Bush Admin. to blame for prison abuses

[sealybobo]

1.) You're insane. Seek help. The idea that Barack Obama, awful president that he will be, is a "Marxist Muslim" cannot be held by any functioning, rational human being living in the real world. Seriously, get treatment.
2.) You clearly have no idea what Marxism is. Islamic terrorists want theocratic fascism. They support a religious, oppressive, totalitarian regime led by high priests following Sharia. That is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of Marxism.

Marxism n. the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Origin:
1895–1900; Marx + -ism

Marxism is irreligious, leaderless, egalitarian. Everything Muslim extremists don't want.

What's wrong with them wanting theocratic fascism? That's what Republicans want for us too.

 

[Xenophon]

Dems approved torture? Boy, there is some revisionist history.

Dems trying to say they didn't know is the revisionism.

And we were lied to.

bullshit, they invented the invasion of Iraq under Clinton.

Even Senate and House Republicans say they were lied to.

The guilty claim they are duped, and you buy it.

Would you care to buy a bridge to brooklyn cheap?

 

[QUENTIN]

The Democrats controlled the senate that authorized the invasion of Iraq, and were along and approved all Bush and co did, if they have a 'trial' they would have to convict themselves.

In short, not going to happen.

No it won't, for that reason precisely. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Democrats, including specifically the Speaker of The House, were briefed specifically on torture and approved of it.

They should be tried as well.

If only breaking the law were in and of itself enough reason to prosecute someone. How asinine is it that the only way to see criminal charges brought against the political elite is for a corrupt Congress to indict itself?

Can you imagine if bank robbers or drug dealers could only have charges pressed against them by their accomplices and accessories?

 

[Xenophon]

Let's put to bed the dem's claim they were 'lied too' by Bush by quoting them from BEFORE Bush:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

[QUENTIN]

Dems trying to say they didn't know is the revisionism.

bullshit, they invented the invasion of Iraq under Clinton.The guilty claim they are duped, and you buy it.

Would you care to buy a bridge to brooklyn cheap?

I do think they were duped, to the extent that they are amateurs at interpreting the documents used to sell the war and were told by professionals that they concluded something they didn't and that there was consensus when there wasn't.

They are still culpable for signing off so quickly and willingly and not doing their due diligence on such an important matter. Essentially they trusted that they were being told the truth without looking into it themselves, that's a negligent dereliction of duty, but it's also more the fault of the deceivers than the deceived.

 

[QUENTIN]

Let's put to bed the dem's claim they were 'lied too' by Bush by quoting them from BEFORE Bush:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

We did not go to war with Iraq in 1998 or 1999. We "strategically" bombed certain facilities in Iraq. Big, big, big difference. This is all about warning of the development of WMDs. It's not "He has them, we have to invade and install new government to take them out."

 

[QUENTIN]

What's wrong with them wanting theocratic fascism? That's what Republicans want for us too.

Republicans? Eh. I don't think so. That's a blanket statement I wouldn't apply.

The neoconservatives who mingle with the Christian Right? Yeah, definitely. They have very few differences with their declared enemy except the tactics at their disposal and the distance to not get their own hands dirty.

 

[sealybobo]

Dems trying to say they didn't know is the revisionism.

bullshit, they invented the invasion of Iraq under Clinton.The guilty claim they are duped, and you buy it.

Would you care to buy a bridge to brooklyn cheap?

Then our entire government is corrupt and sucks.

If that's what you are telling me, explain why you defend the GOP so adamently.

 

[Xenophon]

We did not go to war with Iraq in 1998 or 1999. We "strategically" bombed certain facilities in Iraq. Big, big, big difference. This is all about warning of the development of WMDs. It's not "He has them, we have to invade and install new government to take them out."

That sounds like an excuse, which is what it is.

Start to understand that dems and GoPers are quite similar, neither is innocent and they all suck.

Democrats knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they wern't 'lied' too at all, they hope now to escape the consequences of their actions.

But since you want more, here you go:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Xenophon]

Then our entire government is corrupt and sucks.

If that's what you are telling me, explain why you defend the GOP so adamently.

Unless i am making posts i don't know about, I don't defend the GoP adamently or otherwise.

I'm into seting and keeping the record striaght, not partisan nonsense.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans? Eh. I don't think so. That's a blanket statement I wouldn't apply.

The neoconservatives who mingle with the Christian Right? Yeah, definitely. They have very few differences with their declared enemy except the tactics at their disposal and the distance to not get their own hands dirty.

I have a very hard time differentiating between conservatives and republicans and neo cons.

From 2000-2007, they were all on the same page.

Now supposedly there's a difference?

They all voted together 90% of the time. If there is a difference, it's only 10%.

Ever hear the saying about communism? It sound good on paper, but doesn't really work the way it is written. Well you can say the exact same thing about Conservatism.

 

[frazzledgear]

George's Bottom Line

Biden not ruling out taking actions against them.

This is exactly the kind of purely PARTISAN bullshit I am sick of hearing from the left. So some rogue low level soldiers who were poorly supervised exploited their authority over prisoners and abused them for their own entertainment. They were not authorized to commit these abuses, they were not ordered to do so by their commanding officer and the first two who started it admitted they did it only when no supervisor or commanding officer was present in order to avoid detection. One person in this group of abusers claimed that an interrogator whose name he couldn't remember and only his rank, requested he abuse prisoners -a claim proven to be a lie in court. It made no sense anyway -interrogators had no authority over prison guards, could not authorize or even request any such thing and any other prison guard would have reported the interrogator for even suggesting such a thing. The guy wasn't able to identify anyone as having requested it -because none did. And a claim none of the others made at all and one he has since admitted was a lie to try and mitigate his own responsibility. Clearly these were not bright people at all since they photographed themselves committing these crimes -just like some dumb criminals in society have done as well. What they did was a crime under the US Military Code of Justice and they were charged with those specific crimes, they were convicted in military court or made a plea bargain and given prison sentences to be followed by a dishonorable discharge. The commanding officers of these criminals, including the General in charge of the prison itself -were demoted with loss of pay, fined and relieved of duty. Not one of the commanding officers EVER made the claim this was acceptable, routine practice -much less an unofficial "offical" policy originating from the Bush Administration. So that somehow means because these low level prison guards decided to commit these crimes for their entertainment its specifically the fault of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

A few years ago, the nightshift of prison guards in a state prison decided to abuse the authority they had over prisoners. I don't remember which state -but let's say it was Ohio State Prison. They ran their own little gambling ring for their own entertainment -by forcing prisoners to fight each other while the guards bet on the outcome. Their "entertainment" was carried out secretly and with the intention of preventing other shifts, supervisors and the warden from finding out. Eventually these crimes were discovered. The entire night shift of guards including the supervisor were fired, the participating guards were charged with crimes and convicted in court. The warden in charge of the prison was also fired.

So why didn't the Justice Department go after the governor of Ohio and charge HIM since the governor is the ultimate law enforcer of the state and the state prison system is under his ultimate authority? And why not go after Bush for it as well since he is also the chief law enforcer of the entire nation? Same "logic" says both the Ohio governor and Bush are also responsible for prison guards deciding to commit a crime against prisoners in a state prison -if Bush is actually responsible for the personal decision of prison guards to commit crimes against prisoners in a foreign military prison. In both cases, the prison guards knew it was a crime to commit those acts -and did it anyway.

War, no war, stationed in the US or out of country is all irrelevant. So is the fact that it involves crimes against Iraqi civilian prisoners instead of committing it against Iraqi civilians who were not prisoners. The decision by individuals to commit acts they knew all along were crimes for which they would be punished if caught is unrelated to the specifically authorized interrogation techniques the left objected to. THAT is the real reason the left wants to pretend that Bush is "responsible" for this as well. A stupid notion that since he authorized the use of waterboarding with specific terrorists, that somehow means it so damaged morale of all soldiers nearly none of whom knew anything about it anyway -that they took it to mean he authorized the generalized abuse of all prisoners, military and civilians prisoners alike, by anyone in the military who just felt like doing it. Bullshit.

Waterboarding, which was only authorized with certain high level terrorists, is something the left insisted was "torture". Waterboarding by specially trained interrogators (who had to endure being waterboarded as part of their training -its "torture" if done to a terrorist but not torture when done to our own military personnel?) as a means of getting important information in order to prevent further attacks has nothing to do with low level prison guards deciding to take pictures of themselves humiliating, abusing and degrading Iraqi civilian prisoners. Those prison guards knew they would get in trouble if their activities were discovered -and they did. They weren't applauded for it or excused for it by the military -and certainly not by Bush.

A handful of lowlife idiot criminals like that can more than undo all the good done by the tens of thousands of other military personnel who work hard to build good relations and maintain a high reputation of the US military with regard to how it treats Iraqi civilians and Muslims in general. But then, so can a single asshole reporter deciding to "report" his own made-up lie about how US guards at Gitmo tore up a Koran and flushed it down the toilet, huh?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Republicans? Eh. I don't think so. That's a blanket statement I wouldn't apply.

The neoconservatives who mingle with the Christian Right? Yeah, definitely. They have very few differences with their declared enemy except the tactics at their disposal and the distance to not get their own hands dirty.

I have a very hard time differentiating between conservatives and republicans and neo cons.

From 2000-2007, they were all on the same page.

Now supposedly there's a difference?

They all voted together 90% of the time. If there is a difference, it's only 10%.

Ever hear the saying about communism? It sound good on paper, but doesn't really work the way it is written. Well you can say the exact same thing about Conservatism.

Would anyone care to offer an opinion of which one of these two is the more pathetic imbecile?

* "Quentin" was upset and apparently feels that I have unfairly characterized her position; and that my argument amounts to little more than 'name-calling' (which is always the refuge of the idiot)... Now Quentin THAT was 'name-calling'... what the above post reflects is belittling of two sub-intellects, of which you're one. I didn't address your argument because it lacked anything of substance from which one might otherwise mount an analysis... It amounts to little more than an insipid screed of inane drivel and that which rests within the baseless variety. In short... you're a dumbass. << (That's a point of fact and shouldn't be construed as 'name-calling.'

I hope that helps...

 

[DiamondDave]

They could very well be the SAME imbecile!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

They could very well be the SAME imbecile!

Hmm... well that takes 'pathetic' to a whole other dimension... now doesn't it?

 

[Shadow]

They could very well be the SAME imbecile!

I was going to say the same thing

 

[sealybobo]

I was going to say the same thing

I see 3 jackoffs back to back to back.

 

[QUENTIN]

Would anyone care to offer an opinion of which one of these two is the more pathetic imbecile?

* "Quentin" was upset and apparently feels that I have unfairly characterized her position; and that my argument amounts to little more than 'name-calling' (which is always the refuge of the idiot)... Now Quentin THAT was 'name-calling'... what the above post reflects is belittling of two sub-intellects, of which you're one. I didn't address your argument because it lacked anything of substance from which one might otherwise mount an analysis... It amounts to little more than an insipid screed of inane drivel and that which rests within the baseless variety. In short... you're a dumbass. << (That's a point of fact and shouldn't be construed as 'name-calling.'

I hope that helps...

Know any "Quentins" who are women? Then why would you say "her position"? I noticed you referred over and over to Noam Chomsky as a woman too. At first I thought you were just really, really ignorant and had no idea who the premiere intellectual of the last 50 years was, which fit in with the rest of what you had to say. But wait, is referring to men you disagree with as "her" your cute attempt at humor and derision? If so, you may enjoy jungle gyms, squirt guns, and eating glue but you probably shouldn't be allowed on the computer by yourself.

Now, name-calling is indeed the refuge of the idiot, that's the one point you're right on.

Otherwise, what you say about the substance just isn't true. You insist on using the phrase "Marxist Muslim" again and again to refer to both jihadist radicals and Barack Obama. Radical Islam is in fact theocratic fascism and Barack Obama is neither a Marxist nor a Muslim (he's a Capitalist Christian).

The ONLY way you could believe either of parties are Marxists or that Barack is a Muslim if if you believe in the most factually-devoid, crazy rantings of the truly extreme, darkest fringes of the far, far right wing. Not even the people who are for bombing abortion clinics and outlawing homosexuality, more like those who want to declare war on other races and religions and make America "pure." These are the only sources that misidentify Obama as Muslim. These are the only sources that could ever be so incredibly, ridiculously ignorant as to think that Islamic jihadists and Marxists are anything but direct and almost exact OPPOSITES, that the phrase is a contradiction in terms and oxymoron. The only sources except you.

I offered a DICTIONARY DEFINITION of what a Marxists is and pointed out how all of the central tenets and goals of Marxism directly conflict with the central tenets and goals of Islamic terrorists. This is the very essence of a substantive comment with factual basis. Refuting this in some way would be an argument. Childish name-calling is not and characterizing it as lacking substance or base is just a bold faced lie. You can't claim definitions aren't accurate descriptors and the definition contradicts what you keep saying, as does reality.

 

[sealybobo]

Know any "Quentins" who are women? Then why would you say "her position"? I noticed you referred over and over to Noam Chomsky as a woman too. At first I thought you were just really, really ignorant and had no idea who the premiere intellectual of the last 50 years was, which fit in with the rest of what you had to say. But wait, is referring to men you disagree with as "her" your cute attempt at humor and derision? If so, you may enjoy jungle gyms, squirt guns, and eating glue but you probably shouldn't be allowed on the computer by yourself.

Now, name-calling is indeed the refuge of the idiot, that's the one point you're right on.

Otherwise, what you say about the substance just isn't true. You insist on using the phrase "Marxist Muslim" again and again to refer to both jihadist radicals and Barack Obama. Radical Islam is in fact theocratic fascism and Barack Obama is neither a Marxist nor a Muslim (he's a Capitalist Christian).

The ONLY way you could believe either of parties are Marxists or that Barack is a Muslim if if you believe in the most factually-devoid, crazy rantings of the truly extreme, darkest fringes of the far, far right wing. Not even the people who are for bombing abortion clinics and outlawing homosexuality, more like those who want to declare war on other races and religions and make America "pure." These are the only sources that misidentify Obama as Muslim. These are the only sources that could ever be so incredibly, ridiculously ignorant as to think that Islamic jihadists and Marxists are anything but direct and almost exact OPPOSITES, that the phrase is a contradiction in terms and oxymoron. The only sources except you.

I offered a DICTIONARY DEFINITION of what a Marxists is and pointed out how all of the central tenets and goals of Marxism directly conflict with the central tenets and goals of Islamic terrorists. This is the very essence of a substantive comment with factual basis. Refuting this in some way would be an argument. Childish name-calling is not and characterizing it as lacking substance or base is just a bold faced lie. You can't claim definitions aren't accurate descriptors and the definition contradicts what you keep saying, as does reality.

I swear it seems like they are avoiding the question when they do this. They'll never just answer the question.

 

[garyd]

Sorry Chomsky would be the premier pseudo intellectual of the last fifty years.

Almost anytime the man speaks outside of his field - linguistics- you are all but guaranteed to be listening to balderdash.