = Most
That leaves 30% of Americans believe the abuses to be Systemic.

Next we have to ask how was the Poll conducted? Was it Systemic, random, Stratified, etc. I took Statistifs, I know people can easily fake polls but asking only one group.

Example if they asked the poll at a Republican place, the fact that most people said republican stance is understandable. The fact that Democrats were included makes me wonder if they were Log Cabin republicans counted as dems in the poll.

So many factors.

To Bush and the Busheviks:

"Uniter, not a Divider" My Ass!

Unless of course, he meant uniting the Right Wing into a theocratic jingoist block straight out of Margaret Atwood's worst nightmares.

If you're going to get on Durbin's ass but pat Rove's back, then you're just continuing the "All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others" mentality which has been feeding Al Qaeda's and other terrorist organizations' recruiting drive in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

I could just as easily say that your refusal to admit that there are abuses going on at Guantanamo, Baghram and elsewhere makes me wonder as to your blind loyalty to this administration and your own political viewpoint. At least I have proof--FBI reports, military reports, news reports and reports from human rights groups ranging from the UN to the IRC--that prisoners have been abused by members of the US military. CBS reported earlier that as many as 108 prisoners have died in US custody and that fully a quarter of those deaths have been investigated because there's serious reason to think that they came as a result of abuse. ABC reported today that doctors at Gitmo are being forced to share information with interrogators--right now--in order to help interrogators refine their stress techniques.

And still you say nothing is going on down there.

And don't give me that "statements give aid and comfort to enemies abroad" bullshit. The actions of those members of the US military and the higher-ups who excuse them or even order them have done far more damage to the US's reputation and have offered more motivation than any remarks made from the floor of the Senate ever could.

I'll give you the last one--pass on lies, another American dies. But it's not me who's doing the lying, Eutrusca. It's your president and his cronies who are doing it.
I wish you would clarify where those deaths are taking place. You might as well have not even put Baghram in that paragraph, because it was obvious that you were trying to keep the embers burning in the hatred of what's going on in Cuba.

To Bush and the Busheviks:

"Uniter, not a Divider" My Ass!

Unless of course, he meant uniting the Right Wing into a theocratic jingoist block straight out of Margaret Atwood's worst nightmares.

If you're going to get on Durbin's ass but pat Rove's back, then you're just continuing the "All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others" mentality which has been feeding Al Qaeda's and other terrorist organizations' recruiting drive in Iraq.

:rolleyes:
To be Fair, my Dogs act more human than any other pet I've had.

Granted he doesn't even know he is a dog so that could be why.

You know, I think that if Americans took better care of separater facilities, "Separate but Equal" wouldn't have been ended. People just got too lazy to keep the other facilities clean.
But no they expected the "blacks" to fix it instead, pure stupidity.

Anyways, getting off that tangent. Bush is a uniter of his party. Not a divider of his party :) (Though his party is somewhat divided over him)

Nobody is complaining about Karl Rove because he's a part of the Republican apparatus, and the entire Washington press corps has been cowed into submission. Anytime they say anything bad about the Republicans, they find themselves no longer granted the access they need to do their jobs.

And as Jon Stewart so concisely described it last night, the Republicans have tried in the pass to silence dissent in the media, but this time they've been successful. As he described it, Nixon tried to do it by drying the well (of information), and the current administration and its cohorts are doing so by poisoning the well.

Hmm. I have the opposite experience. I know large numbers of people in the Army and Marines who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all of them love Bush, and all have VOLUNTEERED to go back for another go-round. Some of them re-enlisted just to do that.
And yet, the Army is barely at 50% of their recruiting goals for the year (with 4 months left in their recruiting year), and this at a time when they are attempting to expand. So much for volunteers.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1046106&tw=wn_wire_story

Last I heard, you couldn't get into the Army without a high school diploma or GED. Certainly not the Air Force or Navy.

Not for long. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D12F73A5C0C728DDDAF0894DD404482

First of all, I don't really think that any of our politicians in office intentionally want to kill our soldiers. Some of their comments may make it seem that way, but I don't think they'd take a soldier out back and shoot him if they had the chance. I believe that the first part of Rove's statement is true, but not necessarily the second half. I believe that Durbin's comments were to inflame the issue so that a push for an investigation would happen. That obviously hasn't happened, and so his words have done nothing but hurt our image. Good job on that one.

Secondly: I had a brother that was in the military during Desert Storm, and he got out as soon as his four years were up (ended in '93) because Clinton came into office. If you really look around the military and families of military men, they are predominately conservative. I mean, I know there are the few folks that had sons or daughters killed in the war, and they're now liberal or what not. Those folks were on Farenheit 9/11 though, so if you missed it, you'll have a hard chance of finding them.

Third: I don't know about the validity of this, but my arguement seems fair. Bush probably doesn't have direct control over what's going on in Guantanamo. If I'm not mistaken, he doesn't have direct control over who works in the FBI, CIA, and all the other bureaus that could have something to do with the interrogations. Whether or not he knows what's going on is questionable, but I honestly doubt that he told them exactly what to do in Abu Ghraib or Baghram. Oh wait, we were talking about Guantanamo, sorry guys.

And as Jon Stewart so concisely described it last night, the Republicans have tried in the pass to silence dissent in the media, but this time they've been successful. As he described it, Nixon tried to do it by drying the well (of information), and the current administration and its cohorts are doing so by poisoning the well.


And yet, the Army is barely at 50% of their recruiting goals for the year (with 4 months left in their recruiting year), and this at a time when they are attempting to expand. So much for volunteers.
First off, I like how a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart. He's a comedian appealing to a liberal audience. He may know some stuff about politics, but perhaps you should watch some other news channels to clarify your information.

Would you honestly enlist in the military if you knew that as soon as basic was up, you were going to the war at private or PFC? I wouldn't. I would probably go back as an officer though.

Somebody quotes Jon Stewart and all of a sudden "alot of people here get all of their political information from him"


lol - nice

Somebody quotes Jon Stewart and all of a sudden "alot of people here get all of their political information from him"


lol - nice
I didn't say "alot (sic) of people here" anyways. If you're going to quote someone, try using words they said. I said, "a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart". If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, find somewhere else to put it.

Shit man, don't be talking about Karl Rove in a bad way, they'll come take you away! Everyone knows Karl Rove is the anti-christ. (I'm serious)... :p

Shit man, don't be talking about Karl Rove in a bad way, they'll come take you away! Everyone knows Karl Rove is the anti-christ. (I'm serious)... :p
*tries to smother the flame*

I didn't say EVERYONE gets ALL of their political information from there. Have you ever been to college? That seems to be where a lot of it comes from where I go to school.

no, you said "I like how a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart." because someone quoted him. He does say some pretty good stuff sometimes and deserves to be quoted, because he uses humor to get valid points across. Also I never said that you said EVERYONE gets their information from Stewart.

Also, yes I went to college although Craig Kilborn was the host of the Daily Show back then.

*tries to smother the flame*

Uh, what flame? Against Karl Rove? I am not 100% sure, but I'm going to take an educated guess and assume he is not a member of NS..lol

no, you said "I like how a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart." because someone quoted him. He does say some pretty good stuff sometimes and deserves to be quoted, because he uses humor to get valid points across. Also I never said that you said EVERYONE gets their information from Stewart.

Also, yes I went to college although Craig Kilborn was the host of the Daily Show back then.
Check out my edited post. Although I do admit that Jon Stewart is good at what he does, he doesn't exactly operate under spin-free conditions. Of course, you can't really find anyone who does, but that's not the point.

Ahh, Craig Kilborn. He was a good one.

I didn't say "alot (sic) of people here" anyways. If you're going to quote someone, try using words they said. I said, "a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart". If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, find somewhere else to put it.


oh sure NOW you change it. Also you are correct I misquoted you and I apologize. I corrected that later though.

Uh, what flame? Against Karl Rove? I am not 100% sure, but I'm going to take an educated guess and assume he is not a member of NS..lol
I'm sorry, I guess that does fall under trolling instead of flaming. For a second there, I thought he may have been a member.

Chode

oh sure NOW you change it. Also you are correct I misquoted you and I apologize. I corrected that later though.
haha, sorry man

I apologize for switching things up on you. No hard feelings?

Check out my edited post. Although I do admit that Jon Stewart is good at what he does, he doesn't exactly operate under spin-free conditions. Of course, you can't really find anyone who does, but that's not the point.

Ahh, Craig Kilborn. He was a good one.

True that Jon is more of a liberal kinda guy and I think that most people that watch him know that and take it for what it's worth (ALthough it can't be denied that Jon goes after peopl on both sides of the isle, though he surely goes after conservatives more). Still there is nothing wrong with quoting him to make a point because he does so humorously and intelligently.

I'm sorry, I guess that does fall under trolling instead of flaming. For a second there, I thought he may have been a member.

Chode

I think it actually falls under joking more so than trolling. ;)

haha, sorry man

I apologize for switching things up on you. No hard feelings?

:fluffle:

none whatsoever

All I am getting on about is how quick people are to generalize about things. I am not innocent of this either although I do thry to watch myself but I am sure I am more diligent about watching others do it.

:fluffle:

none whatsoever

All I am getting on about is how quick people are to generalize about things. I am not innocent of this either although I do thry to watch myself but I am sure I am more diligent about watching others do it.
I see...

I'm out to lunch, have a good one (for the two of you still left).

First off, I like how a lot of folks seem to get all their political information from Jon Stewart. He's a comedian appealing to a liberal audience. He may know some stuff about politics, but perhaps you should watch some other news channels to clarify your information.
I know the difference between political satire and political commentary. Jon was making a political comment at the time, as part of a conversation with a well-respected newsman. Just because he happens to be a comedian doesn't have any bearing on whether he makes a good point or not, and your statement is therefore an ad hominem fallacy. A good observation is a good observation, regardless of whether it was made by Albert Einstein or Homer Simpson.

I dunno if he appeals to a liberal audience (for instance, I'm not a liberal, and I think he's hilarious), just one with a sense of humor. Are you saying conservatives have no sense of humor?

Would you honestly enlist in the military if you knew that as soon as basic was up, you were going to the war at private or PFC? I wouldn't. I would probably go back as an officer though.
Depends on the war. Keep in mind, I signed up for the navy knowing I would be sent to the Persian Gulf and be boarding potential smuggling vessels working for Saddam. And it was a boat very much like mine that got a hole blown in the side during chow in Yemen.

But as a member of the US military I put my trust in my commanders that they would not put my life at risk without good cause, that the safety of my home must be under threat. Attacking Saddam in '91 was the right thing to do, because any other Gulf state could have been next, and the US is too dependent on Gulf oil. Maintaining sanctions against him through the years was the right thing to do, for the same reason. Inventing evidence of a threat to the US in order to justify a second invasion was not the right thing to do, and violated that trust between commanders and commanded. I would never join the military under an administration that has violated its trust so blatantly, nor would I encourage others to do so, either.

So let me get this straight--Dick Durbin goes on the floor of the Senate and makes an accurate factual comparison about the actions of some in our military in their treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, and gets pilloried for it, not only in the media (with only a few exceptions), but Karl Rove states in a speech last night that liberals are trying to get US soldiers killed and no one around here has a problem with that.

Here's the direct quote from Rove for those who won't believe my paraphrase:

I think my paraphrase is accurate, although I'd welcome alternate interpretations.

I just have a couple of things to say to Rove. First, if I were actually trying to get troops killed, I can't think of a better way to do it than to send them into an unnecessary war without the equipment they need to do their job effectively.(Note--I'm not saying that Bush & Co were looking to get troops killed per se--I'm merely suggesting that they're incompetent and are more concerned with politics than with the lives of soldiers.) Second, if you ever say something like that to my face, you'll be picking your fucking teeth out of the back of your neck.

And that goes for any other SOB who wants to question my patriotism, or worse, accuse me of wanting US soldiers dead.
You ROCK!!!!!
*bows*

*tries to smother the flame*
Everyone here seen last week's episode of "American Dad" (FOX)?
;)

Time for an update--I emailed my new Senator (new to me because I just moved and new because he just got elected last year) Mel Martinez to ask him to distance himself from Rove's comments. Nothing yet.

But Tapped, the weblog of the American Prospect magazine has been doing the same thing, and they got someone to respond--two someones, as a matter of fact. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas supported Rove's remarks--no surprise there. The dissenter was a surprise, however, and I like to give credit where it's due. Rick Santorum, you reduced your douchebag rating for the day. Congrats. I imagine it's due more to the fact that your approval numbers are in the shitter and you've got an election next year, but it's nice to see that you can do the right thing once in a while.

A hilarious post by "The Rude Pundit" on his blog, regarding this incident:




6/24/2005
Karl Rove To America: Suck It:
Let’s dispose of this quickly, shall we? When Howard Dean speaks, he’s speaking as the chair of the Democratic Party. The Democrats pay him. If Democrats around the nation don’t like what Dean says, then they can cease donating to the party.

When Dick Durbin speaks, he’s representing the people of Illinois, to whom he will be answerable when he’s up for re-election.

When Karl Rove speaks, he’s talking as an official with the White House. The only person he’s accountable to is the President, who, as Scott McClellan so dismissingly pointed out, won’t ask Rove to apologize. Rove’s paid by each and every tax-paying American. He represents all of us.

So when that cock gobbler wants to get his rocks off by jackin’ it in front of "hundreds" of slavering lap dogs, ready to lick his scrotum at a moment’s notice, and he wants to use that moment of yankin’ his crank to declare that liberals are pussies who want American soldiers to die, he may as well add, "Oh, and any of you who disagree with me can suck it. And, hey, thanks for the paycheck." (Which is, more or less, what he said last night on Scarborough Country.)

Somewhere, deep in the basement of the White House, Karl Rove’s leather slave is weeping. Rove keeps his leather slave chained to the radiator, right next to one of FDR’s soiled wheelchairs and Taft’s slop trough. The leather slave is weeping and frightened because he knows his tears will only cause Rove to put on the spiked glove to smack his ass into a bloody pulp. And the thought of this causes him to weep more – it’s a vicious cycle. Karl Rove’s leather slave started weeping because whenever Rove comes back to the White House after giving a hate-filled screed to an audience that loves him, like a fresh antelope carcass tossed into the lion’s den, Rove will want to take out his great glee and orgasmic power on the supple ass cheeks and elastic mouth of his slave.

Karl Rove’s leather slave hears the door to the basement open. "Honey, I’m home," he hears Rove announce. And it’s true. And, oh, sweet Jesus, he’s wearing the chaps, a raging hard-on, and nothing else. Sadly, Karl Rove’s leather slave puts away the K-Y. He knows he’s about to get fucked hard and rough, a cock thrust so far up his asshole that, as Rove likes to say, "I’ll come out of your mouth."

Rove approaches, taking down Teddy Roosevelt’s riding crop, and says, "Oh, you know you love the sting."

// posted by Rude One @ 9:28 AM

A hilarious post by "The Rude Pundit" on his blog, regarding this incident:
I love the Rude Pundit--he's absolutely ruthless.

How exactly does Dick Durbin's comments give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States?

Durbin began his speech by reading line for line information that came directly out of declassified documents gotten by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act. It describes incidents where the detainees had gone without food and water, and having been chained hand and foot in a fetal position for extended periods of time, forcing the detainees on many occasions to piss and crap over themselves.

He then follows this reading by stating the following:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been the work of Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings."

Where in this statement is Durbin likening our troops to Nazis? The answer is that he isn't: he's stating emphatically that what is actually happening in Gitmo is inconsistent with what we as Americans see of ourselves, and more akin to the actions of our mortal enemies of the past, who were enemies primarily because they did things like this. This isn't unpatriotic. This is the truth, and it is one that ought to have been shouted to the rafters, not degraded by a bunch of simpering idiots shouting "Oh my God, he said Nazi! He's comparing the troops to Nazis! Durbin sux0rs!"

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Supposing America is a great nation (which I and I would certain venture that Dick Durbin agree with), then what is it that makes America great? If I had to guess, I would say it is because unlike every other nation on Earth, the U.S. inextricably and from the start linked its existence with that of the rights of the people within it. Other nations adopted the idea later on that there are certain things that should never be done to people if for no other reason than because they are people, but only the U.S. incorporated and invented those ideas as part of its self-identity from the start. If you want to say now that some people deserve those kinds of actions, it is not the people who are pointing out your error who are unpatriotic; it is you.

I just say it. What Sen Dick Durban said was not only careless but insulting. This event is mirroring the 'Koran in the tiolet' scandal, which proved to be a hoax, but 16 lives were lost in the end. And second of all, you do not so calusly insult the men and women of the armed forces in such a derogatory manor by comparing them to Nazis, Soviets, or Pol Pots army of terror. And I really appreciated his If/Then apology which was almost equally insulting.

I just say it. What Sen Dick Durban said was not only careless but insulting. This event is mirroring the 'Koran in the tiolet' scandal, which proved to be a hoax, but 16 lives were lost in the end. And second of all, you do not so calusly insult the men and women of the armed forces in such a derogatory manor by comparing them to Nazis, Soviets, or Pol Pots army of terror. And I really appreciated his If/Then apology which was almost equally insulting.Only in your mind is there a connection or a similarity between the two incidents.

By the way, I guess you didn't hear the US general in Afghanistan who noted that the idea that the Newsweek story on Koran desecration caused the rioting was ludicrous, but I guess I'm not surprised, based on the lack of lucidity in your post.

And if you actually read Durbin's remarks, you see that there's absolutely no comparison of US forces to Nazis, Soviets, or anyone else.

That "liberal media" must be "circling the wagons" around Karl Rove just like Rush always says.

:confused:
Not really, except for the short second sentence, his comment is very, very close to the mark. Such is not the case with Mr. Durbin's remarks, especially when he has this (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2005/06/durbins-pal-and-prisoner-abuse.html)

Illinois Democrat Senator Richard Durbin compared American servicemen and women serving at Guantanamo to Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's gulag thugs, and Pol Pot's murderers.

But I could find no criticism by Durbin of his pal, political ally and Cook Country's Democrat Sheriff, Michael F. Sheahan, who's run the notorious Cook County Jail since 1990. I used Google and Yahoo search engines. The Senator's office didn't return a phone call inquiry about Sheahan and prisoner abuse at the jail.

During the 15 years Sheahan’s run Cook County Jail, there have been numerous reports by rights groups, attorneys, and a grand jury documenting systematic prisoner abuse there, including rapes and beatings by guards.

Legal action by Chicago University's Law School's public-service law firm, The MacArthur Justice Center, led to a grand jury finding that a failure by Sheahan’s office to investigate prisoner beatings constituted “obstruction of justice.” The MacArthur site details other actions its brought against Sheahan and other responsible officials.

In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, MacArthur attorney Jean Maclean Snyder gave readers this graphic example of prisoner abuse at Cook County Jail:

(a) squad of 40 guards took over a maximum-security division of the jail in 1999 for the sole purpose of beating and terrorizing the prisoners. A jail investigator determined that the guards' misconduct was covered up by Cook County medical personnel, who filed false reports and refused or delayed treatment to the prisoners, and by the Cook County inspector general, who refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Snyder want on to describe a meeting with a prisoner who'd been beaten:

the whites of his eyes were nearly obscured by the red from blood vessels that had ruptured during the beating, and deep lacerations were held together by staples that had been applied to his scalp.

Chicago newspapers have reported and spoken out against the abuses in Cook County Jail.

Now they and the rest of the national media who've given voice to Senator Durbin's attack on the military need to ask him about his pal, Sheriff Sheahan, and Cook County Jail.


in his back yard

So Ravenshrike--is there any proof anywhere that Durbin was ever asked about his friend Sheahan? Not so far as I can tell, although the google search I did seems to indicate that this storyline you're pushing is part of a blogswarm, a lot of speculation about how Durbin feels without anyone ever actually asking him. Way to try to distract from the real issue--business as usual on the far right wing, I see. :rolleyes:

Its a standard politicians trick. Throw dirt at someone else so nobody looks at your own.

Only in your mind is there a connection or a similarity between the two incidents.

By the way, I guess you didn't hear the US general in Afghanistan who noted that the idea that the Newsweek story on Koran desecration caused the rioting was ludicrous, but I guess I'm not surprised, based on the lack of lucidity in your post.

And if you actually read Durbin's remarks, you see that there's absolutely no comparison of US forces to Nazis, Soviets, or anyone else.

What Durbin said.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

An analogue.

"If I read Nazz's post to you from a separate thread, and you did not know it was from a respected member of these forums, you would think it was posted by a illiterate stupid jackass who, by virtue of the fact that his father was a mule and his mother a frog, couldn't connect even the most salient points of logic and had the morals of Jeffery Dahmer."

Now see, technically I didn't call you any of those things.

Apparently, you can't read, Ravenshrike, or at the very least, you can't comprehend what you read. Nowhere in his statement does Durbin come anywhere close to the "US soldiers=Nazis, Soviets, etc." equation. He notes that the actions against prisoners in US control are similar in kind (although not frequency) to those used against prisoners in those other regimes, and not to put too fine a point on it, he's exactly right.

The sorts of treatment prisoners at Gitmo, at Abu Ghraib, and at Baghram among others is of the same kind as was received by prisoners in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and other repressive regimes around the world in the past. Have we done it to the same degree? No. Have we done it with the same frequency? No.

But is that really good enough?

No.

What's good enough is that we don't do it at all. To quote Republican Senator Lindsey Graham after the first Abu Ghraib pictures were released, "if we're going to be the good guys, we have to act like we're the good guys." What's going on in Gitmo and elsewhere puts the lie to the idea that we're a moral and upright country. Moral countries don't excuse this kind of shit. Moral people don't excuse it.

Maybe you do. If so, then that's between you and your conscience. If you're religious, then it's between you and your god. But in my eyes, anyone who condones the torture of another human being is lower than scum. Only you can know if you fit that description.

(See--I didn't insult you either.)

This is an article in defense of referencing Hitler...



Article:




In Defense of Referencing Hitler

by B.K. Marcus



Suppose you were to make the claim that the correct policy will always be whatever the majority decides. And suppose I were to respond by pointing out that the "Jim Crow" racial segregation laws were the will of the majority at the time they were in effect.

Would you think I was calling you a racist? Or would you understand that I assume the opposite and am therefore using a repugnant extreme to test the limits of your position?

Now suppose instead of referencing Jim Crow, I used Adolf Hitler, who was after all elected in a political democracy and remained popular for some time. Would you think I was calling you a Nazi? Would you accuse me of equating Election Night with the Holocaust?

Well, maybe you wouldn't, but there are plenty who would. The moment the words Hitler, Holocaust, or Nazi come up, the assumption is that the speaker has left the bounds of good taste and rationality and slipped into the realm of hyperbole and name-calling.

In Internet culture, there is even a name for this phenomenon: Godwin's Law, which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is also the tradition online that once such a comparison is made the discussion is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

The tradition is not limited to the Internet. In the fall of 2003, the following exchange took place on the public radio interview program, Fresh Air:
Grover Norquist: "[S]ome who play at the politics of hate and envy and class division will say, 'Yes, well, that's only 2 percent,' ... [but] that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. 'I mean, it's not you, it's somebody else.'"

Terry Gross: "Excuse me. Excuse me one second. Did you just compare the Estate Tax with the Holocaust?"

Grover Norquist: "No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."

Terry Gross: "So you see taxes ... the way they are now [as] terrible discrimination against the wealthy comparable to the kind of discrimination of, say, the Holocaust?"

After that show, I stopped listening to Fresh Air. I used to love Terry Gross, and I'd never heard of Grover Norquist before that interview, but no matter how you feel about the morality of progressive taxation – or of taxation in general – it should be obvious to any thinking person that Norquist was challenging the stated moral logic of a position. He was claiming an underlying principle that an action's ethical status isn't determined by the number of people it affects. But Gross was reading his challenge as a comparison of policies – equating the Estate Tax with the Holocaust.

Search Google on the terms Norquist and Holocaust and you'll find plenty of people who share Terry Gross's interpretation of that exchange. (One of them even posted to the Mises Blog in reaction to a Lew Rockwell post.)

At the time, I wrote an angry rant about the Norquist interview, to which one reader replied, "Well, yes, but the speaker may reasonably be expected to have used the example he did because of the emotional effect of linking these two particular concepts."

Is this an objection? If so, what does it mean? Is the claim that referencing Hitler is illegitimate in principle, or that from a pragmatic point of view, it's bad strategy?

The only reason I can see for calling it illegitimate in principle is the implicit claim that all such references are examples of the Appeal To Emotion fallacy, where one abandons reason and appeals instead to visceral reflexes. But is it always fallacious to appeal to emotion? It's invalid as an argument, and it's invalid if it's expected to conclude the argument – and perhaps this is how it's most often used – but the appeal to emotion can also be used to confront someone with the logical consequences of their stated principles.

It is true that if you support "majority rules" as some sort of moral principle, you must also support Hitler's rise to power. If you think Hitler's power and policies were wrong no matter how many people supported them, then you can't take a principled stance in favor of majoritarianism. At best, you can only support it as a general strategy.

If you still think that democracy is a moral system, then you have to deal with the cases of Jim Crow and Adolf Hitler and decide how and why they aren't part of what you mean. If you think it would be OK to target a policy at 2% of the population that would be wrong to target at 52%, then you have to give some account of why the numbers are relevant – and your explanation had better apply as well to the historical hard cases as it does to the present context you have in mind.

OK, you say, so maybe a reference to Hitler isn't illegitimate, but it's still a bad idea. It derails the discussion rather than moving anything forward.

Suppose we're having the majority rules debate and when I bring up the popular election of Hitler, you say, "I understand that you're making a formal comparison, but I think it's counter-productive to bring up the Nazis; there's just too much ugly emotion tied into that for me to deal with it rationally."

That certainly sounds reasonable, and perhaps if Terry Gross had said something similar to Grover Norquist I'd still be one of her listeners.

But I think even the bad-strategy argument is wrong. The whole point of referencing Hitler is to force you to test your principles in the extreme cases, and for most people, Hitler is as extreme as it gets. If we disallow reference to Hitler, it can only be an acknowledgement of the extreme position he holds in our moral imagination. But by banishing the extremes from rational discourse, we make it too easy to settle our beliefs with the comfortable cases, never having to follow positions through to their logical conclusions.

The attempt to apply logic to a disagreement is always based on formal parallels. Their purpose is to separate the underlying principle from the distractions of particular circumstance. Sometimes this involves finding less emotional examples, and sometimes it requires more emotional ones.

Sometimes they're good parallels ("So if you were the breadwinner, then it would be OK for me to do all the housework?"). Sometimes they're bad parallels ("If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?"). And sometimes they're absurd parallels ("Hitler was a vegetarian, you know! You wanna be like Hitler?"). People who can't tell the difference have no business taking offense at what they don't understand.

Think of a reference to Jim Crow, Hitler, Stalinism, Pol Pot – whoever or whatever is your most effective symbol of political evil – as a rhetorical shortcut to the reductio ad absurdum. The question is this: are you willing to stand by your logic when I apply it in the extreme? That is absolutely not an unfair question. If the history of the 20th century teaches us anything, it's that these extreme cases are relevant. They do happen. And they not only can be part of a rational conversation about political principles, I would argue that they should be.

June 23, 2005

Apparently, you can't read, Ravenshrike, or at the very least, you can't comprehend what you read. Nowhere in his statement does Durbin come anywhere close to the "US soldiers=Nazis, Soviets, etc." equation. He notes that the actions against prisoners in US control are similar in kind (although not frequency) to those used against prisoners in those other regimes, and not to put too fine a point on it, he's exactly right.

The sorts of treatment prisoners at Gitmo, at Abu Ghraib, and at Baghram among others is of the same kind as was received by prisoners in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and other repressive regimes around the world in the past. Have we done it to the same degree? No. Have we done it with the same frequency? No.

But is that really good enough?

No.

What's good enough is that we don't do it at all. To quote Republican Senator Lindsey Graham after the first Abu Ghraib pictures were released, "if we're going to be the good guys, we have to act like we're the good guys." What's going on in Gitmo and elsewhere puts the lie to the idea that we're a moral and upright country. Moral countries don't excuse this kind of shit. Moral people don't excuse it.

Maybe you do. If so, then that's between you and your conscience. If you're religious, then it's between you and your god. But in my eyes, anyone who condones the torture of another human being is lower than scum. Only you can know if you fit that description.

(See--I didn't insult you either.)
*FLORT*
:)