Far Left Furious Over Obama’s About-Turn on Abuse Photos
The president made the right decision — but the pitchfork crowd isn't happy.
Until recently, the Department of Defense was set to comply with a 2003 request from the American Civil Liberties Union which would have required the United States to release a “substantial number” of photographs — there are reportedly upwards of 2,000 — depicting the abuse of detainees at military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama, having already released the so-called “torture memos” from the Bush era, initially flirted with the idea of allowing the release of these photos, as well — that is, until the institutional realities of his office got the best of his conscience.
In justifying his reversal, Obama correctly stated, “The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. … In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.” This turnaround was both prudent and perspicacious, and should be commended.
Dishearteningly, however, the far left’s reaction to Obama’s reversal has been ultra-politicized and just short of maniacal. Barack Obama is usually commended for his “intellectual flexibility” and knack for changing his opinions based on changed circumstances. But not this time. From the ACLU to leftist politicians, from op-ed columnists to netroot groups and activists, the message is loud and clear: the photos should be released, regardless of the consequences. ACLU Director Anthony D. Romero, who helped lobby for the release of the photographs under the Freedom of Information Act, declared that President Obama would “betray” our principles if he did not allow the publication of the photos, preventing us from “[reviving] our moral standing in the world.”
But is this really so? These photos were taken four, five, and six years ago; most of them are from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in 2003-04. They were not released then because their content is either no different or less jarring than the photographs leaked to the press at the time. Their release today, six years later, would achieve absolutely nothing of significance, other than weakening our national reputation and, more importantly, further jeopardizing — unnecessarily — the lives of innocent American servicemen and women. Our soldiers already have a tough job under hard conditions in several war theaters. We need not make their jobs more difficult and more perilous.
The Guardian, for instance, admits there is a “risk the pictures might create another backlash in the Middle East,” but then calls for their release nonetheless! The Los Angeles Times, as well, calls for Obama to release the photos, all the while confessing that making them public would likely put Americans abroad at risk. As the Times puts it:
The release of dozens of new, graphic images of detainees being abused by their American captors would almost certainly reignite international rage. It could lead to an angry backlash in the Middle East and to more jihadi recruits, as the Abu Ghraib photos did in 2004. It could even lead to new outbursts of violence at a moment when the Obama administration was finally hoping to put the last eight ugly years behind us.
Cenk Uygur of the Huffington Post offers a similar opinion. I have spoken with Uygur before on his radio program and he seems quite reasonable, despite his overt leftism. His show, The Young Turks, is often witty and entertaining. But his editorial on this issue exemplifies the dual capriciousness utilized by likeminded people: on the one hand, highfalutin self-righteousness (more like national-righteousness) with an unrealistic barometer of morality and conduct; on the other, a total lack of seriousness and disregard for direct effects and immediate consequence.
“If there’s a real journalist in this country, they will get their hands on those pictures and release them to the world,” Uygur states. “We did what is in those pictures. The longer we cover it up, the more culpable we all become. Not showing the pictures doesn’t make the reality of what happened go away,” he concludes, seemingly unaware of the natural trajectory of his logic, i.e., all wartime atrocities should be, or at least will be, subsequently exposed and publicized in an exploitative manner.
Perhaps the Pentagon should release dozens of photographs of dead Iraqi children, who were inadvertently killed by American bombs some years ago? Maybe photos should be taken and released of dead Iraqi innocents, who were killed on Dick Cheney’s orders? “We did what is in those pictures,” after all. We killed those civilians, did we not? In other words, the United States must air its sins “to the world” or else the collective “we” are consequently “culpable.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Nicholas Guariglia is a foreign policy analyst and columnist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He is a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and blogs at WorldThreats.com. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
82 Comments
1. Marina:You found “The Young Turks” “quite reasonable” and “entertaining”? Wow. Last year I gave the program a chance. First it was like: where did this guy wash his brain? Then it was an urge to take a shower and finally, when I was about to through up, I just said: o.k. thanks, I’ve heard enough.
The guy is neither smart, nor reasonable. But I agree, he SOUNDS like one. His argumentation comes from the same old communist propaganda as that of the rest of the libtards. Nothing new, nothing original. Only this time the “Dear Party” has an “eastern” face. People thinking in stereotypes got so used to see such people as savages that they believe if they put a tie on one we’ll consider him smart alone for this. Aparently it works from time to time: Oh, he’s so clean and articulated! Very sad.
May 19, 2009 - 4:08 am 2. KenJ:Obama’s change of mind was because, as you state, he is a “flexible pragmatist”. That is not how they would characterize Bush. Everything I see in the media that favors Obama one has to wonder how they would have treated Bush. They tore him apart for things they willingly condone with Obama. How the MSM can change their tune with a little twisting of words. How can they have any pride at all in what they do? Few of them seem to have any character at all. It is beyond disgusting.
May 19, 2009 - 4:40 am 3. Barb:I think Obama would love to release those photos, however, he wants to look like a good guy, who cares about the well being of our troops. He is hoping to let imaginations run rampant instead.
May 19, 2009 - 5:11 am 4. Bilgeman:Mr. Guariglia:
“This was a liability President Obama wisely did not want to take on, with potential blood he did not want on his hands. It was the correct decision, a no-brainer. The bottom line is the release of these photos would have resulted, and still may result, in more dead American soldiers. How someone could grant that premise and then make the political case that their release should still be allowed is an ethical duality beyond my comprehension.”
Oh, it’s within comprehension alright. The only question is if they didn’t “read the memo” from the Alleged Hawaiian, of if they did.
Did it escape everyone else’s attention that this story about these alleged photos of prisoner abuse all of a sudden “got legs” after former VP Dick Cheney challenged the Obama Administration to release the results of the EIT program, rather than just the selective release of the DoJ memos?
The allegations by Cheney that we may have averted a terror attack against LA have gone exactly nowhere, MSM-wise, a big deafening yawn; but all of a sudden pictures that may be 5 or 6 years old are a “Stop The Presses!” scoop.
The issue of the release of the photos is Obama’s counter-move to Cheney’s challenge. He’s had to back-stop his position since he’s seen Pelosi “go suicide-bomber” denying that she was fully briefed, and kept mum, about the EIT.
This is Obama running scared, and using “dirty pictures” to try and blackmail Cheney into silence.
May 19, 2009 - 5:29 am 5. Lynn B.:If what the CIA and the Gov did saved one American life, I just don’t care who was humiliated. Barking dogs, underwear on the head, bugs in rooms and even water boarding is just fine with me. I consider what jihadists do to their prisoners, and video it for the world to see, and have zero problem with the US humiliating any of them. Does anyone on the left remember the kidnapped aid workers from various countries who were really tortured and beheaded? Does anyone think about the school girls having acid thrown on them? Leftists are intelligent lite.
May 19, 2009 - 5:56 am 6. JOHN B:When will the MSM show the pictures or videos of the people being beheaded by the terrorists.
May 19, 2009 - 6:11 am 7. David Thomson:Barack Obama is probably hoping the left-wing dominated courts will “force” his administration to release the pictures. Our troops will be stabbed in the back. Obama knows that it is often best not to directly champion his various issues. He will instead try to get left-wing judges do his dirty work.
May 19, 2009 - 6:37 am 8. Kevin:The key will be how the Administration/Justice Dept. argues the case as they appeal the court decision that the pics are to be released. It looks more like Obama is hoping the courts will eventually solve his delimma. This way he looks as if he actually cares about national security but the loons get theirs too.
May 19, 2009 - 6:43 am 9. BC:I suspect that Jon Stewart got it exactly right last week when in a bit labeled “Moral Kombat” he goofs on Obama by acting out Obama’s possible reaction to being handed all the photos.
While Obama had been only a junior senator and so not privy to a lot of highly classified stuff, that he was evidently not shown or told of the extent of prisoner abuse until after he took office indicates that it is/was really, really bad news (otherwise he would have been at least partly briefed on them as the President-elect).
The telling bits and pieces that can be found regarding what was really going on at the US detention centers do not exactly conjure up a good image of this country. Whether you’re left or right — it’s one thing to blame Bush (deservedly so), but you don’t really want your country to look like a phony, holier than thou, brutal hypocrite. The photos here, from a leak in 2006, probably hint at what Obama was handed (be warned if you haven’t seen them already — they have some bad stuff made a lot worse by the context):
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Australian_TV_station_releases_new_Abu_0215.html
As far as criticism from the left goes, the ACLU is just being, well, the ACLU — love them or hate them, they are of a single purpose and vision they rarely compromise on regardless of context or circumstances (something the RINO bashing conservative “purists” should bear in mind — do they really want to be the right-side version of the ACLU?)
And the other lefties slamming Obama as being some sort of traitor to the cause? They are just as stupidly wrong as the numbnuts on the right claiming that somehow this vindicates Bush’s policies — no. Obama, like any sane person, would probably just as soon erase every decision that Bush made after the Afghanistan invasion (which even our worst enemies would admit to being a fair cop), but the reality is that Obama was handed the keys to the big car after the US had already rampaged down some dark streets and left a lot of consequences behind.
Most likely he’s just trying to owe up to at least some of the mistakes made while finding the best and easiest route back to the right (so to speak) road that we should be on.
May 19, 2009 - 6:54 am 10. Bilgeman:BC:
“The photos here, from a leak in 2006, probably hint at what Obama was handed (be warned if you haven’t seen them already — they have some bad stuff made a lot worse by the context):”
These were leaked in 2005…that’s 4 years ago.
Why is this news today in mid-2009, again?
May 19, 2009 - 7:11 am 11. sheesh:5. Lynn B.: . . . “If what the CIA and the Gov did saved one American life, I just don’t care who was humiliated”
This is the ultimate conceit of the right . . . it’s you calling it “humiliation” . . . it’s Ann Coulter calling it “fraternity hazing” . . . it’s Sean Hannity calling it “dunking your head in water” . . . it’s none of those things . . . it’s torture we’re talking about . . . and torture is illegal . . . and waterboarding is torture . . . . why else would Bush et al have to gin up supporting legal opinion to pursue it?
Look, if you want to say torture is OK in defense of America, then say it, and argue for the defense of the people brought up on charges for doing/ordering it. But we don’t see that courage from the right. All we hear is their typical chickenhawk cowardice about “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
And who’s the poster boy for refusing to stand up for what you say or believe? Sean Hannity. If you’re confused or conflicted at all about why the left has no respect for the opinions and proclamations of the right, look no further than Hannity – he epitomizes the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy of conservatives at their worst.
May 19, 2009 - 7:15 am 12. typos_R_us:The Usurper changed his mind because he had to. Remember, he is NOT a legal President. To be legal requires satisfying 3 conditions;
Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
The third is winning 270 Electoral votes. The Usurper meets the age requirements and did really good with the Vote counting, but sadly seems to have been born in Kenya, which makes him ineligible to be POTUS. He offered a forged birth certificate to gain credentials to run for the Senate. That Birth certificate wasn’t examined that closely, since being a natural born citizen wasn’t a requirement for being a Senator. When challenged in court to produce his real birth certificate, the Usurper delayed the challenge until the Clinton appointee that sat in judgment reversed his ruling against the Usurper. Meanwhile there is mounds of evidence that supports the claim he was born in Kenya. lots of eyewitness stuff, but no “smoking gun”
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
No hospital in Hawaii has any record of him or his mother.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=5829
May 19, 2009 - 7:21 am 13. LynnS:The government of Kenya ( Ambassador to the US) claims he was born there. His birth place is already a tourist attraction. Add to this eyewitness testimony from relatives that witnessed his birth and there is a legitimate question about his eligibility for the office or President.
I would guess that the CIA has managed to find that smoking gun. Maybe his Kenya Birth certificate with his tiny little foot print on it. That would be one ‘ell of a smoking gun. Big enough so that when one of the mid level GS’s (16 to 18 would be about right for this sort of thing) dropped a copy of that birth certificate on his desk in the oval office and said, ‘publish those pictures and we publish this one’, the Usurper, being a Chicago sort of guy who had his house sort of paid for by a guy who is now doing time for corruption (no sorta at all on that one), said ‘Deal’. And that is how Chicago, and now the White House works. If you don’t think the CIA won’t bribe or blackmail a President, you need to read William R. Corson’s “The Armies of Ignorance”. The CIA not only knew JFK was boffing Marylin, they had glossy 8×10’s in color. That is why the CIA got away with trying to assassinate Castro without any heads getting rolled at Turkey Run.
The CIA got to do what it wanted, JFK got to bump uglies with Marylin. Sounds like a win-win deal to me.
The problem with the photos will be the same problem Obama has with transparency. It is ’selective’.
I find it very disheartening that suddenly Obama is concerned for the ‘troops’ safety. Really? Over one hundred days in office and it took him that long? Sorry, but if he wasn’t as a two year Senator and before that a politician in Chicago ‘concerned’ for the safety of the troops long before he became President, then I don’t buy this new improved concern. Does this mean they deserve our concern now that “HE” is president.
I read on a military blog long before the Abu Ghraib story broke where war prisoners were exposing themselves and masturbating in front women military personnel at Guantanamo. It quickly disappeared just like the photos of the people who jumped from the World Trade Centers rather than burn alive vanished.
It’s called selective truths. Whatever furthers your agenda is selected to further your agenda. I think it is a game that citizens of the United States have seen politicians play before. Do they think we are stupid? Yes I think they do.
I would like to give this new administration the benefit of the doubt but like some other commenters, there is a seed of doubt that grows quickly, leaving me thinking that ‘his concern’ is for himself.
May 19, 2009 - 7:49 am 14. Sebastian Shaw:The far Left is always furious about something.
May 19, 2009 - 7:51 am 15. Roland:What I want to know is how people like Cenk Uygur think they’ve been given the moral authority to determine what needs to be published and what we need to atone for as a nation.
These people live in a fantasy land and are never in any sort of danger because they’ve grown up coddled in middle to upper-middle class families…have never had to sweat for any of the money they have and have never had to fear “bad people” hurting them because of where they live. They certainly won’t put their @ss on the line to defend the country in ways that really count. People like him look down on anyone in the military so why would they care what consequences their demands might bring as long as they can sleep at night.
May 19, 2009 - 7:55 am 16. Barry 0351:The pitchfork crowd want Bush and Cheney’s head on a pike the pitchforks don’t care how many democrats go to the gallows with them, of course the democrats being just as guilty as the republican’s don’t want to open up that can of worms.
May 19, 2009 - 8:12 am 17. BC:To Bilgeman: Apparently they were first leaked to the public February 15, 2006 via a broadcast on an Australian TV network called SBS.
As far as their relevance as news today goes, the situation is that what SBS got is only a part of what is in the entire collection. Whether there is even worst stuff that wasn’t already leaked, one can only guess, but judging from Obama’s actions and behavior, I’m guessing that the worst stuff has indeed not come out so far.
May 19, 2009 - 8:18 am 18. jw:I believe that these photographs were used in evidence by the Pentagon when it was prosecuting the wrongdoers. So much for the motives of those who want the photographs released. (I believe that Bernardine Dohrn is on the board of directors of the ACLU.)
May 19, 2009 - 8:35 am 19. Bilgeman:#17 BC:
“As far as their relevance as news today goes, the situation is that what SBS got is only a part of what is in the entire collection.”
Okay…but it’s more of the same stuff we saw the first go ’round so far. It isn’t news anymore.
“Whether there is even worst stuff that wasn’t already leaked, one can only guess.”
That’s right…we CAN only GUESS, but meanwhile the hothouse frenzy that is being whipped up by people who seem to intimate that they’re NOT guessing is doing a wonderful job of making everybody forget all about Cheney’s challenge to reveal to the American public what was gained by the EITs.
And being of a deeply cynical and suspicious nature, I suspect that THAT is the point of this exercise. Covering the Alleged Hawaiian’s ass from the crack he put it in by releasing the DoJ EIT opinion memos.
“…but judging from Obama’s actions and behavior, I’m guessing that the worst stuff has indeed not come out so far.”.
How VERY convenient for him and his allies, huh?
It stinks like last week’s fish, I tell ya.
Y’know what?
Release ‘em all…we can take it.
But FIRST dish on whether waterboarding those wretched goons in Guantanamo,(which I hope we haven’t forgotten is nowhere near Iraq or Afghanistan, as I think some would like very much to conflate), really DID save the nation from another terrorist attack.
That’s a “call”.
Put the cards on the table, Mr. Obama. Enough your cutesy-poo bullsh!t.
May 19, 2009 - 8:39 am 20. 1GooDDaDDy:My answer to libtard trolls, spewing libtard troll “talking points” on conservative web sites.
It’s not to make them talk, but get them to please FTFU.
http://www.screencast.com/users/GooDDaDDy/folders/Jing/media/6578d5be-a4e2-4832-9d48-d4c22dead60b
Works for me.
Not Over.
May 19, 2009 - 8:43 am 21. Retep:11. sheesh
May 19, 2009 - 8:46 am 22. shaui-jan:Waterboarding is torture? Really? By who’s definition? Yours?
In 2006 the Senate rejected a bill that would have made waterboarding torture. If waterboarding was already torture, why would your democrats submit that bill?
#9 bc. the aclu is being the aclu….not even close.straight from the horse’s mouth.http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
May 19, 2009 - 8:48 am 23. Войска ПВО:you cannot cherry pic what liberties you want to protect.like any smart statist,they hide behind the constitution when it benefits them.the aclu was started by a socialist and this is just the latest and more glaring example of their hypocricy.
#5 lynn b.not all people who are against EIT’s are leftists,alot of conservatives are too.you seem to be assuming that everyone we got our hands on were terrorists(highly doubtful).i am hoping though,we have some filtering processes in place(polygraphs,voice stress analyzers,etc.)to limit the amount of mistakes made.
when pundits and others gloss over what is really going on…they are making matters much worse.the american people need to understand what is really at stake…
it seems to be the same path we followed with the soviet union,’these guy are bad…godless commies!’without explaining what truly made them dangerous.so far what i have witnessed has been alot of’bread and circuses’.it might be that the american peoples’ attention span is just too short.
9. BC writes:
“The photos here, from a leak in 2006, probably hint at what Obama was handed (be warned if you haven’t seen them already — they have some bad stuff made a lot worse by the context)..”
Hey! How’d they get pictures of my fraternity hell week?
May 19, 2009 - 8:48 am 24. Ms. Attitude:There are many videos taken from security towers at our bases in Iraq that show the native men having sexual relations with farm animals. And we disrespect them, how?
BC, those pictures are of military abuses not interrogation methods.
May 19, 2009 - 9:00 am 25. donttreadonme:SHeesh,
May 19, 2009 - 9:07 am 26. Ms. Attitude:your cognitive dissonance is amazing. You whine about the semantics of “enhanced interrogation techniques” instead of “torture.” I’ll grant you that – but you better get your lefty head around the terms “partial birth abortion” and “cap-and-trade” which to most Americans not of Communist disposition means “baby killing” and “energy tax.” As for torture, I am all for it. If it comes down to a jihadi who wants to kill me for being lovable me, then pull his fingernails out with pliers on closed circuit television for all I care. I guarantee you that if it was your family under the gun, and a jihadi held the cards, you would damn well torture him endlessly to save your loved ones. Climb down off your moral authority high-horse, big boy.
22. shaui-jan
The men held in Gitmo didn’t get there by winning a free vacation! OUR troops had to capture them in a war zone. I know many infantry men and they do not take prisoners because it is fun. There is a reason these men were rounded up and shipped across an ocean to be detained. Then they have all had a military tribunal. The ones not found worthy to be a POW held by the US were shipped back!
Maybe our troops should shoot to kill and forget about taking POW’s. It would be a lot easier on our troops and we wouldn’t need to ask them any questions! Wrong place at the wrong time sounds like a mistake you shouldn’t make in a war zone!!
May 19, 2009 - 9:08 am 27. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: As the Blogfather Puts It…
Who are the ‘rubes’?
They are the stupid idiots that voted for a proven liar who would throw ANYONE under the ‘bus’.
And that came out BEFORE the election.
Stupid ‘jackasses’. Every one of them. And I’ll wager that the vast majority of them graduated from high school after 1980.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 19, 2009 - 9:26 am 28. Pastor of Muppets:P.S Maybe Frank J. is right….
Retep: 11. Waterboarding is torture? Really? By who’s definition? Yours?
Uhh, how about the Bush Administration’s and the CIA’s definition, genius?
Pages 3 and 4 of Bybee’s August 1, 2002 memo show that the administration and the CIA knew that waterboarding could and did result in actual, not “simulated” drowning of detainees.
“With the waterboard, the interrogators use potable saline rather than plain water so that detainees will not suffer from hyponatremia and to minimize the risk of pneumonia.” Pneumonia is only a risk if the water is getting into the lungs. This is an admission that water is getting into the lungs. That is drowning. This is also in direct contradiction to the statement in the Bybee memo that water does not enter the lungs.
Sebastian Shaw: “The far Left is always furious about something.”
Perhaps, but at least we get furious about real issues, and not imaginary issues like “Obama takin’ our guns away!” and “Fairness Doctine takin’ our Rush Limbaugh away!”
And at least we don’t murder churchgoers and cops when we get furious.
May 19, 2009 - 9:28 am 29. shaui-jan:26.ms.attitude.understandable,but the cavalier way in which people discuss it is unsettling.one side labels everything from harsh langauge as’torture’and the other end has no problem doing anything and everything if it achieves’results.’
May 19, 2009 - 10:05 am 30. shaui-jan:here is what i consider torture;acts that drive the recipient insane or,actions that would make a mentally healthy person wish for death.do you think the methods we use on detainees fall under these catagories?i do.
if it were up to me gitmo would stay open.as i have stated before,i am under no illusions about us stopping EIT’s.i prefer that we conduct the interrogations rather than a client state.the latter is what obama has in mind,that is why he has kept quite about rendition.
as any rational person can see,with him it is all about political expediency.
28.if you would stop being such drama queen and just stick to facts….perhaps sane people might consider your point of view.
May 19, 2009 - 10:10 am 31. Bilgeman:#28 PoM:
“And at least we don’t murder churchgoers and cops when we get furious.”
Charles Manson
Jim Jones
Andrew Cunanan
Weather Underground
Black Panther Party
Nation of Islam
The MOVE
Janet Reno
Conservatives all…
May 19, 2009 - 10:20 am 32. Pastor of Muppets:But..but…but…I thought that we were all brainwashed hordes of Obamaton drones who were so enthralled with the One that we were incapable of seeing any flaw in our Messiah’s beliefs or policies?
How could we possibly then be furious with the One, according to your twisted, puerile logic?
Perhaps because you have no logic? Perhaps you’ve devolved to simply grasping blindly and wildly at any shred of information that comes your way that you could use to smear the president and/or Democrats, even if the evidence is contradictory or unfounded?
Yeah, that sounds about right.
May 19, 2009 - 10:33 am 33. shaui-jan:28. i can’t help myself… i know your unstable,but i have to call you out on this.first;how would you waterboard someone without having at least one air passage open?if you blocked them both that would be SUFFOCATION.second;high ranking democrats have been clamouring loudly for years for the return of the fairness doctrine.third;obama as well as all of the current leaders in both the house and senate has always had a huge hard on for the second amendment.this is undisputable.
the only reason they’re staying away from it and the fairness doctrine is that they are politicly unviable.they have stated this publicly many times.
THIS is why no one takes you seriously.
May 19, 2009 - 10:44 am 34. MiG18:Release the pics. Attach a photo of a dead soldier to each one. Remind the (living) solders to watch their backs for a few years. I’m sure they’ll be fine. Let the world know once again how sorry we are that we piled up a bunch of naked detainees. Beg forgiveness for some young guard whooping some tail when he had feces and urine thrown on him for no reason other than he was walking by. Remind the world that pouring water up a terrorists nose in a controlled environment is way worse than destroying the lives of 3,000 people for ideological purposes. While were at it tell Israel, sorry bud your on your own. Then sit back and watch Israel take care of the problem. (and they will)
May 19, 2009 - 10:46 am 35. Fantom:“5. Lynn B.:
Leftists are intelligent lite.”
Hey, they do their best with the two digit IQ that God gave ‘em. They are not only left on the political bell curve, but on the IQ bell curve too.
May 19, 2009 - 10:49 am 36. Blackwell:11 Sheesh: Yes, Sean Hannity is a blowhard and a GOP partisian, but labeling him as a conservative is as fecklessly indifferent to fact as defining the Catholic church by an abusive priest, all muslims by Mohammad Atta, or some strident YAFer stamping Bill Ayres or the rabid, foaming (and Sean Hannity’s superior as a blowhard) Keith Olbermann as a typical Democrat.
Back to “torture.” Would you do me the courtesy of ansering these so I can define you better as a petty partisian, a genuinely aggreived man of principle, a pestiferous person based only in current events, or somethign else:
Q: would you classify FDR and his assistants war criminals for allowing US citizens of japanese decent to be interned, and along with Churchill, for allowing the incineration of thousands of defenseless german civilians in Dresden and of japanese in Tokyo?
Q: Is LBJ a war crimnal for lying to congress about the Gulf of tonkin, allowing indisrimate use of napalm and Agent orange?
Q: Are Truman and the Joint Chiefs in WWII war criminals for using the A bomb?
(I’d ask pastor of muppets to answer but he just posts and runs away)
May 19, 2009 - 11:05 am 37. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Speaking of Purile ‘Logic’
Because, as I explained in item #27 (above), You’re a ‘rube’.
Because, your ilk are beginning to realize you’ve been sold a the proverbial ‘pig in a poke’, without examining it closely.
Fool….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Sometimes it is pleasant even to act like a fool. -- Cicero]
Oh….but you and your ilk weren’t ‘acting’……after all…..
May 19, 2009 - 11:16 am 38. Retep:#28 POM
Pages 3 and 4 of Bybee’s August 1, 2002 memo show that the administration and the CIA knew that waterboarding could and did result in actual, not “simulated” drowning of detainees.
Actual drowning of detainees? Link please.
May 19, 2009 - 11:17 am 39. jelloman5000:I appreciate the discussion regarding the EITs, and to what extent they could in fact become torture. There is a line where such methods could and do become that of torture. The so-called torture memos were an attempt by legal experts to draw just such a line that should not be crossed and to give instructions on how to stay on the right side of that line.
We can disagree on whether they drew the line correctly, much like many of us disagree on the line whereby a fetus becomes a human life deserving of all the protections therein. If only we could feel as passionately for the unborn as we do for the terrorist, that would be change I could find hope in.
As to the Geneva Convention, in regards to these detainees, it gives no protections. As enemy combatants, failing to follow the scripted rules of war, they could be shot upon capture. I believe our treatment is far superior to any given by the Geneva Convention.
Lastly, the photos in question are not from GITMO, but are mostly from Abu Grhaib and other prison facilities from the battlefront. They are more along the lines of the pictures that have been seen already, with the possibility of some being worse. The CIA memos have nothing to do with these detainees. The abuses noted in the pictures are not of abuse by the CIA , but by military personel. No one that I know of, is condoning the actions of these persons, nor of the actions they took.
I believe we can all say with one voice we disapprove of such actions. As such, I don’t see the importance of releasing photos that would not have a purpose. We’ve seen a sample of such already, and we agree it’s wrong and shouldn’t happen again. We’ve punished some of the culprits.
To what end other than to continue blame the previous administration, which did not condone these actions and sought to punish those who were responsible. Additionally, most agree that releasing the photos would put our soldiers at risk. But perhaps this is consistent with their views devaluing the life of innocents for the life of the guilty.
May 19, 2009 - 11:24 am 40. Huckaffir:Obama is just being practical and patient. The photos will eventually be “leaked” at an opportune time to a rightous journalist who will then achieve minor celebrity by protecting his “source”. All political objectives accomplished. Next.
May 19, 2009 - 11:42 am 41. Moogie:Mr. Guariglia: “President Obama, having already released the so-called “torture memos” from the Bush era, initially flirted with the idea of allowing the release of these photos, as well — that is, until the institutional realities of his office got the best of his conscience.”
No. He changed position because it was politically more advantageous, at the time, to appease one group over another. If it becomes more politically advantageous later to appease his liberal cronies, he’ll release the pictures.
His lofty conscience had nothing to do with his decision.
I noticed how off-topic the following discussion went. This is exactly the reason the issue of the Abu Ghraib pictures has come up at this time: distraction and deflection (just as #4 Bilgeman explained). The timing on this is not coincidental.
Here in PJ, we love to complain about the diversion tactics employed by the left whenever they get a little to close to the fire, and yet in this very blog’s comments section, I see conservatives being sucked into the diversion created by the trolls and engaging them in a debate that isn’t related to the point of the blog. To those who managed to stay on topic, I congratulate you!
As for the far left’s indignation at Obama for not playing their game by the rules on this one, it will be forgiven and forgotten as soon as he commences another far left policy. All will be well, and as is usually the case with the left, they will find a self-righteous moral high ground upon which to pontificate their holier than thou opinion that Obama’s decision to not release the Abu Ghraib photos was, ultimately, exactly what they had wanted in the first place. And the MSM will be there to
May 19, 2009 - 11:59 am 42. shaui-jan:advertise… er I mean report the event.36.blackwell.you made me look up a word….i hope your happy.
May 19, 2009 - 12:12 pm 43. AThinkingPerson:The Left is peeved now because TeleBama won’t release the photos? You ought to witness their frothing that the Dems voted against the funding to close Gitmo (see HuffPo or Drudge for further reading). It seems TeleBama has lost control of his Democratic Congress as they aren’t remaining in lock-step with him and his liberal agenda.
What could be next, not getting out of Iraq quickly as promised? Oh wait, TeleBama has renigged on that one too. Yep, definitely not the HopeNChange they were sold during the primary.
May 19, 2009 - 12:16 pm 44. Ms. Attitude:If every one would just admit that war is hell!! It’s a living hell.
Conservatives are NOT warmongers, we don’t like watching the coffins of our service members departing Dover for the long sad ride home. We don’t like PTSD. We don’t like our loved one coming home from war as a different person.
But you know what is worse than the conditions above? Attacks on our soil, our young children being killed, our homes being bombed.
When a group of people want to remove us from the face of this Earth, it’s smarter to go on the offense!
War is hell but our soldiers are doing a great job! Do I know that Iraq was the place to attack? Not really, but it’s kept our enemies busy.
May 19, 2009 - 12:20 pm 45. shaui-jan:hope and change:you better HOPE he doesn’t CHANGE his mind…..
May 19, 2009 - 12:50 pm 46. Pat J:“Do I know that Iraq was the place to attack? Not really, but it’s kept our enemies busy.”
Yes it certainly has. Not to mention created more enemies in the process.
May 19, 2009 - 12:54 pm 47. Phyreblade:44. Ms. Attitude “War is hell but out soldiers are doing a great job! Do I know that Iraq was the place to attack? Not really, but it’s kept our enemies busy.”
My husband, from Baghdad, assured me, “So long as they’re here, shooting at me, they’re no where near you. That’s the way I like it.”
It provided me scant comfort, trust me. But he was quite serious in his own beliefs, in taking that stand. He meant it.
May 19, 2009 - 1:07 pm 48. Pastor of Muppets:jelloman5000: “I appreciate the discussion regarding the EITs, and to what extent they could in fact become torture. There is a line where such methods could and do become that of torture. The so-called torture memos were an attempt by legal experts to draw just such a line that should not be crossed and to give instructions on how to stay on the right side of that line. “
You say that the torture memos “were an attempt by legal experts to draw just such a line that should not be crossed”, but your evidence of this is only the word of authors, who of course would offer such statements in their defense. But the evidence contradicts this. The evidence shows that the authors of the torture memos were trying to change the language of the law to make legal what was previously not legal.
“We can disagree on whether they drew the line correctly, much like many of us disagree on the line whereby a fetus becomes a human life deserving of all the protections therein. If only we could feel as passionately for the unborn as we do for the terrorist, that would be change I could find hope in.”
Why does the right wing always try to hide behind the abortion issue? You lose credibility when your response to the torture question is “How can you be against torture and be for abortion?” If you ask most people, I’m sure they are against abortion. However, that does not mean that they think it should be illegal. I myself think that abortion is awful, and that in a perfect world we would not need it; however I am also against having a federal or state government that has the authority to intervene to force a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. And I believe that the negative consequences of giving the federal government sweeping control over our bodies outweighs the consequences of allowing a woman to abort a non-sentient collection of cells that would one day become a human being if allowed to gestate.
“As to the Geneva Convention, in regards to these detainees, it gives no protections. As enemy combatants, failing to follow the scripted rules of war, they could be shot upon capture. I believe our treatment is far superior to any given by the Geneva Convention.”
Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It’s the law. It’s super clear.
“Lastly, the photos in question are not from GITMO, but are mostly from Abu Grhaib and other prison facilities from the battlefront. They are more along the lines of the pictures that have been seen already, with the possibility of some being worse. The CIA memos have nothing to do with these detainees. The abuses noted in the pictures are not of abuse by the CIA , but by military personel. No one that I know of, is condoning the actions of these persons, nor of the actions they took.
Yes, the CIA memos do have something to do with these detainees, because the abuse of these detainees was at the hands of soldiers working under CIA agents.
According to a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, reservist military police at Abu Ghraib were instructed by Army military officers and the CIA to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses” — in other words they were to be tortured until they were reduced to well-disposed porridge.
As we now understand, it was not simply the military and the CIA involved the torture at Abu Ghraib — so-called interrogation specialists from private defense contractors were hired to humiliate and break detainees as common criminals, security detainees suspected of crimes against the occupation, and a small number of suspected high-value leaders of the resistance against the occupation.
“I believe we can all say with one voice we disapprove of such actions. As such, I don’t see the importance of releasing photos that would not have a purpose. We’ve seen a sample of such already, and we agree it’s wrong and shouldn’t happen again. We’ve punished some of the culprits. “
I agree, we should not release the photos to the general public yet, because the furor that will be unleashed by them will cloud people’s better judgment. But they should be released to whatever judge/jury is responsible for trying those who authorized torture, because although we “punished some of the culprits” as you say, we have not punished those who ordered these illegal acts. We have only punished the soldiers who followed those orders.
“To what end other than to continue blame the previous administration, which did not condone these actions and sought to punish those who were responsible. Additionally, most agree that releasing the photos would put our soldiers at risk. But perhaps this is consistent with their views devaluing the life of innocents for the life of the guilty.”
You are wrong. The previous administration did condone these activities, because they authorized them. Without the consent of the administration and the assistance of the CIA, torture would not have happened at Abu Ghraib or elsewhere to the grotesque extent that it did.
But again, because you don’t have the facts on your side, you have to fall back on tired old “sanctity of life” and “support our troops” talking points to make your argument: We cannot search for the truth here because the truth may hurt our troops.
But if you care so much for the troops, then where were you protesting when Rumsfeld was devaluing our soldiers lives by sending them to war without the proper equipment? Where were you protesting when the troops were being sent into harms way before we had correctly determined the scope of Saddam’s arsenal, or the level of resistance that our soldiers had faced? Where were you when KBR was devaluing the soldiers’ lives by feeding them contaminated water and building them shoddy barracks that electrocuted them? And where were you when the military was devaluing its own soldiers’ lives by not properly diagnosing them with PTSD so that they could keep them on the battlefield?
If you truly cared about the lives of our soldiers, you would be in favor of a torture commission. A torture commission would send a message to future leaders, both Democrat and Republican, that authorizing torture will get you a big time jail sentence and national disgrace. If we create this deterrent and enforce it, than we have a much better assurance that leaders will not order our soldiers and agents to torture, and therefore there will not be any pictures of torture to enrage our enemies.
But apparently you think such a thing is just a partisan witch hunt, and that it’s enough just to punish the soldiers who were following specific orders handed down by the White House?
Perhaps this is consistent with your views devaluing the lives of our soldiers?
May 19, 2009 - 1:19 pm 49. sne:looks like a check point coming out. War in words is different when seen.
May 19, 2009 - 1:51 pm 50. AThinkingPerson:Pastor of Muppets: You are in favor of a “torture commission” for what purpose? Whom are you purporting to protect? Are you protecting soldiers by doing that? No. Are you protecting American citizens by doing that? No. More sideshow using the military and our soldiers as pawns for further political gain.
As for your litany of questions prefaced with “if you care so much for the troops…”, well, you apparently have a short memory. If you were off the bottle on 9/12 you’d know that it was BOTH Dems and Repubs that were for taking drastic measures. It’s just the democrats that are conveniently backpeddling now and trying to change what happened then (Nancy Pelosi comes to mind). Funny how liberals have totally chosen to forget about the people that died in the World Trade Centers and are so damned concerned with the terrorists rights.
You cannot have it both ways. On 9/12 were you screaming for more proof? Were you wanting to have a “torture commission” for the terrorists that beheaded Daniel Pearl? Were you wanting to send Sadam back to his Presidential post with a handslap even though he poisoned thousands of Kurds?
I’ve decided you are either suffering from selective memory or are just plain stupid. Either way it’s a disgrace to this country and our men in uniform to claim you’re anything but an apologist. Take your torture sob story to the families of the 9/11 victims and see how long they’ll listen to your liberal nonsense.
May 19, 2009 - 2:00 pm 51. shaui-jan:According to a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, reservist military police at Abu Ghraib were instructed by Army military officers and the CIA to “set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses” — in other words they were to be tortured until they were reduced to well-disposed porridge.
your powers of deduction are amazing….or can you read people’s minds?…..watch out!the DOD will kidnap you and force you into the’remote viewer’ program….then who..WHO will we mock?!
I agree, we should not release the photos to the general public yet,because the furor that will be unleashed by them will cloud people’s better judgment.
again….you need to keep your psychic powers to yourself…see above.
But if you care so much for the troops, then where were you protesting when Rumsfeld was devaluing our soldiers lives by sending them to war without the proper equipment? Where were you protesting when the troops were being sent into harms way before we had correctly determined the scope of Saddam’s arsenal, or the level of resistance that our soldiers had faced? Where were you when KBR was devaluing the soldiers’ lives by feeding them contaminated water and building them shoddy barracks that electrocuted them? And where were you when the military was devaluing its own soldiers’ lives by not properly diagnosing them with PTSD so that they could keep them on the battlefield?
that WAS impressive….why don’t you apply that standard of perfection to every war we ever fought,and see what happens…..or you can use that first class intellect and explain to me how to waterboard someone with both their air passages blocked?
If you truly cared about the lives of our soldiers, you would be in favor of a torture commission. A torture commission would send a message to future leaders, both Democrat and Republican, that authorizing torture will get you a big time jail sentence and national disgrace.
how about we’send a message’to the present administration first..gitmo’s still open right?…..let me guess..that would be rascist.
May 19, 2009 - 2:22 pm 52. Pastor of Muppets:AThinkingPerson: “You are in favor of a “torture commission” for what purpose? Whom are you purporting to protect? “
How about protecting the rule of Law, you know, the tacit agreement that holds this whole country together that if you commit a crime, you will be punished for it regardless of your status or office? How about protecting our soldiers from psychotic vice presidents and CIA officers who would command them to torture and then let them take the fall for it? How about protecting our soldiers from being forced to be involved in illegal acts that will enrage the rest of the world and cause them to be the targets of more terrorist attacks? How about protecting Americans at home and abroad from terrorists who will use photos and evidence of torture as further justification for attacking us?
Does it hurt your litle brain to consider such notions, or do you actually believe that the law is meaningless, and that once in power you can just make up the law as you go along? And do you actually believe that our use of torture has no consequence on how our soldiers are treated by both their allies as well as enemies?
And do you really think that the victims of 9/11 would be proud that common criminals were tortured in their name, or that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, a majority of them women and children, were killed in their name?
I know I wouldn’t be. I would be looking down from heaven wishing we had just gotten Bin Laden, taken out the Taliban in Afghanistan, replaced some radical mosques with McDonalds, high fives all around, and called it a day.
May 19, 2009 - 2:23 pm 53. Delia:The Democrats’ Support for Bush’s War
Obama’s extra war funding wins House approval
Everybody Wang Chung tonight! War is war and it happens under both Parties and war is ugly.
Take no prisoners. Get all the info you can out of the sleaze-balls and then behead ‘em with a dull blade so they can go out with the same ‘honor’ they do for the infidels. Ta-Da! Everybody is happy! 72 virgins for all the terrorists and hey, the terrorists are dead to boot! JOYYYYYYYYYYYY!
May 19, 2009 - 2:32 pm 54. goy:@50. AThinkingPerson: - … you are either suffering from selective memory or are just plain stupid.
Then again, there’s the ever-popular ‘too stupid to know one suffers from selective memory loss’. This condition appears to be a very popular among those who went insane the day Al Gore lost the 2000 Election by failing to carry his own home State.
May 19, 2009 - 2:41 pm 55. Bilgeman:#48 PoM:
“Ronald Reagan signed the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Torture where we committed ourselves to prosecuting people who torture. It’s the law. It’s super clear.”
I cannot vote in the United Nations, and yet the UN General Assembly makes the laws of my country.
Laws by Treaty are just another, transnational, form of tyranny. Washington warned us about these.
Which is why we have no business in the UN, and the UN should have no business here.
Be very careful, PoM, at what precedents you advocate setting, because today’s heroes can become tomorrow’s villains, and vice-versa.
And when that worm turns…and it will, then who knows what throats will be laid across the lunette, and for what.
If you wish to live under UN rule, I’d suggest a few sewers in New York City that might be to your liking.
May 19, 2009 - 2:56 pm 56. jelloman5000:#48 – POM
Understand, I brought in the abortion angle to illustrate that wherever a line is drawn, people from either side of the argument can and will disagree where to draw it. Deny the analogy, but a line must be drawn somewhere in the EIT argument. What is an appropriate technique and what isn’t? Is 8 hours of sleep deprivation ok? If so, what about 72 hours? Somewhere there is a line to be drawn. If the Caterpillar is ok, what about a rattlesnake? Do we want our men in the field making these decisions or are we better off with obtaining legal opinions prior to the need? Legal opinions were obtained so that such decisions were made outside the heat of the moment. But simply write off any interrogation other than simple question and answer sessions is of course, unrealistic and foolish.
As to the ‘88 UN Convention on Torture, read the CIA memos and show where there was a apecific violation. Congress itself debated waterboarding in 2006 and refrained from making it illegal. I understand that many good and noble people disagree with this practice, but that simply shows that there is disagreement. If we choose to, as a country move forward with the notion that it is disallowed from here on, so be it. But to push for prosecution for past occurrences would seem to come under an ex post facto determination and be unconstitutional.
As to CIA memos connection to the Abu Grhaib abuses, you must have failed to read the CIA memos in their entirety. The EITs are restricted to certain high value targets who it is believed to have vital information. The abuse photos were almost entirely of low value foot soldiers and resistance members who would not qualify for such interrogation methods. For one, it would seem that abuses such Abu Grhaib came about because some did not follow such ordered instructions as to what could and what could not be done as was contained in the CIA memos.
It is very well to investigate those prison abuses, a process that was began under the Bush administration. Once again, that has nothing to do with GITMO and the interrogations that happened there. Obama has done well in distracting the issue. We can discuss the CIA memos and the interrogation of a KSM, on which many disagree, or we can discuss prisoner abuses at Abu Grhaib et al, where most of us are of the same mind. But we cannot discuss them simultaneously, because they are completely different situations, sort of like torture and abortion.
May 19, 2009 - 4:09 pm 57. shaui-jan:‘How about protecting our soldiers from being forced to be involved in illegal acts that will enrage the rest of the world and cause them to be the targets of more terrorist attacks? How about protecting Americans at home and abroad from terrorists who will use photos and evidence of torture as further justification for attacking us’
yeah!..wha…when you say’the rest of the world’does that count the millions who celebrated in the streets as our citizens jumped to their deaths?….’enrage them even more’…..when people hate you enough to kill themselves while murdering thousands of innocents…how is it possible to get them any more ‘enraged’ than that?i am dumbfounded….you obviously have way more insight into these matters than i could ever hope to.
May 19, 2009 - 4:45 pm 58. Bilgeman:#48 PoM:
“But if you care so much for the troops, then where were you protesting when Rumsfeld was devaluing our soldiers lives by sending them to war without the proper equipment?”
I was the guy crewing the ships where that equipment was stored.
Do you think trucks, tanks and artillery pieces, fully fueled and stocked with ammunition appear on the other side of the world by magic, you simpleton?
So we have to load the materiel we have at the time we load it, and if it turns out to be inadequate to the task, then we have to dope something else out.
The usual return and back-load of equipment in the USA for the fleets at Diego Garcia (and elsewhere), is a 2 year cycle, thus in March of ‘03, the oldest equipment available for the invasion was likely loaded aboard before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 had even happened.
And at that time, the term “IED” and “roadside bomb” would have been referring to Viet Nam-era booby traps and land mines.
So, Donald Rumsfeld, (and every OTHER SecDef, past and future) should beg YOUR pardon for not having a crystal ball and correctly divining what some future enemy, somewhere, is going to gin up to use against us, right?
This slobbering dirt-merchant demands eternal perfection from every governmental official he cares to aim his keyboard at, but he wants to live under the rule of the United Nations…
Fella must be very highly edumacated to be so effin’ stoopid.
May 19, 2009 - 4:47 pm 59. Bilgeman:#52:PoM:
“How about protecting the rule of Law, you know, the tacit agreement that holds this whole country together that if you commit a crime, you will be punished for it regardless of your status or office?”
My country is the United States, not the United Nations, which wrote the “law”,(in reality, a treaty), that you are referring to.
Maybe you should consider relocating to a country that is more directly under UN rule…any number of sh!t-holes come to mind.
May 19, 2009 - 4:52 pm 60. The Historian:OBAMA ON GITMO: COMPLETE MISDIRECTION
If the left is angry about photos, how about what’s happening with their favorite terrorist detention center.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-master-of-misdirection.html
May 19, 2009 - 5:05 pm 61. Blackwell:#48 Pastor:
Ahh, you’ve been skimming again! Here’s some language from Reagan’s submission of that “super clear” UN 1988 whatever it was that no one pays attention to but us:
“In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification, The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.”
Sounds like the kind of loophole that eqates with something like this: “If we think its needed to save US citizens, we reserve the right to drip water in the nose of a non-US citizen caught doing bad things.” Super clear? No way.
#42: my bad. I’m trying to make sure Sheesh won’t confuse me with Hannity.
May 19, 2009 - 5:11 pm 62. shaui-jan:#56 jelloman5000. the US army field manual is the ‘line’ for these…. astute thinkers?treat them as prisoners of war.so if g-d forbid we have another’man made disaster’in the future…we can be secure in the knowledge that we did not give them ‘further justification’ for attacking us.
May 19, 2009 - 5:15 pm 63. typos_R_us:“This is an admission that water is getting into the lungs. That is drowning.”
PoM, when I read that I choked on my Mint Julep, getting ice, WATER and Old Charter down my windpipe and into my lungs. Am I officially “drowned”? If so I need another Mint Julep.
I’m preparing for my IQ test against Ms. Thangie. Think how bad the poor girl will fell getting beat by a dead man. Of course, now that I’m dead I can vote democratic and get a stimulus check.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks
I wonder just how big a check has to be to stimulate a dead man. Pretty good sized, I’d bet. Stay tuned, I’ll let you know.
May 19, 2009 - 5:30 pm 64. shaui-jan:POM is the text book example of what kind of person yuri bezmenov was refering to.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo he gets right on point at 1 min 55 sec. (if your too impatient to watch the first two minutes).it is fascinating to listen to him describe it…..and then read muppet’s rantings.
May 19, 2009 - 5:48 pm 65. AThinkingPerson:#53 Pastor of Muppets: You never cease to amaze me at the depths you sink to. Now you’re purporting to protect US soldiers from Cheney and Bush? Oh, that’s rich. How about I’d like to protect my future grandkids from the raping of the US Treasury by the current administration? How about a commission for that? Funny how you never mentioned how BOTH the dems and the republicans were for the war and all it entailed on 9/12. Convenient that you’ve neglected to discuss that part of my argument. Typical.
Again, you are using the soldiers and the War on Terror for political gain and it’s pathetic. The rule of law WAS followed and because the current apologist administration wants to act retroactively to further their agenda doesn’t change anything. I’m all for a FULL and open viewing of all of the information. Funny how TeleBama is NOW AGAINST it huh? Guess there’s information that doesn’t quite jive with his blow-hard stance on the primary trail. Interesting how when he finally got briefed he saw the light. Wouldn’t you agree?
Sorry, not buying your use of the US Military for political purposes. My family hasn’t died on battlefields around the world so you can use them to further your liberal agenda. Ass.
May 19, 2009 - 7:09 pm 66. Dr. Shalit:Michael Oren, the New Israeli Ambassador, was right in 2002, testifying before Congress. The USA is not BRACHIAL (Brutal Squared)enough to subdue the “Arab Street.”
Neither is Israel these days. Mark my words, just as the current Democratic Majority is overreaching their 2008 Victory, so will the Jihadists. When THAT happens, I PITY the fate of the Muslim World. That is all.
-S-
May 19, 2009 - 7:56 pm 67. Delia:65. AThinkingPerson,
I get an uber creepy vibe from a certain troll who probably has a Bert and Ernie in his closet. One minute he wavers from talking about 0bama’s ‘nether junk’ to talking about waterboarding Pelosi if it means he can throw Bush and his admin in the tank with her.
Then, he/it acts self-righteous when some people from the ‘Left’ are disappointed in 0bama as if the kool-aid kidz are not as indoctrinated as we thou—… WHAAAAAAAAA? Talk about ’spin’.
Very weird and a leetle bit skeevy.
This is what happens when people have no solid principles to stand on…they waver and waffle all over the place. What is that saying? “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything?”
Dun-dun-dunnnnnnn.
May 19, 2009 - 7:58 pm 68. emma:I have been reading posts and the comments associated with them both here and at salon.com
There are a few people at salon.com that I began by taking seriously and now scroll right by when I see their names. Here, Pastor of Muppets is someone I began by taking seriously and now scroll right through.
sheesh at least keeps it short and entertaining. he’s (she’s?) clearly deluded, but… at least it’s short and sweet.
May 19, 2009 - 9:03 pm 69. Kevin:Heck, Holder can’t even give a straight answer to what is torture. Time for a new script lefties.
May 19, 2009 - 9:24 pm 70. Moogie:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkNGZiODM0YjNmODNkMWFhZDU5Mzk2ZDMwNGRmMDQ=&w=MA==
#64 Shaui-jan: Incredible link! Thanks for providing that. I hadn’t seen it before, but it goes hand in hand with the Evan Sayet one I am constantly touting.
May 20, 2009 - 12:16 am 71. Houdini:In case anyone has problems seeing just what the kind of poeple are capable of and have done here is some rare footage of 9/11/2001
May 20, 2009 - 7:22 am 72. Ms. Attitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw
46. Pat J: That’s a false statement. We have not created more enemies. They’ve been our enemies since Biblical times.
May 20, 2009 - 7:32 am 73. Ms. Attitude:47. Phyreblade: Your husband is in my prayers.
May 20, 2009 - 7:37 am 74. David S:The impending release of photos of US detainee torture, after the ACLU’s successful lawsuit under the FOIA, have led Obama to indicate that the government will launch further appeals. This seemed to be a reversal of his expected response, and was very frustrating for those on the left who were pushing for transparency.
I have a slightly different perspective. I think Obama has made a very wise and calculated move in appealing the ruling. He has defused a great deal of criticism from those on the right by agreeing to proceed with an appeal, while at the same time the outcome will most likely remain unchanged in the end. Obama gets to have it both ways – he can act like the GOP wants him to now, and defuse their criticism, and after the appeals, the photos can be released anyway, mollifying the ACLU crowd.
This is a win-win for Obama, and a great example of how a brilliant politician can turn the tables when you least expect it. Pragmatism at its best.
Peace.
DS
May 20, 2009 - 8:33 am 75. shaui-jan:#70moogie.i have checked sayet before,he is right on the money.if you liked that clip check out his whole series.those red bastar#ds created the gift that keeps on giving…
May 20, 2009 - 8:52 am 76. Moogie:#71 Houdini: I just watched that video link you posted. My heart is still pounding from seeing all of those images and all of that devastation.
Our sense of the true evil and wickedness that was required in order to carry out these acts tends to dull over time. The horror is no longer as fresh as it was on 9/11 and for the many months following the incident. Grief did its job: helped everyone recover and move on.
But in the case of 9/11, we really shouldn’t allow ourselves to become too removed from the source of the terror perpetrated against us that day.
And this is exactly where the line is drawn between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In a civilized world, wars are fought between soldiers: each one a fighter and representative for his own country.
In the uncivilized world of Islamic extremism, which is not representative of the Muslim faith, there are no soldiers and there is no nation or country being defended or represented. There is only holy jihad.
To wish this were not so is to invite more and worse acts of terrorism against us. Those who would like to create some kind of faux reality, where the Islamic extremist is actually a civilized human being, are putting all of us at risk of further attacks.
When did the goal of the United States become so trite as to think that it’s more important for us to look like the nice guy on the block than to protect our own citizens? This great nation has kept millions of people worldwide safe from harm. We have fed, rebuilt, treated, and sacrificed the lives of our own citizens and soldiers in order to bring a better life to people all over this globe.
If they aren’t appreciative of our sacrifices, there’s nothing we can do about it. We are not responsible for their response to our generosity.
However, we are responsible for keeping our own citizens safe from harm – the obligation to ourselves far outweighs the obligation to appear “nice” to the non-American.
The need to protect this country trumps the need to worry about appearances.
May 20, 2009 - 9:49 am 77. Ms. Attitude:52. Pastor of Muppets: “I know I wouldn’t be. I would be looking down from heaven wishing we had just gotten Bin Laden, taken out the Taliban in Afghanistan, replaced some radical mosques with McDonalds, high fives all around, and called it a day.”
Oh ye of little mind. Do you realize what goes into war planning? If only it were that easy it would’ve been done! So tell me how you got the skill of blowing smoke out of both sides of your body?
May 20, 2009 - 9:57 am 78. Retep:#74 David
This is a win-win for Obama, and a great example of how a brilliant politician can turn the tables when you least expect it. Pragmatism at its best.
Peace.
DS
If the legislation proposed by Lieberman/Graham (which bans the release of the photos becuase they endanger American lives) passes Congress, will the brilliant politician sign it?
May 20, 2009 - 10:23 am 79. Chuck Pelto:TO: David S
RE: And….
….WHO did YOU vote for? And, more importantly, WHY?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 20, 2009 - 10:54 am 80. Paul -Indiana:[Who are the 'rubes'?]
#38. Actual drowned terrorists is a good thing.
May 20, 2009 - 1:45 pm 81. JED:A pragmatist is someone who is concerned mainly with the success or failure of their actions. A sophist is one who is skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
May 20, 2009 - 4:11 pm 82. Yujin:Potus wiped his fingerprints, washed his hands, from the distribution of the evidence.
It not “torture” you idiot! Chrissakes grow the heck up already!!
May 22, 2009 - 4:03 pm