PDA

View Full Version : Detainee Interrogation Rules - House Committee



Gayle in MD
05-09-2008, 11:42 AM
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=564119912

This video, of the testimony regarding the many surrounding issues about Bush's use of torture, the Geneva Convention, and the wide ranging legal issues, including opportunities which other nations can, and accodinging to these scholars, likely will lodge against George Bush, et al, torturers, is very informative, in case one has any interest in learning about the crimes committed, and the possible consequences which may likely come about, in the future.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-09-2008, 01:09 PM
Who do you include in "et al"?

Could you give us a short list?

Would it include Nancy Pelosi?

Hillary Clinton?

Jay Rockefeller?

Ted Kennedy?

John Kerry?

If not, why not?

LWW

Bobbyrx
05-11-2008, 09:19 AM
Where is the outcry from these "scholars" about the group of people cutting off prisoner's heads, shooting them execution style, cutting off arms, fingers and feet, electrocuting them via their genitals, etc........There is none. Why? Because their only agenda is the U.S. And where exactly does the Geneva Convention come into play?

pooltchr
05-11-2008, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is the outcry from these "scholars" about the group of people cutting off prisoner's heads, shooting them execution style, cutting off arms, fingers and feet, electrocuting them via their genitals, etc........There is none. Why? Because their only agenda is the U.S. And where exactly does the Geneva Convention come into play? </div></div>

The Geneva Convention only comes in to play when all parties accept it. The first time they beheaded a prisoner (on video tape, no less!) they lost any right to be treated any differently than they have shown they will treat us! We are fighting an enemy that has no moral obligations. Why are we supposed to be held to a different standard. There are no rules in the war on terror....the terrorists themselves made that perfectly clear.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-11-2008, 06:29 PM
You are quite wrong, as The United States signed the Geneva Conventions Agreement, and among other things, it includes a right to legal representation, and a trial. Bush doesn't want that to happen because he will be revealed for the inhumane, torturing thug that he is.

Torture is something which no human being has a right to do to another human being, and our country, like it or not, has been tremendously damaged because we had the misfortune of having leadership which is about as democratic, and human, as the very terrorists which we all so abhor. Once you bcome no better than your enemy, you've lost.

No one is arguing for terrorists who behead people to recieve good treatment, the point is that the United States has lost its moral authority, and is now hated all over the world, particularly by muslims who have seen photos of muslims, naked, in a heap, detainees, being humiliated, and waterboarded, and terrified by dogs.

People were tortured, who were not terrorists. There have been absolutely no terrorist plans, uncovered, nor attacks diverted, by the use of torture which this administration has used on people who are not terrorists. Further, it has been proven that torture does not provide anything of value, except that the victim will say anything to end the torture, and hence, John McCain signed a confession when he was a prisoner of war.

Waterboarding is torture, and George Bush has committed torture by redefining the definition of torture. He is a war criminal, as is Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all their legal advisors who juryrigged legal terms and conditions in an effort to provide them with a lame excuse to commit inhumane activities. We are human beings, first, and foremost. We have lost our morla authority, thinks to Christian Repbulicans.

Gayle in Md.

As usual, you react emotionally, from a radical point of view, and without any study applied to the issue being discussed.

Gayle in MD
05-11-2008, 06:33 PM
Why don't you google it, and read it for yourself.

The whole world is outraged over actions taken by terrorist, scholars, and many others, where have you been? That still does not givve us the right to go out and inadvertently capture innocent people, imprison them, give them no access to legal representation, and/or torture them, according to the Supreme Court.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-12-2008, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are quite wrong, as The United States signed the Geneva Conventions Agreement, and among other things, it includes a right to legal representation, and a trial. Bush doesn't want that to happen because he will be revealed for the inhumane, torturing thug that he is.

Torture is something which no human being has a right to do to another human being, and our country, like it or not, has been tremendously damaged because we had the misfortune of having leadership which is about as democratic, and human, as the very terrorists which we all so abhor. Once you bcome no better than your enemy, you've lost.

No one is arguing for terrorists who behead people to recieve good treatment, the point is that the United States has lost its moral authority, and is now hated all over the world, particularly by muslims who have seen photos of muslims, naked, in a heap, detainees, being humiliated, and waterboarded, and terrified by dogs.

People were tortured, who were not terrorists. There have been absolutely no terrorist plans, uncovered, nor attacks diverted, by the use of torture which this administration has used on people who are not terrorists. Further, it has been proven that torture does not provide anything of value, except that the victim will say anything to end the torture, and hence, John McCain signed a confession when he was a prisoner of war.

Waterboarding is torture, and George Bush has committed torture by redefining the definition of torture. He is a war criminal, as is Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all their legal advisors who juryrigged legal terms and conditions in an effort to provide them with a lame excuse to commit inhumane activities. We are human beings, first, and foremost. We have lost our morla authority, thinks to Christian Repbulicans.

Gayle in Md.

As usual, you react emotionally, from a radical point of view, and without any study applied to the issue being discussed. </div></div>
As usual you are a wild eyed partisan who is using these alleged victims merely as a prop.

If for once you would scold the dems who wanted even harsher methods used you would have a semblance of credibility on the issue.

You don't. You won't. You haven't.

That exposes quite clearly that your real issue isn't what's being done but how many twists you must put in your rants to arrive at B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!

LWW

Bobbyrx
05-13-2008, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you google it, and read it for yourself. <span style="color: #FF6666">I have thank you </span>

The whole world is outraged over actions taken by terrorist, scholars, <span style="color: #FF0000">??? </span> and many others, where have you been? <span style="color: #FF6666">I've been right here reading how the whole world is outraged at Bush and how he made the poor little terrorists what they are. I'm sure if Nick Berg were your son you would say the same thing </span> That still does not givve us the right to go out and inadvertently capture innocent people, <span style="color: #FF6666">we don't target innocent people yet they do, thats the difference </span> imprison them, give them no access to legal representation, and/or torture them, according to the Supreme Court. <span style="color: #FF6666">Let's take a poll. How many of the prisoners we have want to be sleep deprived, stripped and embarassed and I'll even throw in waterboarding (not to mention sheltered, fed well, allowed to practice their religion, etc) or have their heads cut off with a dull knife?</span>

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Deeman3
05-14-2008, 07:33 AM
I guess discriminating people will take the dull knife every time!

jayalley
05-14-2008, 07:41 AM
Oh, great. Another lecture on ethics and morality for the benighted from our guardians of social conscience.

What would we do without Lefties?

cheesemouse
05-14-2008, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jayalley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, great. Another lecture on ethics and morality for the benighted from our guardians of social conscience.

What would we do without Lefties? </div></div>I think the better question is 'what did you do without lefties?'....Let's see since you and yours got control of congress/supreme court& the presidency in 92 you dived head first into the federal money pit like snorting pigs $hitting all over yourselves as you went. Now the gig is up. We lefties gave you the rope and you hung yourselves with it, sorry about your luck. Enjoy the next couple decades...:)

eb_in_nc
05-14-2008, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jayalley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, great. Another lecture on ethics and morality for the benighted from our guardians of social conscience.

What would we do without Lefties? </div></div>I think the better question is 'what did you do without lefties?'....Let's see since you and yours got control of congress/supreme court& the presidency in 92 you dived head first into the federal money pit like snorting pigs $hitting all over yourselves as you went. Now the gig is up. We lefties gave you the rope and you hung yourselves with it, sorry about your luck. Enjoy the next couple decades...:) </div></div>

Yeah, if the lefties do win, we get to look forward to taxation out the ying yang and having government involved in all aspects of civil and corporate affairs. Sounds nice doesn't it? I kind of missed the days of Jimmy Carter blundering about helping the Sandinistas rise to power in Nicaragua, and promoting the spread of communist revolutions and instability throughout Central America, resulting in an influx of millions of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. I'm sure this gives all of us comfort.

Deeman3
05-14-2008, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jayalley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, great. Another lecture on ethics and morality for the benighted from our guardians of social conscience.

What would we do without Lefties? </div></div>I think the better question is 'what did you do without lefties?'....Let's see since you and yours got control of congress/supreme court& the presidency in 92 you dived head first into the federal money pit like snorting pigs $hitting all over yourselves as you went. Now the gig is up. We lefties gave you the rope and you hung yourselves with it, sorry about your luck. Enjoy the next couple decades...:) </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Cheeze,

IN a way, you are right, we deserved much of this. I don't think adding taxes to the pig trough or even defending the earmark spending of the democrats is a way to hold that fort for long. It even appears, and I may be overlooking things here, that all the excitment over the potential replacement for Bush is over the candidate that has no chance now of winning the Democratic nomination. At the same time, she is battering her opponent in a very odd fashion and, in fact, doing much of the Republicans work for them. Ina few months she has turned this into a racial debate (intentional or not) and that seems to be a plague on the house of Obama he may not be able to heal.

Yes, the Democrats will come together, but alienating the vast toothless white majority can't bode well for him later this year.

I think its high time we all admit we have a house, senate and administration full of oppportunistic idiots and the democrats have put up two of the weakest, most divisive candidates they could have chosen. I think the overconfidence in the poor numberrs of GWB have caused the left to swell their chests without noticing the even worse numbers for the house and senate. While there is poor leadership at the White House, there is absolutely none at the Senate!

"What color curtains will I want?" </span>

eg8r
05-14-2008, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think its high time we all admit we have a house, senate and administration full of oppportunistic idiots and the democrats have put up two of the weakest, most divisive candidates they could have chosen. I think the overconfidence in the poor numberrs of GWB have caused the left to swell their chests without noticing the even worse numbers for the house and senate. While there is poor leadership at the White House, there is absolutely none at the Senate! </div></div> You are absolutely correct.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 10:37 AM
WE captured people by the thousands in Iraq, that were not guilty of anything.

The issue of torture is about innocent people, being captured, some tortured, held without legal representation, and as the British Law Professor stated in his testimony before the House, dozens were tortured, and according to him, no terrorist attacks were prevented, as Bush has lied about for years.

I really don't care about your denyial of the facts, since I don't think you are informed, but the pictures from those prisons have been a huge recruiting tool for terrorists, acc ording to our own Intelligence, and according to every single general and admiral that has testified.

Deny it all you want, that doesn't change the facts. Torture, according to every senior military spokesman, does not work. Bush, tortures them until they provide statements that will color his torturous policy as a success. Since all the military spokesmen agree that people will say whatever their capturers want them to say in order to end the torture, including John McCain, who signed a confession to end his own torture, I don't think handing terrorists their most valuable recruiting tool proved to be a successful policy. Those horrendous pictures will be around for a long time, and according to Professor Phillipe Sands, along with our own National Intelligence Estimate, terrorists have used that information, and those pictures, to further their very successful recruitment efforts. This entire effort in Iraq has made everything worse, and even former President Bush's own cabinet, have stated so.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 10:44 AM
This will be a very bad election for the Republicans, Deeman. They are already losing seats in areas where they have never lost them. They are also unable to raise the kind of money that Democrats are raising.

I think many Democrats are very proud that their party has two candidates, a black man, and a woman, who have captured the interest, and attention of voters to such a large degree, and both of whom have a very good chance of winning the presidency.

Also, all poor people aren't toothless, nor are all West Virginians, nor are all those people who can't afford to go to college. When it comes to teeth, Condoleeza Rice is proof that wealth and a great education does not provide one with enough common sense to go to a dentist and get their two front teeth bonded to cover up a huge gap that looks like a missing tooth. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-14-2008, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will be a very bad election for the Republicans, Deeman. They are already losing seats in areas where they have never lost them. They are also unable to raise the kind of money that Democrats are raising.


Gayle in Md. </div></div>

I believe I read today that the DNC has a war chest of about $5 million while the RNC has built up about 6 times that amount. Hillary is in debt to the tune of about $20million with her campaign, and now it looks like Obama is leaning toward joining forces with her to raise money.

I'm not sure the Dems are in as good of financial position as you might think.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-15-2008, 07:46 AM
Link Please, not what I'm reading at all. Republicans are losing traditional Republican seats. The News media has reported throughout the Primaries, the inability of the Republican Party to raise money. As usual, you focus in on Hillary's money issues, but fail to recall McCain's complete ineptitude in handling his own money early on in his campaign. You might just want to read the NY Times today, rather than what I'm sure is probably a Republican right wing rag.

You can save yourself from trying to point out each puffed up partisan morsel of information that you think you've come across, to me. You don't get it, do you...my only issue is getting our people out of Iraq, I am quite sure, with 81% of Americans believing that this country is going in the wrong direction, and Republicans trying to distance themselves from George Bush, a failing foreign policy, gas through the roof, only the rich getting richer, Reagan's amnesty coming home to roost, and corporate bail outs for predatory lenders, billions in subsidies for big oil, as Americans struggle to fill their gas tanks, and economy sliding into a rut, and deficits soaring, I have nothing to worry about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Deeman3
05-15-2008, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This will be a very bad election for the Republicans, Deeman. They are already losing seats in areas where they have never lost them. They are also unable to raise the kind of money that Democrats are raising. <span style="color: #FFCC66">

Yes, the money is the thing, right? </span>

I think many Democrats are very proud that their party has two candidates, a black man, and a woman, who have captured the interest, and attention of voters to such a large degree, and both of whom have a very good chance of winning the presidency.

<span style="color: #FFCC66">They certainly don't look like a proud party, throwing insults and bringing up the race issues to damage the candidacy of their black guy. </span>

Also, all poor people aren't toothless, nor are all West Virginians, nor are all those people who can't afford to go to college.

<span style="color: #FFCC66">You and Hillary must hang with a completely different group of West Virginians than I have seen. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Of course, Hillary being from Wheeling, would know more than I. </span>

When it comes to teeth, Condoleeza Rice is proof that wealth and a great education does not provide one with enough common sense to go to a dentist and get their two front teeth bonded to cover up a huge gap that looks like a missing tooth. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> Gayle, shame on you, using a race based insult of her natural cultural teeth to belittle her. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif She has obviouly not had the advantages you have been afforded as a white woman in this country.</span>

</div></div>

eg8r
05-15-2008, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think many Democrats are very proud that their party has two candidates, a black man, and a woman, who have captured the interest, and attention of voters to such a large degree, and both of whom have a very good chance of winning the presidency. </div></div> What a laugh. LOL. So a few months ago you act like it does not matter who the dems put up for election they will win because the whole world hates W. Now that viewpoint gets skewed a bit to try and give credibility to two of the worst candidates the Dems could have chosen at such an important time for them.

You are the biggest flip flopper this board has ever seen. You make kerry proud.


eg8r

eg8r
05-15-2008, 07:58 AM
She likes to talk about all this money that the Dems are raising but she quietly ignores the fact that Hillary is in debt to the tune of $20 million. There is no reason to discuss finances with gayle, she does not even understand the difference between profit and profit margin.

eg8r

eg8r
05-15-2008, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might just want to read the NY Times today, rather than what I'm sure is probably a Republican right wing rag.</div></div>LOL, crazy steve why aren't you reading the left wing rags?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-15-2008, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gayle, shame on you, using a race based insult of her natural cultural teeth to belittle her. She has obviouly not had the advantages you have been afforded as a white woman in this country.

</div></div>

LOL, Deeman, I'm glad you don't lose your sense of humor in the midst of such a stressful time for your party. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif I never knew the walrus/vampiare look was an ethnic phenomena! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Deeman3
05-15-2008, 09:46 AM
I do think too much is being made of the personal foibles of all the candidates in this election and it is certainly drawn across party lines as usual.

It is a stressful time for the Republicans and it should be. If they continue to act like Democrats in spending they deserve ever los they suffer. If Obama is elected and does not outspend the present administration, the democrats have a chance to govern for a while. If they simply replace waste on military and business/farm/energy with waste on ineffective social programs to pad their votes, they will again pay the price they did in most of the elections since Carter.

I would ike to think anyone, Obama or McCain would engender real change but I don't see it. If it conmes down to protecting America, I think McCain gets the nod but, surprisingly, aside from the addition of cripling taxes that he might add, Obama probably can do as well as McCain in that arena.

If, on the other hand, the withdrawal form Iraq lets fundamentalists concentrate on attacking American agin, even the Rev. Wright can't help the Democrats.

I, for one, as I have said, will give whomever a fair chance, pantsuit or not. I do think the personal attacks on McCain will throw much of the needed middle class hard working whites over to McCain if the far left is not careful.

Gayle in MD
05-15-2008, 10:30 AM
Dear Deeman,
As you know, I do not find it at all logical to think that fighting in a civil war in Iraq prevents another 19 or 20 terrorists from attacking us again. I think they remain focused on hating America, and that the attack will come eventually. I have other thoughts about why that probably won't happen until Bush is out of office, but I don't think you would find them plausable.

I can only say that while I am stressed over the damage to our laws, our Constitution, our reputation around the world, our economy, the situation with foreign oil, and so many other problems which I feel have been either caused by, or exacerbated by Bush's policies, I remain completely focused on one issue, and that is getting our troops out of this multi-factioned, multi ethnic, civil war in Iraq, which I do not think has gained us a single advantage in the whole scheme of things, but think that it has hurt America, in many ways.

Other than that, I can only say that I have been heartbroken, as an American, as a woman, as a mother, and as a Grandmother, to realize the extent to which our country embraces and accepts sexism, and misogyny, which has been so painfully evident and obvious, and which I have witnessed throughout this presidential campaign. I must say, I did not realize how pervasive it is in our country, and it has been truly devastating to watch, and has made me very sad.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
05-15-2008, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dear Deeman,
As you know, I do not find it at all logical to think that fighting in a civil war in Iraq prevents another 19 or 20 terrorists from attacking us again. I think they remain focused on hating America, and that the attack will come eventually. I have other thoughts about why that probably won't happen until Bush is out of office, but I don't think you would find them plausable. <span style="color: #FFCC66"> I do know your feelings on this but don't think the Arabs would cooperate with Bush, no matter what.</span>

I can only say that while I am stressed over the damage to our laws, our Constitution, our reputation around the world, our economy, the situation with foreign oil, and so many other problems which I feel have been either caused by, or exacerbated by Bush's policies, I remain completely focused on one issue, and that is getting our troops out of this multi-factioned, multi ethnic, civil war in Iraq, which I do not think has gained us a single advantage in the whole scheme of things, but think that it has hurt America, in many ways. <span style="color: #FFFF00"> If it has hurt America that much, the next president will probaly get us out. Obama is a few weeks and McCain in a few years.</span>

Other than that, I can only say that I have been heartbroken, as an American, as a woman, as a mother, and as a Grandmother, to realize the extent to which our country embraces and accepts sexism, and misogyny, which has been so painfully evident and obvious, and which I have witnessed throughout this presidential campaign. I must say, I did not realize how pervasive it is in our country, and it has been truly devastating to watch, and has made me very sad.

<span style="color: #FFFF00">I know this has hit many older women very hard, but, younger women and people in general see Hillary and what she represents as a pretty old take on the liberation of women, whatever the case really is. These young women are doctors and lawyers, like my kids and they don't see why a woman can't be president but more identify with the Obama message, than Hillary.

I do agree with you more than you might think here especially on why can't a woman be a tough bitch and get elected? I mean, if McCain is a tough bastard, he will get points for that. By the way, it has been democratic women who have labeled her with that work, in Newsweek and Time. i.e Tina Fey, etc.

I don't believe that Hillary is the last great hope for a women president and that the right candidate will get a very large vote from all. Hillary just has a very large viel of distrust all around her, some caused by her associations but much by her own hand. </span>



</div></div>

LWW
05-16-2008, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jayalley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, great. Another lecture on ethics and morality for the benighted from our guardians of social conscience.

What would we do without Lefties? </div></div>I think the better question is 'what did you do without lefties?'....Let's see since you and yours got control of congress/supreme court& the presidency in 92 you dived head first into the federal money pit like snorting pigs $hitting all over yourselves as you went. Now the gig is up. We lefties gave you the rope and you hung yourselves with it, sorry about your luck. Enjoy the next couple decades...:) </div></div>
What?

Don't you know Jimmuh Cahtuh won the Cold War and brought about economic prosperity unlike anything the world has ever seen?

Stick around and see what some of our friends believe.

LWW
Yeah, if the lefties do win, we get to look forward to taxation out the ying yang and having government involved in all aspects of civil and corporate affairs. Sounds nice doesn't it? I kind of missed the days of Jimmy Carter blundering about helping the Sandinistas rise to power in Nicaragua, and promoting the spread of communist revolutions and instability throughout Central America, resulting in an influx of millions of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. I'm sure this gives all of us comfort. </div></div>

LWW
05-16-2008, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think many Democrats are very proud that their party has two candidates, a black man, and a woman, who have captured the interest, and attention of voters to such a large degree, and both of whom have a very good chance of winning the presidency. </div></div> What a laugh. LOL. So a few months ago you act like it does not matter who the dems put up for election they will win because the whole world hates W. Now that viewpoint gets skewed a bit to try and give credibility to two of the worst candidates the Dems could have chosen at such an important time for them.

You are the biggest flip flopper this board has ever seen. You make kerry proud.


eg8r </div></div>
Go back to the pre war days and read some of her support for the war and firm belief that Saddam was a monster and a menace ... of course her DNC handlers were stilling telling her that then.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-16-2008, 10:49 AM
I think Republicans have acted like Republicans. I don'd think it's fair when they show their colors, to try to frame their spending and borrowing, waste and corruption, with a Dmocratic label.

As far as Hillary goes, everything I was reading and hearing about her performance iin the Senate, from both sides, had been glowing, as to her bi-partisan efforts, her work ethic, and even her likability, once people got to work with her, and know her.

I do agree that her reputation was heavily damaged as First Lady, but as far as I know, nothing was ever proven, and she throughout was said to have cooperated completely with the investigations. One could make a big deal about missing papers, but she did come up with them, and while her excuse of ifnding them right on her nightstand, wasnot accpeted by those bashers from the right, as a woman who reads a great deal, and is involved running three businesses, it made perfect sense to me, as I have searched many times for papers, only to find them right under my nose.

I believe that Republicans were furious about Bill Clinton winning the election, and that it set into motion some of the nsatiest, most outrageous kinds of attacks, and investigations, that I've witnessed. I can recall, wehn Clinton was driving the point across non stop, about terrorists, and Saddam, and he was accused of wagging the dog by the Republicans. As it turned out, we learned that most of what Saddam had left was actually destroyed during his Desert Fox operations, and he did so without any boots on the ground, and Bush I had also decimated enough of Saddams power, although was smarte enough not to render Iraq completely defensless against Iran.

Whatever anyone thinks about Bush, it cannot be denied by any reasonable thinking person, that he had hurt America, in many ways, and assisted the goals of our enemies. His illegal Occupation was un-necessary, as Saddam was not an immediate threat, and the condition of the country was such that investigators stated that no one really knew before how decimated Iraq's infrastructure was, or how well sanctions were working, until we occupied.

Now, we are paying bonuses for people to go there and fight, and paying bonuses to people who killed our troops to stop killing them, and Maliki, is kissing and holding hands with Ahmadinejad, while terrorist rogues expand in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the location that should have been our focus throughout these past five horrible years.

That Bush's foreign policy has failed, is a fact, which cannot be denied, and that he created false intel, is also a fact, that we are worse off for his policies is evident, and that McCain will continue on a losing path, also evident.

Now we have Bush in Israel, bashing Obama, for doing exactly what his own administration is doing, talking with terrorists, in Iran, North korea, Syria, even Gates, and all former Bush I National Security people have stated that we should be engaged in talking with our enemies. Yet, this completely illogical accusation is continually thrown at Democrats, that they are terrorist lovers, and weak on foreing policy, when they agree with Bush's efforts to engage our enemies.

It is this kind of lying that REpublicans do which I feel is at the heart of the divisive actions they take, which divide our country.

What Bush did in Israel, was far worse than Jimmy Carter, making an effort to bring about communications between the two countries which are at the heart of much of the strife in the Middle East, yet he is crucified for it, when he never went there with any intention, or actual result, of bashing America, or Bush, but only as a man, working for resolution between warring nations. He was not asked not to go, and IMO, the administration set him up, went along with it, so they could use it to bash Democrats. Bush goes to Israel, and uses the moment, to accuse Obama, of being soft on terrorists. Bush did something that is completely unacceptable, AGAIN, by bashing the American policy makers of the future, on a foreign stage. It goes against over sixty years of American foreign policy.

People can say what they like, but no, I do not think that Democrats behave in the same way that Republicans do. Yes, they are not void of the human faults, affairs, bribes, in the name of the love of money, politisizing for election purposes, but their mis-steps are not damaging to America, and do not have the politics of personal destruction label, which has come to identify the Republican party, and I think they have shown that with over sixty percent of Americans, demanding impeachment hearings, the damage to our country would not be worth the effort, once the effects of the negative results, at such an important time, came home to roost.

Republicans of the Clinton Administration, did not show the same restraint, pre-911, which could have made a huge difference in terms of the inevitable terrorist attack, on 9/11.

Bush's detainee interrogations actions, and torture policy, maust and will be addressed, and also the administrations secret government, missing e-mails, politisizing the department Of Justice, using the federal offices, for political purposes, breaking the law of the Hatch Act, the Geneva Conventions, Spying on AMericans, illegally, and lying to the country about Iraq, saddam, and the WMD's that didn't exist, blaming the very people who warned them that they were not telling the truth, and were going into a mess, which they would regret.

Now, in spite of the fact that our young and brave, are still giving their lives and limbs for a failed policy, which has made everything worse, they are refusing to end this fubar in the Middle East, pl;aying politics, in the same way the Lyndon Johnson played politics, when all knew that Vietnam, was a lost cause, a militarily un-winnable war, just like this fubar in Iraq. And we justify all of this loss of American blood, and treasure, with the words....WHAT WILL THE TERRORISTS SAY ABOUT US IF WE LEAVE!! Pure Insanity!

OMG, nothing is more disgusting than that, and a vote for McCain, is pure insanity, IMO. The man is off his rocker, to expect our country to absorb another five years of this carnage, or to think that AMericans will accept a foreign policy, that has been rpoven beyond a shadow of a doubt, damaging to American, and supportive of our enemies.


We must get out of Iraq, deal with Pakistan and Afghanistan, before it is too late, and the military has been begging for more troops in that area for five years.

We have paid a horrendous price, for the egos of the Neocons, among them, George Bush, Condoleeze Rice, and Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Feith, and the names are all too well recalled. It is time for people to go out and vote for the foreign policy that is realistic, logical, and effective, not for more of the same devastating results, and all for naught, according to our own intelligence people.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-17-2008, 10:27 AM
It isn't only about the Geneva Converntions Agreements, it is also about our own Constitution. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

The government says foreigners held outside the United States have no constitutional rights and that Congress has stripped federal courts of jurisdiction in the detainee cases.

The pending case before the court is the third time the Supreme Court has examined the rights of the detainees.

Twice before, the court has ruled against the administration. Each time Congress and the White House have changed the law in an effort to keep the Guantanamo prisoners from contesting their detention before American judges.

Our own Military made the Military decision that the Geneva Conventions applied to our actions in the War On Terror, and cases which occured in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq, were being prosecuted, by the Military.

There were fatalities, one man, called the Iceman, whose body was dropped at Abu G., had been killed through torture, by CIA agents.

There were conflices between the ruling of our own military, as to whether the Geneva Conventions applies,, and they determined that they did, while in the meantime, Bush had his office of legal counsel re-defining the definition of torture, and building a case for ignoring our Geneva convention Agreements, which the Military does not agree with.

There is a new book about all of this, by General Sanchez, which will provide you a full representation of what happened, but to cut to the crux, our own Military determined that the WOT did not cancel our international agreements, and that the former definitions of torture, were still torture.

So, when anyone tries to tell you that the agreements in the Geneva Conventions don't apply to others unless their country has subscribed to and also signed those international agreements, they are only parroting the Administrations re-writing of the definition of torture, and also of our own Constitution, which the Supreme Court has already ruled, twice, that the Administration cannot suspend Habeas Corpus.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-18-2008, 11:51 AM
What "fact" I am supposedly denying when I say that the terrorists target innocent people and we do not. Have we captured innocent Iraqi's, of course. It happens in war. But did Bush order our troops to "go get anyone you run into on the street, ship them to Cuba and waterboard them, I don't think so. What possible reason would we have for intentionally capturing innocent people?

Sid_Vicious
05-18-2008, 12:53 PM
"Waterboarding is torture, and George Bush has committed torture by redefining the definition of torture."

"Oh but Gayle,,,Bill Clinton redefined the definition of what sex is and isn't(sarcasm.)" The parallel between Bush and Bill C. is so broken, Bush killed and is still killing, KILLING PEOPLE, and all Clinton did was have a little fun, which he's known for. Death, dishonesty and Bush are all synonymous. Still I guess Bill Clinton was worse, NOT! sid

Gayle in MD
05-19-2008, 06:50 AM
There is no justifiable reason, but it happened, and wat the administration's policy, and Bush did everything he could do to keep it hidden, but those involved, military whistleblowers, spoke out against what they knew was unamerican activity, which would eventually hurt country, and it most definately has hurt the United States, since those Abu G. pictures are displayed all over the world, incite criticism, build distrust, and also build the terrorist's numbers, and causes.

Now books are being written about how those underlings who took orders, are being ruined, when the evidence shows that the orders came from the top, the White House, and the Department of Defense, IOW, Rumsfeld.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-19-2008, 04:52 PM
Yet you continue to cover up for Pelosi and crew who were in on the boarding, wanted more of it done, and wanted stricter measures used ... andthe Bush people turned out to be the voice of reason.

Be honest kiddo ... you and Pelosi don't give a rat's arse about the detainees. They are but props on a stage to you.

The hypocrisy and deceit that runs rampant here is apalling.

LWW