A GREAT DAY, The Prez Got What He Wanted

[Psychoblues]

To:
(the formerly Honorable) John McCain
(the formerly Honorable) John W. Warren
(the formerly honorable) Lindsay Graham:

Sirs:

Words cannot begin to express my grief when I saw Tony Snow’s quote earlier today: “We got what the president asked for.”

Over the past few days, the American people, of both parties, saw a glimmer of hope amidst the darkness that has engulfed our nation. They saw three men, of stature and influence, who had finally shown the backbone necessary to say that when it came to condoning torture, THIS would not stand. Or so, for one bright shining moment, that seemed to be the case.

“We got what the president asked for.” There was a time, which now seems so very distant, that the conduct of our country was not a matter of what ‘the president asked for’, but what the citizenry demanded. Apparently, those days are now, so sadly, gone.

You will all probably admit, in the privacy of your own thoughts, that the hypocrisy of your party has been astounding. You have cried ‘Support the Troops’ from the rooftops, while you quietly stripped them of their pensions and their benefits, while you voted against funding the equipment necessary to keep them safe. You questioned the loyalty of others in respect of our fighting men and women, never demanding answers from the war profiteers who have pocketed the lion’s share of the money meant for their benefit.

You have flaunted your alleged sense of justice, while allowing political and financial corruption to run rampant among your colleagues. You have hidden your sins of avarice, arrogance and the gluttony of political power behind the mask of feigned adherence to Christian belief.

You have accused your fellow elected officials on the other side of the aisle of being spineless appeasers, while you kow-tow to every whim of this occupant of the White House, regardless of the obvious detrimental consequences to our democracy and our standing in the world.

“We got what the president asked for.” It should not have come as a surprise. When was the last time – indeed, the singular time – that this president’s demands were not met? When was there a moment in the past six years of signing statements, the unlawful usurping of powers, the unconstitutional transference of oversight of our government into his hands of those of his administration, that even one of you or your fellow Republicans stood up and uttered the single word ‘no’?

I honestly believed – very naively, it would appear – that on this one all-important issue, the repercussions of which will define our nation like no other in our history, any one of you would have finally displayed the patriotism that you are so quick to accuse others of being bereft of. But I was wrong.

I realize that appealing to your sense of decency is now a moot point, as your lack thereof has now been so blatantly exposed. But I would, this one last time, attempt to appeal to whatever modicum of humanity you have left, and request the following:

Please do not appear in public wearing American flag pins in your lapels, or agree to being photographed in-frame with a flag nor any other symbol associated with the United States of America. Please refrain from identifying yourselves as citizens of my beloved country. You no longer represent our once-lofty ideals, but instead the inhumane fanaticism of those of lesser moral fiber.

Please defer from speaking on behalf of my fellow citizens, especially those in uniform who you have now potentially rendered to our enemies to be tortured, enemies who need no longer fear retribution from we who have now lost the moral standing to object.

While you have sacrificed all other sense of propriety, at least have the decency to dissociate yourselves from the American populace whom you have betrayed.

“We got what the president asked for.” And what the president has asked for is the right to drag a once-proud nation into the cesspool of depravity, the suspension of Constitutional law to do so, and the excuse to be absolved of personal wrongdoing after the fact.

Unfortunately, you were more than happy to acquiesce. Just as you have been happy to acquiesce to every other demand made by this petulant, incompetent maniac whose evil idiocy you revere.

Of course, you do not call it acquiescence. You couch this surrender of your obligations as representatives of our democracy as ‘compromise’, in an obvious attempt to render your own participation in crimes against humanity as something borne of good intentions and reasoned debate.

You call it ‘compromise’, an historically familiar term. Just as good German politicians ‘compromised’ with the Nazis on laws that segregated, minimized, and eventually killed six million people. Just as good German citizens ‘compromised’ by swearing allegiance to a madman in order to protect their own political ambitions. Just as good German Christians ‘compromised’ their own religious morals for a chance to save their own wealth, their own way of life, their own lives. So have you ‘compromised’, and sold your own souls in the bargain.

I realize this has been a lengthy missive. I doubt you have read this far. But that is to be expected in these days, these times. We are all busy people, with little time to spare for what should be important, what should be heeded, what should be said.

You have your priorities that must be attended to, as I have mine. You must get busy convincing your fellow citizens, as well as yourselves, that you have done right by your country and its people.

I, on the other hand, have to prepare for a death in the family. You see, my country, already weakened by the deceit of its leaders, the disillusionment of its people, the despair of its citizens, was dealt a fatal blow today; she was stabbed in the back by three assailants. Chances are she won’t recover.

Suffice to say your attendance at her funeral services will not be welcome, no less required. It would be, you must agree, unseemly for those with blood on their hands to attend.

May God have mercy on the faithful departed, and on those who contributed to her untimely demise.

May God have mercy on those who condone torture, be it overt or in the guise of ‘compromise’.

May God have more mercy than I would – because I would have none.

Yours Without Even the Pretence of Respect,
Nancy Greggs
Citizen of a once Great Nation, the United States of America



Admit it. Ain't Nance the very best?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

Awwwwww...Poor Nancy...

Hey, maybe she can stow away on Hugo's plane...
She might like living in Venezuela, or she could check out Iran?
And maybe, and that's a BIG maybe, her life won't be in such distress ALL THE TIME...



Or maybe she just need's to get laid????????????????????

 

[insein]

Yea its too bad we didnt get McCain's pussyified terrorist interrogation bill. Cause now our soldiers are going to be brutally tortured when they are captured around the world. Oh wait, they already have been for about 60 years.

 

[dilloduck]

Yea its too bad we didnt get McCain's pussyified terrorist interrogation bill. Cause now our soldiers are going to be brutally tortured when they are captured around the world. Oh wait, they already have been for about 60 years.

SO true

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to insein again.

 

[Gunny]

To:
(the formerly Honorable) John McCain
(the formerly Honorable) John W. Warren
(the formerly honorable) Lindsay Graham:

Sirs:

Words cannot begin to express my grief when I saw Tony Snow’s quote earlier today: “We got what the president asked for.”

Over the past few days, the American people, of both parties, saw a glimmer of hope amidst the darkness that has engulfed our nation. They saw three men, of stature and influence, who had finally shown the backbone necessary to say that when it came to condoning torture, THIS would not stand. Or so, for one bright shining moment, that seemed to be the case.

“We got what the president asked for.” There was a time, which now seems so very distant, that the conduct of our country was not a matter of what ‘the president asked for’, but what the citizenry demanded. Apparently, those days are now, so sadly, gone.

You will all probably admit, in the privacy of your own thoughts, that the hypocrisy of your party has been astounding. You have cried ‘Support the Troops’ from the rooftops, while you quietly stripped them of their pensions and their benefits, while you voted against funding the equipment necessary to keep them safe. You questioned the loyalty of others in respect of our fighting men and women, never demanding answers from the war profiteers who have pocketed the lion’s share of the money meant for their benefit.

You have flaunted your alleged sense of justice, while allowing political and financial corruption to run rampant among your colleagues. You have hidden your sins of avarice, arrogance and the gluttony of political power behind the mask of feigned adherence to Christian belief.

You have accused your fellow elected officials on the other side of the aisle of being spineless appeasers, while you kow-tow to every whim of this occupant of the White House, regardless of the obvious detrimental consequences to our democracy and our standing in the world.

“We got what the president asked for.” It should not have come as a surprise. When was the last time – indeed, the singular time – that this president’s demands were not met? When was there a moment in the past six years of signing statements, the unlawful usurping of powers, the unconstitutional transference of oversight of our government into his hands of those of his administration, that even one of you or your fellow Republicans stood up and uttered the single word ‘no’?

I honestly believed – very naively, it would appear – that on this one all-important issue, the repercussions of which will define our nation like no other in our history, any one of you would have finally displayed the patriotism that you are so quick to accuse others of being bereft of. But I was wrong.

I realize that appealing to your sense of decency is now a moot point, as your lack thereof has now been so blatantly exposed. But I would, this one last time, attempt to appeal to whatever modicum of humanity you have left, and request the following:

Please do not appear in public wearing American flag pins in your lapels, or agree to being photographed in-frame with a flag nor any other symbol associated with the United States of America. Please refrain from identifying yourselves as citizens of my beloved country. You no longer represent our once-lofty ideals, but instead the inhumane fanaticism of those of lesser moral fiber.

Please defer from speaking on behalf of my fellow citizens, especially those in uniform who you have now potentially rendered to our enemies to be tortured, enemies who need no longer fear retribution from we who have now lost the moral standing to object.

While you have sacrificed all other sense of propriety, at least have the decency to dissociate yourselves from the American populace whom you have betrayed.

“We got what the president asked for.” And what the president has asked for is the right to drag a once-proud nation into the cesspool of depravity, the suspension of Constitutional law to do so, and the excuse to be absolved of personal wrongdoing after the fact.

Unfortunately, you were more than happy to acquiesce. Just as you have been happy to acquiesce to every other demand made by this petulant, incompetent maniac whose evil idiocy you revere.

Of course, you do not call it acquiescence. You couch this surrender of your obligations as representatives of our democracy as ‘compromise’, in an obvious attempt to render your own participation in crimes against humanity as something borne of good intentions and reasoned debate.

You call it ‘compromise’, an historically familiar term. Just as good German politicians ‘compromised’ with the Nazis on laws that segregated, minimized, and eventually killed six million people. Just as good German citizens ‘compromised’ by swearing allegiance to a madman in order to protect their own political ambitions. Just as good German Christians ‘compromised’ their own religious morals for a chance to save their own wealth, their own way of life, their own lives. So have you ‘compromised’, and sold your own souls in the bargain.

I realize this has been a lengthy missive. I doubt you have read this far. But that is to be expected in these days, these times. We are all busy people, with little time to spare for what should be important, what should be heeded, what should be said.

You have your priorities that must be attended to, as I have mine. You must get busy convincing your fellow citizens, as well as yourselves, that you have done right by your country and its people.

I, on the other hand, have to prepare for a death in the family. You see, my country, already weakened by the deceit of its leaders, the disillusionment of its people, the despair of its citizens, was dealt a fatal blow today; she was stabbed in the back by three assailants. Chances are she won’t recover.

Suffice to say your attendance at her funeral services will not be welcome, no less required. It would be, you must agree, unseemly for those with blood on their hands to attend.

May God have mercy on the faithful departed, and on those who contributed to her untimely demise.

May God have mercy on those who condone torture, be it overt or in the guise of ‘compromise’.

May God have more mercy than I would – because I would have none.

Yours Without Even the Pretence of Respect,
Nancy Greggs
Citizen of a once Great Nation, the United States of America



Admit it. Ain't Nance the very best?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Psychoblues

No pretense is right ... no pretense of being a rational, thinking human being making reality-based statements.

Rather scary that there are others like psycho out there.

Dear Nancy and Psycho,

Please leave. SOON.

signed:

The once great Nation, the United States of America.

 

[Annie]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWY0NTJhOGVjMGRkNTBkZGY1NTZkYTg4MGViY2I1ZTE=

September 22, 2006, 8:19 a.m.

The Detainee Deal: The White House Won -- and So Did McCain
With Republicans together, the pressure is now on Democrats.

By Byron York

The detainee-treatment deal announced late yesterday by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner and the White House nearly happened ten days ago. By September 13, negotiations had been underway for some time, and, according to a source aligned with the McCain/Graham/Warner camp, the two sides had basically agreed that there would be no clarification, or redefinition — depending on which side you listened to — of the Geneva Conventions. Instead, a new bill would specify illegal practices in treatment of prisoners under the War Crimes Act, as the senators had wanted.

”We were at a point where they said, ‘OK, we’ll send you language,’” says the source. “Then [National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley called and said they couldn’t do it.” The delay — lawmakers still aren’t sure what it was about — lasted until last Sunday, when Hadley ran into both McCain and Graham in green rooms before the Sunday talk shows. The men talked. On television, Hadley’s statements were conciliatory, and the negotiations started to move to a more serious plane. “We were sending language back and forth all week,” the source says. By Thursday, the negotiators spent hours in the vice president’s office in the Capitol (minus the vice president) before reaching the final agreement.

Who won? Before the final deal came out, there had been speculation that the White House had “blinked” in the much-hyped confrontation. By the end, though, representatives of both sides professed satisfaction. “I think there is every reason for both sides to be happy,” the source says. “This was a situation where both the Congress and the administration shared a common objective,” Hadley told reporters afterward. “And what we did in a fairly creative way was come up with ways that we could all support to achieve that objective.”

Is one or the other — or both — spinning? Perhaps a little, but it does appear that both sides did, in fact, get the main things they wanted. And that raises questions about whether the showdown was ever quite as fundamental as the hype suggested. The Republican “dissenters” never wanted to cripple the CIA’s interrogation program — a program hated by many of the administration’s critics on the left. Rather, they wanted to work out a way to make most of the program legal using existing American law, not the Geneva Convention. And in that, they appear to have succeeded.

GRAVE BREACHES
During a conference call after the senators announced the deal on Capitol Hill, Hadley said the proposed legislation satisfied President Bush’s number-one concern. “The president said that his sole standard with respect to Common Article III [of the Geneva Conventions] was going to be whether the CIA would be able to go forward with a program for questioning terrorists,” Hadley said. That program has “saved lives, both here at home, and saved lives on the battlefield.”

During the negotiations, Bush had issued a forceful threat to end the program if Congress did not give him what he wanted. Now, Hadley said, that won’t be an issue. “The program will go forward,” he explained, “and the men and women who are asked to carry out that program will have clarity as to the legal standard, will have clear congressional support, and will have legal protections as we ask them to do this difficult work.”

How did that come about, giving the president what he wanted while still addressing McCain/Graham/Warner’s concerns? The key to the deal was the decision to have Congress define, in U.S. law, what are called “grave breaches” of the Geneva Convention. “We recognized that the president has the authority to interpret treaties,” says the source aligned with McCain/Graham/Warner, “but Congress now has the authority to define ‘grave breaches.’” In doing so, the negotiators enumerated nine offenses that everyone agreed constituted a grave breach of the treaty: torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape, causing serious bodily injury, and sexual assault or abuse, and taking hostages.

Some are quite clear. Rape is rape, and murder is murder. But what does “cruel or inhuman” treatment mean? There was a lot — a lot — of negotiation about that. For example, the two sides haggled over the meaning of “severe mental pain” versus “serious mental pain.” The senators maintained that “serious” was the more serious term, and they won. What that will mean in practice is not entirely clear, which is probably what both sides intended.

But what is clear is that, after defining grave breaches, Congress gave the administration significant leeway to define non-grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. “Grave breaches are crimes,” the source says. “Non-grave breaches are something else….We are going to spell out grave breaches, and then it is up to the administration to come up with sanctions for violations that are less than grave breaches.”

That could include many, if not most, of the techniques that the administration has used in the CIA interrogation program. For example, both sides appear to believe that the agreement permits the CIA to continue to use sleep deprivation, cold rooms, and other such techniques. On the other hand, the status of the most notorious of those techniques, waterboarding, is not quite clear. When a reporter asked Hadley whether waterboarding constituted a grave breach under the new agreement, he answered, “We are not going to get into discussions of particular techniques.” A few seconds later, he added, “for purposes of complying with our international obligations under international law, that’s something that the president will clarify by executive order.”

For their part, however, members of the McCain/Graham/Warner camp believe that the use of waterboarding will stop. “We have a high degree of confidence that those things, going forward, will not occur,” the source says.

Whatever happens, the public will likely know about it. According to the proposed legislation, the president will define those non-grave breaches in a series of executive orders. Those orders would then be published in the Federal Register, meaning the policy would be public and subject to public scrutiny — and debate.

Affirming the president’s authority to define non-grave breaches also appears to answer White House concerns about Americans being prosecuted for actions that might constitute offenses to various world courts and human-rights bodies. The McCain/Graham/Warner side early on recognized that the White House had a powerful point when it raised the possibility, in one participant’s words, that “a liberal jurist would say that a female interrogator of a Muslim male is a grave breach.” By writing the president’s authority to define those situations into law, that possibility seems to have gone away.

So, too, has the possibility that any person will be able to use accusations of violations of the Geneva Conventions as a basis for a court action against, say, a CIA employee or the U.S. government. “There is no private right of action,” the source said. “No person may invoke the Geneva Convention or any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action against the United States.”

SECRET EVIDENCE STAYS SECRET
While it appears that most of the drawn-out negotiations concerned the grave-breaches issue, the fight was also about so-called “secret evidence” and whether it could be used in congressionally-approved military commissions. In the end, the answer is: yes. “A provision dealing with classified evidence makes sure that no sensitive intelligence will have to be shared with terrorists or their lawyers,” Hadley told reporters after the deal was announced. “The bar is very high. There will not be — the terrorists will not have access to classified information.”

But both sides agreed that there are ways, in trials before military commissions, to give defendants what Hadley called the “substance” of the evidence against them without handing over classified information. “To the extent there is exculpatory evidence that is involved, that will be provided to them, but in an unclassified form,” Hadley said. But in all cases, he added, information about sources and methods, which he called the most important issue in the evidence debate, will remain secret.

The deal seemed to satisfy Sen. Graham, who has been the leading figure in the fight over evidence. “We struck a great balance,” Graham told reporters at a news conference after the deal was made. “We need to be very clear that, in prosecuting the terrorists during a time of war, we do not have to reveal our sources and methods to protect us, our classified procedures….But if the government decides to provide information to the jury that would result in a conviction, sending someone to jail for a long period of time, or to the death chamber, an American trial must allow that person to know what the jury found them guilty of so they can confront the evidence.”

WHAT WILL DEMOCRATS DO NOW?
During the long negotiations between the Republican senators and the White House, Democrats were content to stay out of the issue, saying instead that they stood with McCain against the abuse of detainees. Now, however, there is a specific agreement, and McCain is on board, as well as Graham and Warner. What will Democrats do now?

There are early indications that some of their constituency groups will pressure them to oppose the legislation. Not long after the deal was made, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release denouncing it. “This is a compromise of America’s commitment to the rule of law,” Caroline Fredrickson, the head of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office, said in a statement. “The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a ‘get out of jail free card’ to the administration’s top torture officials, and…the president would have the authority to declare what is — and what is not — a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury.”

Late Thursday, yet another source in the McCain/Graham/Warner camp was asked whether he was concerned with the ACLU’s opposition. “Not at all,” he answered. Politically, the White House — and McCain, too, as he courts conservatives in hopes of winning the 2008 Republican presidential nomination — might be quite happy to have the ACLU against them. But for Democrats, the ACLU means a political headache.

The New York Times also joined in the criticism, not just of the proposed bill, but of Democratic passivity. “The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting,” the Times editorialized. “It’s time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election.”

Finally, early reaction from the left-wing blogosphere, a growing player in Democratic politics, was wholly negative. Not only was the deal bad, some bloggers said, but Democrats were cowardly for staying out of the debate. “McCain sells out the country and Democrats look like crap,” wrote the popular blogger Atrios. On the even more popular Dailykos site, a featured writer said that McCain and his allies had knuckled under to President Bush, and it would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to follow their lead. “That’s no compromise, all you ‘principled’ GOP rebels,” the blogger wrote. “It’s capitulation. Lay down your much-vaunted ‘integrity’ and take up your rubber stamps.”

So now, six weeks before the midterm elections, it is up to Democrats to take a position on the new detainee deal. Will they continue to stand with McCain and support the proposal? Or will they listen to their interest groups and oppose it? The answer they choose could make a very, very big difference in November.

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

 

[glockmail]

So are we allowed to waterboard or not?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

To:
(the formerly Honorable) John McCain
(the formerly Honorable) John W. Warren
(the formerly honorable) Lindsay Graham:

Sirs:



Admit it. Ain't Nance the very best?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Psychoblues

In other words, "agree with me, or you are dishonorable" coming from that "big tent, tolerant" party, the liberal dems.

 

[Psychoblues]

How do so many completely miss the point yet remain adamant in irreverance?

No, I ain't leaving the country that I have fought so hard to defend and believed so fervently the ideals that I have been taught since my birth. Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

I DEFINITELY LOVE AMERICA. I don't love WAR or the call to WAR from those that wear the badges of the unwilling to fight it themselves on their sleeves. Have you noticed any of that?

Psychoblues

 

[Eightball]

How do so many completely miss the point yet remain adamant in irreverance?

No, I ain't leaving the country that I have fought so hard to defend and believed so fervently the ideals that I have been taught since my birth. Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

I DEFINITELY LOVE AMERICA. I don't love WAR or the call to WAR from those that wear the badges of the unwilling to fight it themselves on their sleeves. Have you noticed any of that?

Psychoblues

I know you mean well, with your posts, but life's more than trying to convince everyone your right, and they're wrong.
*
Try to find some balanced articles that come from some fairly neutral sources, and then present your case. Otherwise, you lose credibility when trying to convince folks in here or anywhere that you have a valid argument or point.
*
No one in here believes that torture is an "American" thing, that must be ended. Most folks in here abhor torture as much as you do, but there is one difference. They also see the signs of the times as crucial to the survival of the U.S. as a nation. Our culture, religious values, and national respect is under attack from within, while we are being systematically attacked both on the diplomacy-side, and actual physical threats of attack too.
*
I don't desire for enemy combatant prisoners to be tortured to relieve them of information that may save American G.I. lives, but what is the alternative?

Are we, as a nation supposed to, or required to give Miranda Rights to aliens of our culture, and governmet, as though these folks hold our U.S. Constitution in awe?

First of all Psycho, the folks that want both the U.S., Israel, and most Western cultures incinerated, don't care about human rights, don't understand human rights, don't even extend human rights to their own fellow citizens, or personal familial members in most cases.

Are we supposed to sacrifice our citizens, and our defenders(G.I.'s) to the point of extinction so that we have made a point that we are a, "touchy", "feely", sensitive nation.

Your moniker, "Psychoblues", has some important significants, as psychologists, and counselors dedicate they're lives to helping bring folks back to balanced, mental, emotional, physical lives.

Most of your posts indicate a great, sensitive passion for human suffering, and that is admirable. There is one, "but", to your passion. You must balance emotional sensitivity/passion with objectivity. So far your subjectivity is very well developed, and in my opinion, over developed or used when you post. You are definitely a touchy, feely, person that can't stand to see what you perceive as human wrong against fellow humans. That's good, but it also can be a pitfall for you if you don't "season" your strong subjectivity with objectivity.

I will focus in on Merriam Webster's definition of objectivity as I am using it in this post:

Objectivity Definition: 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Your passion-loaded posts, lack the above substance, "objectivity", in my opinion. In other words, you aren't thinking-out or weighing what you say with supportive facts as a means of giving credence to your posts.

I don't agree with your political/philosophical beliefs, but I do desire to read views that oppose my own beliefs, as I don't want to go through life blinded, and in denial of what is the truth.
*
Again Psychoblues, your passion for humanity is not a negative, but without balance in the area of objective reasoning added to it, I have a very hard time accepting or considering your posts. They do come off as "hit" pieces rather than literate statements.

You want respect in this forum? Then try not to post like a, "political reactionary", reminiscent of the Red Guard, who carried their little Maoist, red books from home to home in Communist China, reeking havoc, and supporting that havoc with propaganda.
*
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

 

[Bonnie]

How do so many completely miss the point yet remain adamant in irreverance?

No, I ain't leaving the country that I have fought so hard to defend and believed so fervently the ideals that I have been taught since my birth. Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

I DEFINITELY LOVE AMERICA. I don't love WAR or the call to WAR from those that wear the badges of the unwilling to fight it themselves on their sleeves. Have you noticed any of that?

Psychoblues

I don't question your patriotism, problem is the way you want to fight war doesn't win, but you'll never admit that.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do so many completely miss the point yet remain adamant in irreverance?

No, I ain't leaving the country that I have fought so hard to defend and believed so fervently the ideals that I have been taught since my birth. Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

I DEFINITELY LOVE AMERICA. I don't love WAR or the call to WAR from those that wear the badges of the unwilling to fight it themselves on their sleeves. Have you noticed any of that?

Psychoblues

Again, since no one has ever been tortured by Americans and interogations are in no way torture your point is completely irrelevant. I am just shocked and amazed at how you are willing to libel the Americans who protect us and accuse them of torture for doing their job just so you can regain political power. Its sick and wrong. If you think that's an American Ideal. Then you my friend are messed up and arent American in the least.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't question your patriotism, problem is the way you want to fight war doesn't win, but you'll never admit that.

You might not, but i sure as heck do. Im sick and tired of people like psycho who try as much as they can to undermine American efforts to defend itself, to slander our troops, to attack America in every instance and claim they are patriotic for undermining their country. They arent patriotic. Patriotic people stand up for their nation. They dont lie, and oppose every action.

 

[Bonnie]

You might not, but i sure as heck do. Im sick and tired of people like psycho who try as much as they can to undermine American efforts to defend itself, to slander our troops, to attack America in every instance and claim they are patriotic for undermining their country. They arent patriotic. Patriotic people stand up for their nation. They dont lie, and oppose every action.

I agree, but those who have no mind left for reason don't see it that way.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How do so many completely miss the point yet remain adamant in irreverance?

No, I ain't leaving the country that I have fought so hard to defend and believed so fervently the ideals that I have been taught since my birth. Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

I DEFINITELY LOVE AMERICA. I don't love WAR or the call to WAR from those that wear the badges of the unwilling to fight it themselves on their sleeves. Have you noticed any of that?

Psychoblues

Have you ever noticed the left wing anti war libs never call it "MY" country or, OUR country, its always, "the" ???

read your own post.

 

[Stephanie]

You might not, but i sure as heck do. Im sick and tired of people like psycho who try as much as they can to undermine American efforts to defend itself, to slander our troops, to attack America in every instance and claim they are patriotic for undermining their country. They arent patriotic. Patriotic people stand up for their nation. They dont lie, and oppose every action.

I hear what your saying Avatar...This is a saying that has stood out in my mind.....


None of us should ever forget this....


"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly.

"But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

"He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

[trobinett]

I hear what your saying Avatar...This is a saying that has stood out in my mind.....


None of us should ever forget this....


"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly.

"But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

"He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Truer words were never spoken.

Seems to be a problem throughout history, does it not?

Those that profess one thing, yet in their heart work toward another.

Great post.

 

[Stephanie]

Truer words were never spoken.

Seems to be a problem throughout history, does it not?

Those that profess one thing, yet in their heart work toward another.

Great post.

I'm telling trobinett...

Reading those words, and realizing that this is what we have here in the United States of America............:tears1:

 

[glockmail]

...... Real Americans don't torture, they don't hold anybody on suspicions, they hold them based on facts and they don't lie to create wars that are otherwise unnecessary.

...

UK/BM-176 TO UK/BM-180 TRANSLATION
Lesson Eighteen
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS
IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

http://www.disastercenter.com/terror/Al_Qaeda_Manual_Eighteen_LESSON.htm

(bold added)

Pyschoblues, these fascists are required by their training to lie about being tortured. Why would you believe them instead of our troops?

 

[Gunny]

http://www.disastercenter.com/terror/Al_Qaeda_Manual_Eighteen_LESSON.htm

(bold added)

Pyschoblues, these fascists are required by their training to lie about being tortured. Why would you believe them instead of our troops?

You're kidding, right? Psychoblah is THE definition of the word "Patriot." He has served in all US wars from Korea through the First Gulf War, in ground combat, while in the USAF.

Of course, then he was never a member of a specific service, but part of them all.

He supports our troops by posting anti-Bush administration information (cuz he's the Debil:dev1: ) so us poor ignorant rednecks can be enlightened.