Bush is The Better Man
Apparently Bush took the blame for the late response to relief efforts to help people in new orleans. I was very dissapointed to hear this.
Some people will even further believe that it was his fault, and now they have proof. But Bush turned out to be the better man, and take the blame for something he did not do.
Why were the relief efforts late? The louisiana government, mainly the governor. Bush asked the governor for permission to send relief almost immediately and he said no! As to why that is, remains a mystery to me.
What on Earth is this? Please answer this. If the big bad liberals arent out to get Bush, and were sincere, why cant they see where the fault lies? Wait, dont answer, I already figured it out. Its because the liberals really are out to get bush!
Some people will even further believe that it was his fault, and now they have proof. But Bush turned out to be the better man, and take the blame for something he did not do.
Why were the relief efforts late? The louisiana government, mainly the governor. Bush asked the governor for permission to send relief almost immediately and he said no! As to why that is, remains a mystery to me.
What on Earth is this? Please answer this. If the big bad liberals arent out to get Bush, and were sincere, why cant they see where the fault lies? Wait, dont answer, I already figured it out. Its because the liberals really are out to get bush!
147 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Now the Louisiana Government who has been doing nothing, pointing fingers, making threats etc. don't get to take any credit for their actions. I wonder if someone put a mind control device in his brain that day, I mean think about it, he takes the blame, then he gives out money like a Democrat would. Weird.
So, you're saying Bush is lying? Ohmigosh!
I think that most progressives think that there were mistakes made all around. However, I'd suggest that we are concerned with the direction we're going as a nation. Our priorities are skewed towards irresponsibility.
For instance, Bush claiming we're going to rebuild New Orleans (at a cost of, what? a gazillion dollars) with out raising taxes. We'll pay for it how then? By charging it to our kids and grandkids via an increased debt? By taking away from which programs? Our military, maybe? Our schools? Where?
I, for one, am not saying that Louisiana or Mississippi people did no wrong. Neither am I saying that Bush is the devil out to kill poor folk.
What I am saying is that I think we have bad priorities that will cost us more in the long run. I won't go in to them all in this limited space, but just for an example: If we cut back on education to where fewer of our kids are graduating high school or going on to college, we'll have an undereducated and unready workforce that will cost us in the long run.
Further, some of those with poorer education will turn to a life of crime, which will further cost. Sometimes, if not always, it is cheaper to invest up front (as in a levee) than to pay after the fact.
I don't even think they should bring New Orleans back. It'll cost billions, and not very many people will go back there anyways.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You just don't get it, do you? Bush is to blame!
http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/node/3310
Bush's Disastrous Management of FEMA
At the top of hour two we [the Al Franken show] hosted Jane Bullock, a 22-year veteran of FEMA, and former chief of staff to James Lee Witt. She criticized the Bush administration's mishandling of FEMA, and noted that even before Hurricane Katrina, employee morale at the agency was at an all-time low. The problem, Bullock said, was the Bush administration's "huge lack of leadership".
It's worth repeating how well FEMA functioned under the Clinton administration. Daniel Franklin of The Washington Monthly wrote about the changes Clinton made in response to the ineptitude of the first Bush administration. Then, FEMA was "a political dumping ground, a backwater reserved for political contributors or friends with no experience in emergency management". Clinton and James Lee Witt changed that. Bush, with his now notorious political appointments of Mike Brown and others, undid their progress.
To steal a line from Howard Dean, it's Democrats, not Republicans, that keep you safe. FEMA's just one of many other examples.
Apparently Bush took the blame for the late response to relief efforts to help people in new orleans.
It was political manuvering, nothing more. He had to do something considering how outraged people are at how his administration has handled this. His "Taking the Blame" is completely hollow and meaningless. Rove is already backpeddling. I expect the investigation into what went wrong will go nowhere. We probably won't be hearing much about it unless they decide to place most of the blame on Blanco and Nagin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/17/rove-off-the-record-on-ir_n_7513.html
Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff, spoke at businessman Teddy Forstmann's annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend. Here is what Rove had to say that the press wasn't allowed to report on -- On Katrina: The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government...
Bush asked the governor for permission to send relief almost immediately and he said no! As to why that is, remains a mystery to me.
The governor is a woman, so didn't you mean "she said no" -- unless by "he" you mean Bush. Anyway, I was googling for quite awhile, but couldn't find anything about this (Blanco refusing to give Bush "permission"). Are you just repeating what you read over at gayle's blog, or can you back up this claim with a link from an authoritive news source?
In any case, Bush did not need "permission".
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0914-04.htm
The federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not the former FEMA chief who was relieved of his duties and resigned earlier this week.
As thousands of hurricane victims went without food, water and shelter in the days after Katrina's early morning Aug. 29 landfall, critics assailed Brown for being responsible for delays that might have cost hundreds of lives.
But Chertoff -- not Brown -- was in charge of managing the national response to a catastrophic disaster, according to the National Response Plan, the federal government's blueprint for how agencies will handle major natural disasters or terrorist incidents. An order issued by President Bush in 2003 also assigned that responsibility to the homeland security director.
Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo for the first time declared Katrina an "Incident of National Significance," a key designation that triggers swift federal coordination. The following afternoon, Bush met with his Cabinet, then appeared before TV cameras in the White House Rose Garden to announce the government's planned action.
That same day, Aug. 31, the Department of Defense, whose troops and equipment are crucial in such large disasters, activated its Task Force Katrina. But active-duty troops didn't begin to arrive in large numbers along the Gulf Coast until Saturday.
White House and homeland security officials wouldn't explain why Chertoff waited some 36 hours to declare Katrina an incident of national significance and why he didn't immediately begin to direct the federal response from the moment on Aug. 27 when the National Hurricane Center predicted that Katrina would strike the Gulf Coast with catastrophic force in 48 hours. Nor would they explain why Bush felt the need to appoint a separate task force.
Chertoff's hesitation and Bush's creation of a task force both appear to contradict the National Response Plan and previous presidential directives that specify what the secretary of homeland security is assigned to do without further presidential orders. The goal of the National Response Plan is to provide a streamlined framework for swiftly delivering federal assistance when a disaster - caused by terrorists or Mother Nature - is too big for local officials to handle.
...think about it, he takes the blame, then he gives out money like a Democrat would. Weird.
Not weird at all if you look at the big picture. What is Bush trying to accomplish by bankrupting the US Government (Which he definately is doing)? Eventually the Government will have to start selling off it's assets... the transfer of wealth to the top continues. If you want a complete explaination follow this link: http://fixco1.com/bushbankrupt.html
As I said before, Bush loves death and destruction. The killing started in Iraq and will most likely continue in Syria and/or Iran. Meanwhile, Bush is relaxing on vacation while hundreds die in New Orleans! All the while Bush is putting the Federal Government deeper and deeper in debt. Here's a quote I copied from another message board which explains the fall Bush is setting us up for:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?thold=-1&mode=nested&order=0&sid=20806#197741
When a country's currency collapses, triple and even quadruple digit inflation usually ensue. Wages and prices both spiral out of control, but the price increases will always outstrip the wage increases. What we're talking about here is something worse than our depression in the 1930's. Read up on 1920's Germany, or 1990's Russia.
Your assets (home equity, savings...) will be worthless. Banks will call in loans, which you won't be able to pay off, so goodbye cars, homes, plasma tvs. Your job, health care, child care all disappear. Geometric inflation. No bread or soup lines like in the '30s because there is a void of altruism and compassion in society. Property crimes will be the only way for a family provider to provide for his family. Murders committed for a twinkie.
The ultra-wealthy will sit on their solid assets in their gated, guarded, bunkered enclaves and wait it out. Millions will starve to death -- but none of the CEO caste.
And for the ultra-wealthy CEO caste this will be good because it will rid world of excess population, therefore, postponing Peak Oil (they think), and preserving the American standard of living for the blue blood gene pool.
not very many people will go back there anyways.
Huh? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Of course people will return to NO. Some people have decided not to, but they are primarily the poor.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nohouses15sep15,0,7729830.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Speculators Rushing In as the Water Recedes
Would-be home buyers are betting New Orleans will be a boomtown. And many of the city's poorest residents could end up being forced out.
The real estate agent has $10 million in the bank, wired by an investor who has instructed her to scoop up houses -- any houses. "Flooding no problem", Farris' newspaper ads advise.
In some ways, Hurricane Katrina seems to have taken a vibrant real estate market and made it hotter. Large sections of the city are underwater, but that's only increasing the demand for dry houses. And in flooded areas, speculators are trying to buy properties on the cheap, hoping that the redevelopment of New Orleans will start a boom.
Here is my major problem with the finger pointing on both sides.
Side A (lets say republican) makes the following claim: "Bush offered help to the LA Governor and she wanted to wait for 24 hours first! Bush was on the ball and the democratic governor dropped the ball! Bush is a hero!"
Side B (democrats) makes the following claim: "Bush was on vacation 3 days after Katrina demolished New Orleans - he didn't even care enough to organize any help until he was finished his vacation, even though the LA governor asked for help days in advance! Bush wants to kill everyone and revels in death and destruction!"
Obviously, both of these claims cannot both be true as the directly contradict each other. So who is telling the truth?
Something that must be realized is that there is an agenda on both sides, however to a outsider who is not on either side, here are some observations I have made:
A) Each claim comes from an opposing point of view to the other, and not unpredictably, both claims are in direct contradiction, and have clearly opposite political aims. One seeks to heroize Bush, one seeks to villanize him.
B) Most people of the left-leaning persuasion (claim #2) have sources (legitimate media, etc) to backup their claims, and freely provide these sources.
C) Most people of the right-leaning persuasion (claim #1) do not have sources, or at least are not making these sources obvious or easy to locate, which gives the impression that they really don't have any solid facts, merely opinion and conjecture based on unsubstantiated rumours.
Not saying this is necessarily the case, but this is what I am observing. If you righties out there can quote solid facts or sources to show that Bush was doing his job and did not drop the ball, I would like to see it.
My guess is that the actual truth is a mixture of the two opposing claims and it may well be that everyone involved has dropped the ball to some extent.
dkfz: you are full of BS, you need to stop listening to your beloved Al-Franken and wake up to the real world. I've made all of my points on my blog if you want the truth. but I am just sick to death about this argument. Everybody messed up one way or another. FEMA did awful, Bush was a little late. The Governer didn't give permission for the federal governments help. The Mayor didn't use the busses. And it goes on and on. Just get over it, everyone messed up one way or another.
Most people of the right-leaning persuasion (claim #1) do not have sources, or at least are not making these sources obvious or easy to locate...
Your observations are correct, but only in regards to this blog. It is run by one kid (Jayson), and frequented by another (Cody). They hear these lies -- and believe them. Most likely their parents are Republicans. However, they are not yet educated (or old) enough to put forth a better argument. They give you their opinion and think that's good enough.
Certainly there are Republicans who are much better liars. They can provide "facts" and present much stronger arguments.
Bush wants to kill everyone and revels in death and destruction!
Not everyone, just the poor and middle class. Of course, I say this believing that he is the Antichrist -- which I am fairly convinced that he is. If it turns out he is not, then he must surely be one of the most incompetent humans to have ever lived. To me this seems very unlikely, since the entire administration would have to be just as (or nearly as) incompetent.
If Jayson and Cody reach adulthood they will probably be further indoctrinated in Neo-Con lies -- and be able to present better arguments.
"Most likely their parents are Republicans"
wrong, all but one person in my family are Democrats.
"Certainly there are Republicans who are much better liars. They can provide "facts" and present much stronger arguments. "
Shut up you idiot. Just because you're too dumb to listen to smart people doesn't give you the right to make false assumptions.
"If Jayson and Cody reach adulthood they will probably be further indoctrinated in Neo-Con lies -- and be able to present better arguments. "
Two words describe you. Liberal scum. You can't hold up a good enough argument so you throw personal flames and me and Jayson.
Go to my blog, read my newsest post. Then you can argue. But as soon as you start flaming I'll just delete your posts.
Simmer down, Cody. It's all going to be alright. I just have to say first of all, that people WILL go back to New Orleans. Their families, friends, and livlihoods are there. If you knew only one place as home, for all of your life, would you just think, "Oh, screw it" and find a new place to live? Changes obviously have to be made so that something of this magnitude has less power to affect that area, but changes there will affect the whole country. We should ALL get used to working together, which is something plenty of people have a problem with.
Frankly, BC08, this disaster was a NATIONAL disaster, affecting more than one city, and more than one state. Certainly there were large faults on the state and local levels, but after the disaster hit, they were absolutely powerless to help themselves. Bush didn't take credit for making the hurricane happen, or say that it was all his fault. He took ownership, on behalf of both himself and the government, for some of the things that we're handled properly. Now remember this, as it is being said by a liberal: You should see that as honorable, not as dissapointing.
Well since nobody seems to want to go to my blog, I'll bring my blog here.
It Ends Now
Today I will be settling the hurricane Katrina fault once and for all. No more biased articles, leaving things out, adding things in. It all ends right here, right now.
Everybody messed up one way or another. I know people on both sides of the political spectrum don't want to hear this, but there isn't one person to blame. I'm going to simply run down the list right now.
FEMA (bad response)
Bush (cut funding, a little late)
Every other president since 1920 (cut funding)
The governor of Louisiana (didn't give the federal government permission to help soon enough)
The mayor of New Orleans (Didn't use busses, no supplies at superdome, sheer incompetence etc.)
Everyone in the Louisiana government (lack of help, threats)
Cheney (very, very late)
Democrats (blaming it all on Bush)
Republicans (blaming it all on the Louisiana government)
Every single one of those people did something wrong and you all know it. Now PLEASE guys, stop bickering back and forth, you're both half right.
I just ordered "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken, and am really looking forward to reading it. I have his book "Why not me" (on audio CD/read by the author) -- It is OK, but "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" was a lot better.
Considering how good the Rush Limbaugh book was I was disappointed with "Why not me".
Anway, I posted the link because it contained quotes from a former chief of staff at FEMA (who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations). I am not surprised that you discounted the entire interview simply because it took place on the Al Franken show. As soon as you saw "Al Franken", a switch in your brain flipped, and you "knew" everything from that point on would be lies.
I've made all of my points on my blog if you want the truth.
I have read some of the regurgitated lies you post on your blog. Do you really want me posting there? -- I thought you were "just sick to death about this argument"?
Two words describe you. Liberal scum. You can't hold up a good enough argument so you throw personal flames and me and Jayson.
Thank you for your humorous reply -- I'll take it as a compliment. I think my argument was a lot better than any of the nonsense you have been posting. You are the one presenting extremely weak (or nonexistant) arguments. You haven't answered one question I asked! Obviously my questions were to hard for you. I am confident I have made the right decision (not to believe Republican lies). Not much of a decision however, considering how transparent they are. Since I strongly agree with Al Franken's opinions I think I will continue to listen to him (Maybe he has opinions I wouldn't agree with, but I can't think of any -- or haven't heard any).
wrong, all but one person in my family are Democrats.
Aren't they disappointed in you?
This is actually a reasonable post! Although you are still presenting some dubious "facts" -- I am not sure if you simply are repeating things you read on other blogs, or if you have any actual proof.
FEMA (bad response). Yes, and this was Bush's fault. He appointed friends with little or no experience. He stayed on vacation when he should have taken charge. This was the first test of the reorganized FEMA (now a part of Homeland Defense). Even if he thought everyone else could handle it -- shouldn't he have been concerned about everything going smoothly?
Bush (cut funding, a little late). Yes, and that is why he is primarily to blame.
Every other president since 1920 (cut funding). Can you provide a link please?
The governor of Louisiana (didn't give the federal government permission to help soon enough). Can you provide a link please? As I pointed out in my post above The Department of Homeland Security did not need permission.
The mayor of New Orleans (Didn't use busses, no supplies at superdome, sheer incompetence etc.) Answer to the bus question: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/08/055923.php (I posted this before). Otherwise -- there could be some truth to this.
Everyone in the Louisiana government (lack of help, threats) Yes, but I think you need to be more specific.
Cheney (very, very late). I haven't read anything about Cheney's role. Can you provide a link?
Democrats (blaming it all on Bush). It needs to be done. Bush says he "takes responsibility", but what about accountability? Bush continues to screw up (Iraq, the economy, Katrina, etc). If he was a CEO of a company he would have been fired long ago.
Republicans (blaming it all on the Louisiana government). Bush "took responsibility", then Rove makes comments undercutting that statement (see my post above). It sounded liek Rove was making a correction -- this "taking responsibility" only covered the Bush administration's good faith assumption that the Governor and Mayor would handle the situation (in other words the only mistake they made was a tiny error in judgement).
Every single one of those people did something wrong and you all know it. Now PLEASE guys, stop bickering back and forth, you're both half right. Everyone who made mistakes should be held accountable. In Bush's case everyone knows that won't happen -- all the Republicans voted against the independant investigation! This is the asinine "Blame Game" argument! I'm not falling for it.
The Daily Show on Hurricane Katrina
Check out "The Daily Show's" brilliant coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the botched response, and the political blame game:
...for people who are saying, "Well, let's stop pointing fingers at the president, the left-wing media is being too hard on him". No. Shut up. No. This is inarguably -- inarguably -- a failure of leadership from the top of the federal government. Remember when Bill Clinton went out with Monica Lewinsky. That was inarguably a failure of judgment at the top. Democrats had to come out and risk losing credibility if they did not condemn Bill Clinton for his behavior. I believe Republicans are in the same position right now, and I will say this: Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's Monica Lewinsky. The only difference is that tens of thousands of people weren’t stranded in Monica Lewinsky’s vagina. Although, this is an interesting point, her vagina at the time was also known as the Superdome -- Do you prefer the Big Easy?
But that is my point, so please, stop with the "well, people are carping on the president". He didn't even stop his vacation for three days, I mean, please, just shut up".
The real question is in the four years since 9/11, you have to ask yourself, has the government's advancements, procedures, etc. made us safer, given us more comfort that they will have an effective, or more effective response to catastrophic events? And I think it's very clear the answer is: "Oh shit, we're in trouble".
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/200507.htm
"Every other president since 1920 (cut funding). Can you provide a link please?"
I can't seem to find a link but I can assure you that since some time in the 1920's New Orleans has been asking for levee improvement and nobody has done anything.
"The governor of Louisiana (didn't give the federal government permission to help soon enough). Can you provide a link please? As I pointed out in my post above The Department of Homeland Security did not need permission."
straight from the Sean Hannity show.
"The mayor of New Orleans (Didn't use busses, no supplies at superdome, sheer incompetence etc.) Answer to the bus question: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/08/055923.php (I posted this before). Otherwise -- there could be some truth to this."
Face it, there were busses that could have been used, it's not that hard to drive one, and it's not that hard to decide to get out of New Orleans and then decide where to go, but that didn't happen. And even though you claim "there weren't enough" We could of either A) brought in more busses from nearby towns. or B) make more than one trip.
"Everyone in the Louisiana government (lack of help, threats) Yes, but I think you need to be more specific."
How about they didn't do anything. And for the threats, did you hear about sen. Mary Landreiu? She threatened to punch anyone, but put under enphasis that she would punch Bush.
"Cheney (very, very late). I haven't read anything about Cheney's role. Can you provide a link?"
exactly, he didn't do anything.
"Democrats (blaming it all on Bush). It needs to be done. Bush says he "takes responsibility", but what about accountability? Bush continues to screw up (Iraq, the economy, Katrina, etc). If he was a CEO of a company he would have been fired long ago."
He would have been fired long ago, if there were more Democrats that's for sure. And I admit, Bush isn't perfect but he sure is a lot more helpful than Clinton ever was.
"Republicans (blaming it all on the Louisiana government). Bush "took responsibility", then Rove makes comments undercutting that statement (see my post above). It sounded liek Rove was making a correction -- this "taking responsibility" only covered the Bush administration's good faith assumption that the Governor and Mayor would handle the situation (in other words the only mistake they made was a tiny error in judgement).
Every single one of those people did something wrong and you all know it. Now PLEASE guys, stop bickering back and forth, you're both half right.
Everyone who made mistakes should be held accountable. In Bush's case everyone knows that won't happen -- all the Republicans voted against the independant investigation! This is the asinine "Blame Game" argument! I'm not falling for it."
Fine, hold him accountable or whatever, but don't forget about who's fault it mostly is, the Local and State government.
Here's a pretty good article about the need for permission of the state govt.
http://myrepublicanblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/educating-bush-blamers.html
Cody, I think you are pretty well on the money here and I appreciate the more balance approach to "who is to blame". If more partisan people could at least admit that their party of choice is just as capable of mucking things up as the other side I think politics in general would be a heck of a lot better able to address the needs of society, not only in crisis situation but all the time.
If one has to belong to a party it should be about personal preference as to which aspects of the government are most important for one to personally be involved, recognizing that all aspects of government are important and require equal consideration.. instead we mostly get "Everything we think is right and everything you think is wrong", which is neither progressive nor constructive.
It's not going to do anyone any good to place blame now. It's all going to come out in the wash anyway! Of course I believe Louisianna is to blame because the state is always the first responder, and Louisianna failed to respond. But I've been into that issue so much I don't want to go there anymore because I know the liberals are going to believe what they want to believe, and they want to get Bush so bad they are willing to believe anything. Still, it isn't going to help anyone to argue about it.
DFKZ Calling Cody "liberal scum" is absolutely absurd and shows what kind of character you have (or don't)! Adults do not go around calling young high school students names. Evidently, you, despite your age, have not reached adulthood.
DFKZ Calling Cody "liberal scum" is absolutely absurd and shows what kind of character you have (or don't)!
I'm the liberal scum. Try to keep up. I quoted him in my post (which is why the slander is in italics) -- that must be what confused you. Notice how I started my post by quoting you -- also notice how I used italics to denote a quote.
Here's a pretty good article about the need for permission of the state govt.
This is a link to gayle's blog! I asked for a link to an authoritive news source. Yes, there is a link to the Red Cross website in the first part of gayle's tirade, but after that she goes on to repeat the dubiuos claim that Bush asked Blanco to accept his help, but she refused. I doubt it -- even if this statement contains an element of truth there must be more to it than that. (BTW the Red Cross link doesn't work anymore. I received an error message when I clicked on it.)
In any case, he didn't need permission (as I explained in my previous post).
It's not going to do anyone any good to place blame now.
This is nonsense. I explained why in my prior post.
It's all going to come out in the wash anyway!
No, it is not. As I explained in my prior post, the Republicans voted against an independent investigation.
Of course I believe Louisianna is to blame because the state is always the first responder, and Louisianna failed to respond.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
Saturday August 27 (2 days before Katrina makes landfall)
Governor Blanco asks Bush to declare federal state of emergency in Louisiana. "I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster".
http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976
Federal Emergency declared, DHS and FEMA given full authority to respond to Katrina. "Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency".
If more partisan people could at least admit that their party of choice is just as capable of mucking things up as the other side...
More quotes from the Jane Bullock Al Franken Interview (This is from notes I took while watching the show -- I'm paraphrasing here.)
Jane Bullock: FEMA performed in the 90's (under Clinton/James Lee Witt). It was a model agency. FEMA evacuated 2.6 million people prior to Hurrican Flyod.
Pre-Katrina the moral at FEMA was very low. The focus was entirely on terrorism. The federal directive ignored natural disasters we know we are going to have every year.
Katherine Lanpher: It sounds like the administration decided there weren't going to be any more natural disasters.
Jane Bullock: One could construe that from where the funding went.
excuse me, the link (on gayle's blog) is to a CNN article, not the Red Cross website. Anyway, the link is no longer vaild.
sorry gayle, but Im going to have to agree with cody o conner. although he did get a little hot headed, hes basically right. dkfz's opinions are so warped and just says that everyones believing a lie and basically all this liberal bullcrap. He is liberal scum. sorry dkfz.
btw dkfz your questions arent to hard theyre wacked out so we usually just ignore them. although you have mostly conducted yourself in a much less hostile way then any of those bush is antichrist guys your comments are just so weird and wacked out that we usually ignore them.
I have posted some things which could be referred to as "wacked out", but I also posted some legitimate and reasonable questions, which have either been ignored, answered vaguely with opinions, or misinterpreted.
One thing is certain, Bush is bankrupting the US government. What was "wacked out" was my explaination of why. I'd still like to get an answer out of anyone Bush supporter here as to why you don't think there will be dire consequences.
BTW it bothers me not in the least your calling me "liberal scum" -- it only amuses me.
Cody: you need to stop listening to your beloved Sean Hannity and wake up to the real world. If you're going to cite him as a source you could at least give a proper account of what transpired. Who said what and why were they in a position to know this? I said that bush/chertoff did not need permission from blanco (even if she actually did refuse help) because the National Response Plan gave him authority. Did hannity cite a law which prevented bush from acting unless he received "permission"?
I think any idiot could have predicted that there would be fallout if FEMA performed poorly. Regardless of what any other culpable party may or may not have done, why wasn't Bush concerned about this?!
Here are the flames you're looking for Gayle.
Your observations are correct, but only in regards to this blog. It is run by one kid (Jayson), and frequented by another (Cody). They hear these lies -- and believe them. Most likely their parents are Republicans. However, they are not yet educated (or old) enough to put forth a better argument. They give you their opinion and think that's good enough.
Certainly there are Republicans who are much better liars. They can provide "facts" and present much stronger arguments.
"Bush wants to kill everyone and revels in death and destruction!"
Not everyone, just the poor and middle class. Of course, I say this believing that he is the Antichrist -- which I am fairly convinced that he is. If it turns out he is not, then he must surely be one of the most incompetent humans to have ever lived. To me this seems very unlikely, since the entire administration would have to be just as (or nearly as) incompetent.
If Jayson and Cody reach adulthood they will probably be further indoctrinated in Neo-Con lies -- and be able to present better arguments.
I continue to see a trend here (and in the blogosphere in general) - dkfz may sound a little wacked out sometimes, although to be perfectly I think that the world in general is wacked out, and people who honestly want to know the truth and help effect deep changes have to respond to that.
But here is what I am observing - dkfz has been (as Jayson pointed out) quite respectful (for the most part - no one is perfect) in expressing his opinions and stating his arguments. He has never asked anyone to believe anything simply because he says so - he has always given legitimate news sources to back up what he says, and he makes them obvious and easy to get to.
Jayson and Gayle on the other hand, are the ones doing most of the flaming - they make no effort to provide any kind of legitimate source for anything they claim (directing us back to your own blog, with a broken CNN link does not count as a source)and they seemingly have the attitude that posting their sources is somehow beneath them. Both of them are disrespectful in the way that they debate issues and come across as spoiled little children much of the time.
Its too bad because I get the sense that they both have good things to say - they just don't try very hard to make themselves hearable.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cody Said: Here are the flames you're looking for Gayle.
Your observations are correct, but only in regards to this blog. It is run by one kid... not yet educated (or old) enough to put forth a better argument....
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "flame". I think I made it clear that as you get older your writing skills will probably improve.
They give you their opinion and think that's good enough.
That is what I have been observing.
Not everyone, just the poor and middle class. Of course, I say this believing that he is the Antichrist -- which I am fairly convinced that he is. If it turns out he is not...
This isn't a flame. An insult to Bush, perhaps, but not to you. If you are a Christian and believe in the bible, then you must believe there is going to be a final Antichrist. Yes or No? Stephen cleary says that he isn't 100 percent certain that bush is the final Antichrist (which would be impossible at this point). I agree that he is a very good canidate.
So, if you are a Christian and believe there will be a final antichrist, then the only reason you think I'm "wacked out" is because I think that the Antichrist is Bush. Every other argument you would call "wacked out" is not "wacked out" at all when you understand the context. Ottman calling Clinton the Antichrist -- now that is definately "wacked out"!
If Jayson and Cody reach adulthood...
I say "if" because millions will die via starvation when the depression (caused by Bush's insane economic policies) hits. Millions more will die when Bush starts WW3. I don't know how soon any of this will happen, but obviously before bush leaves office. So 3 years -- or more -- if terms limits are repealed. Sorry to say Cody, you may only have a few short years left to live.
...they will probably be further indoctrinated in Neo-Con lies
As saint pointed out, both sides cannot be right, since they "directly contradict each other". Obviously I think my side is right, so obviously I think your side is lying. This is not a "flame", since I did not say YOU were lying, but that you were buying into the lies. Standard Conservatism contains some truths, some half truths, and some pretty good lies -- I don't think you're stupid for being a conserative.
However, Bush's brand of Conservatism contains so many obvious flaws -- the guy LIES so much (and they are such obvious lies) -- I think those who are blindly following bush have fallen under the "strong delusion" described in the bible:
http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17hmatt24.html
The second major prophecy in the new testament is the prophecy about the antichrist.
The Bible says that even in the days of the apostle, the antichrist was at work. and that the Second Coming would not occur until the apostasy (Abandonment of one's religious faith) occurred and the man of sin is revealed. But this power was being restrained in the days of the apostles (verses 6 and 7).
This prophecy also introduces a phenomenon called the strong delusion that God allows because people refuse to believe Him.
To summarize, these are the characteristics of the Antichrist:
It was already operating, but under cover, or restrained even during the days of the apostles.
Apostasy.
The Antichrist will be characterized by the following:
Destructive. (Iraq war, Allowing people to die in New Orleans by delaying action.)
Exalts himself above everything, even God.
Religious power. (Religious Right Supports Bush)
Was restrained in Paul's day, but the restraint will be taken away.
Power, signs and false miracles.
A strong delusion will be sent as punishment for our disobedience.
The Second Coming will occur after this power has been out in the open.
This power will be terminated at the second coming.
well like hanchett, Im not 100% sure that he isnt the antichrist. but I think that hanchett really does believe it 100% though. He says that to help his character look more sane then he really is. Kind of like when moveon.org pretended to move to moderate. He is just hiding his radical side.
"Destructive. (Iraq war, Allowing people to die in New Orleans by delaying action.)"
Ummm hello? we already talked about both of these points. Besides, Bush even took the heat on the blaming of the hurricane relief! is that antichristlike? I dont think so.
Ummm hello? I already covered this in a prior post. Bush "accepting responsibility" while at the same time allowing his top advisor to downplay that "responsibility" is meaningless. It was DAMAGE CONTROL (think poll numbers). Talk about deluded!
Little boy, as darling as it is that you're all political 'n stuff, isn't there a girl (or boy) you like or something to devote your life to that doesn't involve pretending to understand the adult world? You're wasting your youth and you will regreat it.
"In case you aren’t familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work:
The chain of responsiblity for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans is:
1. The Mayor
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee of the Governor who reports to the Governor)
3. The Governor
4. The Head of Homeland Security
5. The President
What did each do?
1. The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). The he failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.
2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for political appointees)
3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal troops and aid. Until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.
4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be ready when the Governor called for them
5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance, should the Governor decide to use it.
Oh and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of the local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt (democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.
Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the politicos and their friends.
Decades of socialist government in New Orleans has sapped all self reliance from the community, and made them dependent upon government for every little thing.
Political correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created the single most corrupt police force in the country, and has permitted gang violence to flourish.
The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and died needlessly because those that they voted into office failed them.
For those who missed item 5 (where the President’s level of accountability is discussed), it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated August 28:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.
Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.
The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. (emphasis mine)
The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin’s court to carry out the evacuation order. With a 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and all services to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration f**ked up.
Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.
[…]
As for Mayor Nagin, he and his profile in pathetic leadership police chief should resign as well. That city’s government is incompetent from one end to the other. The people of New Orleans deserve better than this crowd of clowns is capable of giving them.
If you’re keeping track, these boobs let 569 buses that could have carried 33,350 people out of New Orleans–in one trip–get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they’d bothered to follow it.
As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from prominent blacks on the left, don’t expect Ray Nagin to be called out on the carpet for falling short. You want to know why? Here’s why:
It’s more convenient to blame a white president for what went wrong than to hold a black mayor and his administration accountable for gross negligence and failing to fully carry out an established emergency preparedness plan.
To hold Nagin and his administration accountable for dropping the ball amounts to letting loose the shouts and cries of “Racism!”. It’s sad, it’s wrong, but it’s standard operating procedure for the media and left-wing black leadership.
Mark my words: you will not hear a word of criticism from Jesse Jackson Sr., Randall Robinson, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, or Kanye West being directed toward Clarence Ray Nagin Jr. Why? Because he is just another black politician instead of a responsible elected official who happens to be black. In the mindset of more-blacker-than-thou blacks, black politicians who are on their side can do no wrong"
<3Cate
Oh yeah, and i went on as anonymous because I'm on a different computer and forgot my password lol
<3Cate
Oh yeah, and i went on as anonymous because I'm on a different computer and forgot my password lol
OK, so who are you? Why no links? I'm just supposed to take your word on every single one of your points?!
FYI - I don't give a sh!t about the "president's level of accountability". Disasters like this are the reason FEMA exists! The federal government has considerably more resources than LA/NO had. This was the first post 9/11 test for the Department of Homeland Security -- why the hell wasn't Bush concerned about how it would perform?!
Even if it wasn't his responsibility, certainly he MUST have been aware that if things went wrong it would look bad for him? Sorry, if you disagree on this point I think you must be a total moron. Either Bush knew and didn't are -- or he is just as stupid as you.
Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the politicos and their friends.
If that was happening before, it is only going to get worse now.
http://www.democrats.com/node/5960
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has hired Kenyon International to set up a mobile morgue for handling bodies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina.
Kenyon is a subsidiary of Service Corporation International (SCI), a scandal-ridden Texas-based company operated by a friend of the Bush family. Recently, SCI subsidiaries have been implicated in illegally discarding and desecrating corpses (Funeralgate).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3312015.stm
Oh yea, Halliburton is also back on the job.
Remember this?
Dick Cheney used to head Halliburton, which is under contract to deliver fuel to the US military in Iraq.
A Pentagon audit confirmed that a Halliburton subsidiary - Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) - overcharged the department for some of its deliveries.
I wasn't aware we could afford this:
http://www.political-news.org/breaking/10268/halliburton-gets-3672-million-bonus-for-work-in-iraq.html
Halliburton gets $72 million bonus for work in Iraq 10 May 2005 The U.S. Army said on Tuesday it had awarded $72 million in bonuses to Halliburton Co. for logistics work in Iraq but had not decided whether to give the Texas company bonuses for disputed dining services to troops.
So, they get rewarded for overcharging?
I think we can expect more of the same this time around.
Scribe: If I ever felt like swearing at someone, you have won that dubious honor! What you are suggesting is that bushcheney08 should give up working at understanding the society he lives in and go out and chase girls instead. That's probably because that's what you were doing at his age, and no doubt many other stupid things as well! Why I bother with people like you confuses me. Why anyone bothers with people like you confuses me.
DFKZ: Sorry, I was tired. (reference "liberal scum.") It happens. I run a farm and a nursery, and I manage about 5 hours of sleep a night. If I'm lucky! Regarding your question about why we don't believe Bush will be impeached: I've already answered it, several times over, in several different places, but here goes again... Bush will not be impeached because Louisianna was the first responder, by law! Bush had no right to get involved without the permission of the Governor of Louisianna, by law. And even if Bush were to be impeached, then Cheney would be president. If Cheney were to be impeached, Tom DeLay, as Majority Speaker of the House of Representatives would be President, and he's a Republican as well. So you still won't be happy, because a Republican will be President.
You really do sound wacked out. Bush is not the anti-christ! Can't prove it of course, as I can't prove you're slightly off your rocker. But that's what I am concluding because of some of your statements here.
Now, you say I never prove anything, and never admit I am wrong, (or words to that effect). I will prove you wrong. Go to my website at www.myrepublicanblog and you shall see. I do admit when I am wrong. And I've also linked references to prove it!
I will always admit when I am wrong about any issue. You will not be able to prove Bush is the anti-christ, so why are you saying it, since you are so very proud of verifying all of your statements? Because you are stating what you believe, that's obviously why. And I state what I believe as well. I have every much right to do that as you do.
Unfortunately, people believe what they want and choose to believe. You are as guilty of that as I am. It's a human condition that can not be avoided.
Bush had no right to get involved without the permission of the Governor of Louisianna, by law.
You keep saying that, over and over, yet refuse to provide a link backing it up. I say that they did not need permission, because the National Response Plan gave the federal government FULL AUTHORITY -- not only that -- it OBLIGATED them to act. I am not going to say anything more about this -- I've made my case but you refuse to listen. I ask a SIMPLE question, and you refuse to answer it!
This was the first post 9/11 test for the Department of Homeland Security -- why the hell wasn't Bush concerned about how it would perform?!
You really do sound wacked out. Bush is not the anti-christ!
Of course that is what someone under the influence of a strong delusion would say!
Regarding your question about why we don't believe Bush will be impeached...
I didn't say anything about impeachment. I think bush, cheney and rumsfeld should be jailed at the minimum.
http://www.jail4bush.org/death4bush/
I, David Blomstrom, a candidate for state office (Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction), hereby declare my belief that President George W. Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities. I urge other patriotic Americans and foreign nationals alike to openly call for Bush's execution.
Only a fool would deny that George W. Bush should be held accountable or that his punishment should be severe. But how can we hope to administer justice when few Americans are doing anything more than talking about impeaching Bush — especially when they haven’t even come close to achieving that pathetic goal?
I believe that openly discussing corporal punishment for the chief corporate executive would help prepare U.S. citizens for the logical conclusion of any truly sane and just legal inquiry into George W. Bush's conduct — death or life in prison without parole.
When I first launched Jail4Bush, I argued that Bush should be sentenced to life in prison, simply because execution would be the easy way out. I suggested that Bush be sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and treated like a captive member of the Taliban. In light of the recent revelations of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, I think Bush ought to be turned over to the Iraqis.
But I changed my mind, for a couple reasons. First, imagine if Bush was sentenced to prison. He would be seen as a martyr by millions of Americans. And what if he was pardoned after another Republican was elected president? Bush could make another power grab, and he'd doubtless be even more ruthless the second time around.
To me, the choices seems obvious: George W. Bush needs to be eliminated.
scribe: this blog doesnt take my whole life away you know. I know what your thinking, your stereotyping me as the geek kid who just sits at his computer all day, but this isnt true. If anybody here met me in person, they would be suprised to say the least. But I cant believe im not mad at you for saying this to me. All I expect you to do is make personal attacks, but when you cross the line like you just did, Im not even mad. its weird.
dfkz: if people didnt think you were kind of crazy before, they will now. You think George Bush should be killed? man, I didnt think it got that extreme.
"OK, so who are you? Why no links? I'm just supposed to take your word on every single one of your points?!"
What is it with you and links? unless its statistics or facts, you are just giving me someone elses point of view.
if people didnt think you were kind of crazy before, they will now
He has committed some pretty serious crimes. YES, I think the death penalty is appropriate.
What is it with you and links? unless its statistics or facts, you are just giving me someone elses point of view.
I am talking about things that either did or did not happen -- yes FACTS. Don't you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? You can have opinions regarding facts, but first of all I want you to prove that what you are talking about actually happened! Is that so hard to understand!
For instance:
The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President).
I believe the first part is true -- but Nagin announced the mandatory evacuation AT THE BEHEST OF THE PRESIDENT.
Was that something you picked up reading some blog, or can you prove this by providing a link to a reputable news story. For all I know you could be making this up!
Are you saying that gayle posting The mayor, with 5 days advance, waited until 2 days before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President) is an OPINION?
It seems pretty clear to me that she intended people to take this as a fact.
If you still don't get it I'd have to say you are pretty dense.
What crimes did he commit dfkz?
War Crimes/crimes against humanity, including sending 1900 (and counting) US soldiers to their deaths.
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=warcrimes&refer=home
1. George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.
Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.
Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.
At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.
George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.
A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has committed a Crime Against Peace.
2. George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.
Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
There are many, many more -- but those are the major ones.
Ill answer this with a post.
"1. George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter."
this war was to get rid of Saddam and help the poor Iraqi people that got gassed by him. I call that a war for peace. And the UN is not going to help anything, we captured Saddam, and gave the Iraqi's a democracy, That's more progress than the UN could make in a century.
"Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter."
We weren't attacking innocent Iraqi people. We attacked terrorists, Saddam, Saddam lovers, terrorists from other countries, but not innocent Iraqi's. What you're saying is if a bully (Saddam) was beating up a kid (Kurds and Shiites) and someone stepped in (America) and stopped them, they're wrong. No they are right, you are wrong.
"Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply."
Oh really?
http://talktorusty.com/agnosticchart?charttype=minichart&chartID=3&formatID=1&useMiniChartID=true&position=4&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/home/contentpage.jsp
"At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims."
Obviously Saddam is going to hide his weapons when the UN comes over. Agree or Disagree? So if we sat there and did nothing, the UN finished, and left, We would have probably been attacked in the next week. Agree or Disagree?
"George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter."
To bring a regime change? No we took a regime down and replaced it with a democracy. Which I don't believe is against any of the UN's stupid rules. Don't change facts to aid your argument.
"A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has committed a Crime Against Peace."
That's all bullcrap. Maybe you would have been right if in fact this was a war against peace. But it isn't.
"2. George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949."
I saw the bombings on TV. They hit the buildings and that was it. If any innocents died it was because they were too stupid to go to a different area after getting informed by the president that this was going to happen. And it's pretty hard to count the amount of bodies that got vaporized. People always exaggerate the amount of deaths. Just with hurricane Katrina they said 100,000 people would die when it's closer to 700. All this leads me to believe that there is no way to prove your numbers, therefore they are wrong.
"Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."
1) we did not kill civilians can you fit that in to your thick skull?
2 why do you want us to be so nice to the enemies?
3) If you're talking about cruelty in Gitmo bay, it's completly wrong. Talk radio host Rusty Humpries actually went to Gitmo bay and discovered that they each get a copy of the Koran, they have a soccer field, ice cream on weekends, capn' crunch in the morning, movies and popcorn, places to pray, and most of all, no violent interrogation.
dkfz-
If you really want a bunch of links to back that up, I'll provide them.
Besides, the same thing was happening in Iraq that happened during the Holocaust, and I'm assuming you're not aware of that. To me, it's more of a crime to sit around and let that shit happen- gas and torture chambers? Mmm hmm.
<3Cate
Get ready for the liberal blame games to begin anew with Rita.
But fear not, Bush is on top of this one and they're ready. That doesn't mean it won't be ferocious or deadly though.
Most people were smart enough to leave Texas because they were warned by the locals and the president who was briefed on it while aboard a Navy ship docked in LA.
The imbecile democrats in LA didn't do their jobs before Katrina and this now makes that quite clear!
As I said before, LA will be another state to go RED!
The libs will call him racist for helping Texas quicker than New Orleans. I can see it coming.
gayle,
go fuck yourself-there I took care of the little swearing bugaboo for ya :)
On a ligher note, no I too spent my time trying to understand the world around me instead of chasin' poon-tang. Wanna know the difference you sanctimonious sap? I never pretended to be more knowledgeable than those who already did! bush-cheney is inidicative of a lost generation of know-it-all asses who think the information super-highway has afforded them special knowledge above and beyond that of older people with actualy life experience.
bush-cheney,
that wasn't a personal attack, that was a word of advice. thanks for proving my point about your arrogant, clueless generation, though, that was awful nice of ya.
George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace -- for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials -- and violates the UN Charter.
Cody said: this war was to get rid of Saddam and help the poor Iraqi people that got gassed by him. I call that a war for peace. And the UN is not going to help anything...
dkfz said: Nonsense. It was a war to secure Iraq's oil. The war was illegal. Iraqis are worse off now then they were under Saddam.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0406-01.htm
Iraq is worse off now, after the US-led invasion, than it was under Saddam Hussein, Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper Tuesday.
"What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more," the former chief U.N. weapons inspector was quoted as saying in the daily newspaper Jyllands Posten.
"That accounts for the many casualties during the war and the many people who still die because of the terrorism the war has nourished", he said. "The war has liberated the Iraqis from Saddam, but the costs have been too great".
Cody said: ...we captured Saddam, and gave the Iraqi's a democracy, That's more progress than the UN could make in a century.
dkfz said: Iraq is not now a democracy, nor will it be after the constitution is ratified.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned... The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. "What we expected to achieve was never realistic... We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic (like Iran)", said another U.S. official...
Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.
Cody said: We weren't attacking innocent Iraqi people. We attacked terrorists, Saddam, Saddam lovers, terrorists from other countries, but not innocent Iraqi's. What you're saying is if a bully (Saddam) was beating up a kid (Kurds and Shiites) and someone stepped in (America) and stopped them, they're wrong. No they are right, you are wrong.
dkfz said: Innocent Iraqi civilians died. A lot of them. They still are being killed. What gives the United States the right to step in? Your school yard bully analogy is BS -- There is no collateral damage when you stop a school yard bully! The cost of this war is to high! -- The continuing deaths of Iraqi Civilians and US Soldiers (1900 & counting plus 17,000 wounded), an out of control National Debt which will bankrupt the US, etc, etc.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-06.htm
Since the 1940s we have pursued containment policies short of war against a long list of horrible dictators - not because Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton were soft on tyrants but because war always involves a calculation of benefits and costs.
Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.
Cody said: Oh really?
dkfz said: Yes, really
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, Al-Qaeda. Commission opens final hearing before release of report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.
Cody said: Obviously Saddam is going to hide his weapons when the UN comes over. Agree or Disagree? So if we sat there and did nothing, the UN finished, and left, We would have probably been attacked in the next week. Agree or Disagree?
dkfz said: I disagree -- There were no weapons to hide. We would have been attacked the next week? I disagree. If you think that Iraq hid weapons in Iran, think again. They were enemies.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/07/no_wmd_link_found_in_iraq/
Iraq did not maintain an active program to develop weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons when the United States invaded last year, the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq concluded yesterday. Iraq is believed to have destroyed all of its chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War and did not resume the program, his report said, and while the Ba'ath Party government attempted to preserve its capability to make biological agents, there were "no indications" the regime was developing any.
George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.
Cody said: To bring a regime change? No we took a regime down and replaced it with a democracy. Which I don't believe is against any of the UN's stupid rules. Don't change facts to aid your argument.
dkfz said: Huh? I don't think you know the meaning of the word "regime". "Regime" means whatever form of government is in place. The Bush Regime insists we toppled Saddam's regime to replace it with a Democratic Regime. But that isn't what is happening. Iraq will most likely become a Islamic Republic, the same as Iran.
A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has committed a Crime Against Peace.
Cody said: That's all bullcrap. Maybe you would have been right if in fact this was a war against peace. But it isn't.
dkfz said: No, it is not. There wasn't a war taking place there before, was there?
George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.
Cody said: I saw the bombings on TV. They hit the buildings and that was it. If any innocents died it was because they were too stupid to go to a different area after getting informed by the president that this was going to happen. People always exaggerate the amount of deaths. Just with hurricane Katrina they said 100,000 people would die when it's closer to 700. All this leads me to believe that there is no way to prove your numbers, therefore they are wrong.
dkfz said: That's all bullcrap.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: 25884 (minimum), 29187 (maximum)
What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths -- which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.
Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
Cody said: we did not kill civilians can you fit that in to your thick skull?
dkfz said: Thousands of civilians died during the initial bombing. More die every day. Can't you get that through your thick skull?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/22/5656
The Americans over there have all these terms for people who aren't Americans. The Iraqi people are called LPs, or "Local Personnel". They get killed all the time, but it's like, "Some LPs got killed", so it isn't like real people died. Iraqi kids run along the convoys, hoping a soldier will throw them some food or water, and sometimes they get crushed by the trucks. Nothing stops, those are the orders, so some LPs get killed and the convoy keeps rolling. The labels make it easier for them to die. The people are depersonalized. No one cares. Everyone is an "insurgent" over there. That's another label with no meaning.
Cody said: why do you want us to be so nice to the enemies?
dkfz said: I don't want to be "nice" to them (or sing koombiyah with them). The war in Iraq is HELPING them. It is a FANTASTIC recruitment tool. This war is bankrupting the US government. Our soldiers are getting killed. These are all points in their favor! They have a virtually unlimited number of recruits who are willing to die for the cause. That is why the insurgency can NOT be defeated!
http://www.cmep.org/Alerts/2003Feb20.htm
A U.S. invasion of Iraq plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who will use it as an opportunity to recruit and attack. It would be the greatest terrorist recruitment tool that Osama bin Laden could imagine.
Cody said: If you're talking about cruelty in Gitmo bay, it's completly wrong. Talk radio host Rusty Humpries actually went to Gitmo bay and discovered that they each get a copy of the Koran, they have a soccer field, ice cream on weekends, capn' crunch in the morning, movies and popcorn, places to pray, and most of all, no violent interrogation.
dkfz said: That's all bullcrap.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/11/usdom9990.htm
Three years after it was created, the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo remains an enclave outside the law, Human Rights Watch said today. There is growing evidence that detainees at Guantanamo have suffered torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Reports by FBI agents who witnessed detainee abuse have recently emerged, adding to the statements of former detainees describing the use of painful stress positions, extended solitary confinement, use of military dogs to threaten detainees and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold and noise. Some of this ill-treatment included interrogation methods previously authorized by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
scribe said...
"gayle,
go fuck yourself-there I took care of the little swearing bugaboo for ya :)"
Wow, it takes a real jackas$ to say that to a senior, who happens to be very nice.
You should be ashamed!
From my last post:
A U.S. invasion of Iraq plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who will use it as an opportunity to recruit and attack. It would be the greatest terrorist recruitment tool that Osama bin Laden could imagine.
I found an article which further explains that statement, as well as proving the following assertation by Jayson completely wrong:
Jayson Said (In his "Iraq War (Final Product)" Post: So we have them right where we want them now, out of hiding.
Jayson, this is completely illogical. They have us where they want us.
http://www.newshounds.us/2004/11/01/get_the_news_fox_al_qaeda_wants_george_bush_reelected.php
Get the News, FOX. Al Qaeda Wants George Bush Re-Elected.
November 01, 2004
On yesterday's FOX News Sunday, Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania stated that bin Laden wants Bush to be re-elected.
Smirking and incredulous, host Chris Wallace said, "Wait a minute. You're saying that you think bin Laden... would like George Bush to be re-elected?"
Governor Mike Huckabee, Republican governor of Arkansas said, "You've got to be kidding. I don't think anyone in America cares or knows who Osama bin Laden is for, for president".
Apparently, neither Wallace nor Huckabee were aware of this information published in The New Yorker magazine on August 2, 2004, (article begins on page 40): The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda, also claimed responsibility for the Madrid train bombings. The group sent a bombastic message to the London newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, avowing responsibility for the train bombings. "Whose turn will it be next?" the authors taunt. "Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia, or Australia?" The message also addressed the speculation that the terrorists would try to replicate their political success in Spain by disrupting the November U.S. elections. "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections", the authors write. Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" are useful, the authors contend, "for they stir the Islamic world to action".
dkfz wrote: Do you think that the terrorist leaders care one iota for the lives of suicide bombers or insurgents who die attacking American Soldiers? The important thing (for them) is that Americans are dying. The war in Iraq has ensured that there is no shortage of willing cannon fodder. We can not win, because no matter how many we kill, there will always be more recruits willing to die fighting the "Great Satan". Agree or disagree.
dkfz: I'm done arguing with you. Your only comback was to say bullcrap to everything I said and the occasional link to a liberal website. But I will say that you are COMPLETLY wrong about gitmo bay. You're getting this false info about something called "camp x-ray" which was exactly what you said, but only lasted 3 months, there is a new camp (camp Delta) for the terrorists where they are treated like I said.
"Camp X-Ray where terrorists were kept from Jan 2002 - April 2002. This is the location that the media STILL uses as it's footage of GITMO."
This is camp X-ray photos,
http://talktorusty.com/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=23
http://talktorusty.com/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=22
and pictures of camp Delta and of the Rusty talking to the people who run the place there.
http://talktorusty.com/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=22
Now if you STILL don't believe that we are humane in Guantanamo Bay, then you should win the "most arrogant person in the world" award.
"Jayson, this is completely illogical. They have us where they want us."
So whos winning?
scribe: get off this blog you jerk. if your going to tell people to f*** off, then get the hell off this blog. Oh yeah and as for the clueless generation crap, your right. refer back to my hip hop culture post, that shows how clueless my generation is, but im not falling for that crap.
cody: thanks for clearing that up. I guess I dont have to write a post about it.
dfkz: most republicans are for the death penalty, which is immoral. most democrats think the war is bad, which is wrong. It seems youve got the bad of both sides, congradulations!
Oh, I see. The junior neo-con would-be politco doesn't endorse freedom of speech unless he either likes what he's hearing or feels like arguing with it-I am shocked. LOL
Also, defend the hag if you will, but I'm not going to allow anyone to talk as if they have the right to slap me-internet or not.
Now if you STILL don't believe that we are humane in Guantanamo Bay, then you should win the "most arrogant person in the world" award.
No, I don't believe it. I choose to believe Human Rights Watch over Republican shill Rusty Humphries. Why would not believing that Gitmo prisoners are not treated humanely make be arrogant? Do you mean ignorant?
Anyway, even if they are not being mistreated, they are still being held indefinitely, without ever being charged -- which is in violation of Geneva Conventions. You make it sound like a spa -- a place they wouldn't leave if given the opportunity.
I only said "bullcrap" to those statements of yours which were blatantly false. Anyway, you started it.
Cody: I'm done arguing with you. It is pointless, since the "great delusion" you are under makes it impossible for you to see the truth.
"Jayson, this is completely illogical. They have us where they want us."
So whos winning?
THEY ARE WINNING!!! Their goal is simple -- Kill as many Americans as possible. How can they lose?
dfkz: most republicans are for the death penalty, which is immoral. most democrats think the war is bad, which is wrong. It seems youve got the bad of both sides, congradulations!
You support sending soldiers to their deaths, fighting to secure Iraq's oil for Bush's rich friends... and in the same breath you call the death penalty immoral? I'd call that pretty hypocritical.
"arrogant? Do you mean ignorant?"
both words would be appropriate for the situation.
So I guess 30+ pictures weren't enough? Pictures don't lie, just stop believing Ted Kennedy and look at the pictures.
"Oh, I see. The junior neo-con would-be politco doesn't endorse freedom of speech unless he either likes what he's hearing or feels like arguing with it-I am shocked. LOL"
Shut up moron, you don't deserve to speak. Freedom of speech is different when you're throwing out personal flames.
why don't you go be an asshole somewhere else?
So I guess 30+ pictures weren't enough? Pictures don't lie, just stop believing Ted Kennedy and look at the pictures.
OK. I looked at your pictures. Now tell me, what truth am I supposed to see? Are you claiming that these pictures prove everthing Human Rights Watch claims is happening (or has happened) in Guantanamo Bay is false?
If that is the case I think YOU are definitely "wacked out".
Scribe:
"Defend the hag"???
You've got some nerve. I thank God every day my parents raised me with morals.
<3Cate
Why waste your breathe here. You teach someone who is incredibly dense--so stop trying. There are so many things wrong on this blog it just gets tiring to try and argue facts against the fiction that is presented.
One in awhile you just have to walk away rather than let stupidity raise your blood pressure. That's been my stance and I'm a happier person for it.
"If that is the case I think YOU are definitely "wacked out"."
I have a pretty hard time not believing someone who actually broadcasted a radio show from there. He talked to the people that ran it, he went inside the prisons, and he saw nothing in-humane. Why would anyone (other than Ted Kennedy) go out of there way like that just to lie?
And why would I lie? If in fact you WERE right, I wouldn't be an idiot and ignore everything you say. But that's not the case, the case is, is that we are in the subject of something I know about and you think you know about, but you're mis-informed. But I don't blame you, it's the media who still uses pictures of camp X-ray.
You know all this bickering just proves the point I have been making from Day 1: We spend so much time trying to defend our positions that it would be impossible to ever know the full, whole truth about anything.
As human beings we have been given, by God, a divinely appointed ability for and dependence on cooperation. No one person, gender, race or politic was ever made to function wholly on its own - each is a piece in something greater than itself. It would be fine to have republicans and democrats with opposing view points if it could ever be understand by either side that the opposing viewpoints are NECESSARY and VALID. Its like in a marriage - you very often marry the person who you are a polar opposite to and the first step to making it work is realizing that being opposite doesn't make one of you wrong, it means that you both have something different to offer, things that should COMPLIMENT each other.
What republicans lack in focus, their democratic counter-parts can take up, and vice-versa. As it is, you'll never know what the truth is about Gitmo or anything else for that matter because each side is parked behind their own lines with their heels dug in. If you really wanted to learn something you would (each side) come into the middle (with your opposing, or different perspectives firmly attached) go forward together to find truth. Because of the difference in perspective, each person would likely pick up somewhat different things, and the beautiful thing is you could ALL be right because you would have each other's perceptions to compliment your own.
I have a pretty hard time not believing someone who actually broadcasted a radio show from there. He talked to the people that ran it, he went inside the prisons, and he saw nothing in-humane.
It was staged government propaganda.
I have a pretty hard time not believing organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Why would anyone (other than Ted Kennedy) go out of there way like that just to lie?
I don't know if he was lying or buying into the propaganda because it is what he wanted to believe.
Why would Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International lie? They have nothing to gain by lying, unlike the Neo-Cons.
And why would I lie?
I don't think you are lying. You are deluded.
If in fact you WERE right, I wouldn't be an idiot and ignore everything you say. But that's not the case, the case is that we are in the subject of something I know about and you think you know about, but you're mis-informed.
YOU are misinformed!
But I don't blame you, it's the media who still uses pictures of camp X-ray.
I don't blame you either, since you are deluded. Also, I have no idea why you keep talking about camp X-Ray - since I NEVER brought it up. I never brought up what pictures the media is using. Can't you see how deluded you are?! They are calling it a CAMP! It is not a CAMP, it is a PRISON! The Neo-Cons are mocking you and you can't even see it!
Saint said: We spend so much time trying to defend our positions that it would be impossible to ever know the full, whole truth about anything.
True, but I will NEVER NEVER NEVER agree with -- or support the elected officials I vote for working with, or compromising with Neo-Cons -- which includes The Bush administration and anyone who supports it. They are evil immoral greedy corrupt scum.
"It was staged government propaganda."
bull.
a note on guantanamo bay: If we let these people go, where would we put them? they would be put to death if we put them back where they came from, so that blows your whole case away.
"THEY ARE WINNING!!! Their goal is simple -- Kill as many Americans as possible. How can they lose?"
Well, if they dont care about dying, then to them, they will win no matter what. But our job is to make the deaths as little as possible. How do we do that? BY PROTECTING OUR OWN AMERICAN SOIL, AND PREVENTING OUR OWN INNOCENT CASUALTIES BY FIGHTING THEM SOMWHERE ELSE! THIS IS OUR BEST OPTION! ARE YOU STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THAT IF WE JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE THEY WILL LEAVE US ALONE?!? OF COURSE NOT! THEY WILL PLAN MORE TERRORISTS ATTACKS WICH WILL CAUSE A LOT MORE AMERICANS TO DIE RATHER THAN TAKING THE FIGHT TO THEM!
No. I say that what we are doing is the best option. you give me a better plan, dfkz, you let me know.
"Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter."
They are a threat to the US and you know It! in this time and age of more danger, we must be more agressive and on the lookout for terrorism. thats why we shouldnt wait for 3000 to die and our world trade centers to fall. Did you know that before 9/11, they had a sniper team ready to go and hit osama? but they canceled it, because there wasnt enough "evidence" Hows that for clintons failure? They were going to do it that very night but it was a no go. Its unfathomable. How can you think like this? Do you know how destructive, passive, and ignorant your way of thinking is dfkz? Im seriously, how can you believe this bull? how come you cant see outside of the box?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jayson said: where would we put them?
They are being denied their legal rights under the Geneva Conventions! They should be released or charged and tried! This clear fact blows your whole case away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
Prisoners have been labelled "illegal enemy combatants", but a number of observers such as Human Rights Watch maintain that the United States has not held the Article 5 tribunals specified by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law". Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.
Jayson said: they would be put to death if we put them back where they came from...
They most certainly would not. Such a statement clearly shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Some prisoners have already been released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay
Three British prisoners, released in 2004 without charge, have alleged ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by US forces at Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners have released a 115-page dossier detailing these accusations. [4] They have also accused British authorities of knowing about the torture and failing to respond.
The accounts of the British prisoners have been reiterated by two former French prisoners, a former Swedish prisoner, and a former Australian prisoner.
Former Guantanamo detainee, the Swede Mehdi Ghezali was freed on July 9, 2004 after two and half years internment. Ghezali has claimed that he was the victim of repeated torture. His lawyer has declared that he intends to sue the US for their treatment of him.
Former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, freed in January, 2005, after nearly three years in captivity, has accused his American captors of torturing him and other detainees arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[5] Mr Begg, in his first broadcast interview since his release, claimed he "witnessed two people get beaten so badly that I believe it caused their deaths".
Jayson said: Well, if they don't care about dying, then to them, they will win no matter what.
They don't. That's the whole point! They leaders don't care how many muslim lives they sacrifice, as long as they inflict damage on the US. Meanwhile, while we are tied up in Iraq, they continue to plan their next attack.
We most certainly are NOT taking the fight to them! We are playing right into their hands!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0525-03.htm
US Intelligence Fears Iran Duped Hawks Into Iraq War
Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
An investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbor, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
Jayson said: They are a threat to the US and you know It!
The policy of containment was working. I am not saying would should have let up on them. The sanctions and UN inspections needed to continue. Bottom line is that this war is simply not worth the cost - and is acomplishing NOTHING. Iraq is going to end up a Islamic Republic which is what Iran wanted all along!
Jayson said: A LOT MORE AMERICANS TO DIE RATHER THAN TAKING THE FIGHT TO THEM!
You are buying Bush's lies hook line and sinker. I don't know that there is a way out of this now. Bush has made such a mess of things. The First step in the right direction would be to eliminate government corruption, which means getting rid of Bush! Until that happens we can accomplish nothing.
They leaders don't care how many muslim lives they sacrifice
I meant "Their leaders". Another typo, but I'll let it stand. The two deleted posts above are mine as well (more typos). Thats what I get when I enter my response in this little box instead of using notepad -- which I did with most of my prior posts.
Anonymous said Why waste your breathe here. You can't teach someone who is incredibly dense -- so stop trying.
You are definitely correct. It is a waste of time to argue with them because they are deluded. I wonder if Jayson or Cody will ever wake up and see the truth. What's it going to take?
"You are definitely correct. It is a waste of time to argue with them because they are deluded. I wonder if Jayson or Cody will ever wake up and see the truth. What's it going to take?"
Well if the truth is equal to delusional, then that means right is wrong, and wrong is right.
I'm not falling for it. I've given you all the proof you need, but you still disagree no matter what. When A Republican is doing something wrong I don't stand up for them. I go for the truth. So if you want to play this game, I will say that you are dellusional, but you're so dellusional that you think I'm dellusional.
Obviously I am more informed about the Gitmo Bay subject because you don't even know the name of the prisons. Stop trying to argue with me on this subject, it's pathetic.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Obviously I am more informed about the Gitmo Bay subject because you don't even know the name of the prisons. Stop trying to argue with me on this subject, it's pathetic.
What's pathetic is that you have no idea what the truth is.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guess you would be right,
If truths were lies
If facts were opinions
If right was wrong
But we're not in the situation are we. This is not "left wing, right wing" it's "true and false"
The Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were right, between Jan 2002 and April 2002. Your facts are outdated. This discussion isn't taking place in Feb. 2002. They have a new prison were they, in my opinion are treated TOO nice. In fact they are probably living a better life than their little hut in the middle of no where.
"They are being denied their legal rights under the Geneva Conventions!"
The people who have been put in guantanamo are people who could not be identified with a nationality and therefore, cannot legally be put under geneva conventional rights as that documents was signed by a number of countries.
"What's pathetic is that you have no idea what the truth is."
Yeah, whatever. I can say the same thing. The real truth is that the truth isnt hiding, it is as plain as can be.
BushCheney08 said:
"The people who have been put in guantanamo are people who could not be identified with a nationality and therefore, cannot legally be put under geneva conventional rights as that documents was signed by a number of countries."
Not to mention they are being treated better than the soldiers stationed there.
The people who have been put in guantanamo are people who could not be identified with a nationality and therefore, cannot legally be put under geneva conventional rights as that documents was signed by a number of countries.
I guess you think those laws are fine for every other country, but the United States doesn't have to follow them.
Yeah, whatever. I can say the same thing.
Yes, but you'd be wrong.
The real truth is that the truth isnt hiding, it is as plain as can be.
That is correct, but you are too deluded to see it.
They have a new prison were they, in my opinion are treated TOO nice.
That's complete bullcrap.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/06/gitmo.tour/
[Bush said] "And for those of you who are here and have doubt, I suggest buying an airplane ticket and going down and look -- take a look for yourself."
But military ground rules -- including censoring video shot at the facility -- made it nearly impossible for a CNN crew that visited the prison the same day to get a full picture of the prison.
A lawyer for some of the detainees called press tours of the camp "one big charade".
Oh, I forgot the date of the article: Thursday, July 7, 2005
NOT OUT OF DATE.
By saying that my information is "out of date" does that mean you are admiting that prisoner abuse did occur? I guess that since it isn't happening anymore (according to you), we can forget all about any abuse that already took place.
Also, (according to you) it doesn't matter that these people are being held indefinately and being denied their Geneva Convention rights -- they are, after all, getting cap'n crunch!
annonymous wrote: "Defend the hag"???
You've got some nerve. I thank God every day my parents raised me with morals.
<3Cate
Scribe wrote back" They also apparently raised you to be judgmental and sanctimonious so that was 18 years well spent.
little cody wrote: Shut up moron, you don't deserve to speak. Freedom of speech is different when you're throwing out personal flames.
why don't you go be an asshole somewhere else?
scribe replied: Ah, so now freedom of speech is decided by you. Also shocking.
I like being an asshole here-I felt the magnetic pull of your assholishness from across cyber-space.
Actually Cody, freedom of speech is decided by you, at least on your blog: You can delete this person's comments any time you choose to. I think it's good to leave them though; they show everyone exactly who he is.
thanks, gayle. :)
now that my case has been made for me, I can go back to being cordial. Or, actually, I can start LOL
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cody Said: This is not "left wing, right wing" it's "true and false"
This totally insane statement is diffinitive proof of just how deluded you are. The TRUTH is that the Bush administration is flagrantly breaking International law. Jayson's nonsensical argument that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is totally FALSE.
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ratnerguantanamo.html
What they did was pick people up from all over the world, particularly in the beginning from Afghanistan and from Pakistan, and some of those people were picked up on the battlefield, some were picked up because of bribes, some were picked up because of disputes. Some may have been Taliban. Some may have been related to Al-Quaida. We don't know because they never had trials or hearings or anything else, but they picked them up and took them to a place, Guantanamo Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is owned entirely by the United States. It's on a lease, but the US has complete control of the place, and they decided that that was a place where they could take them, and do whatever they wanted to them, that no law applied, they didn't have to give them any hearings, and no court could say anything about what was going on there.
So, the first thing you think when you hear that is: A place outside the law? A place where you can do whatever you want to people? A place a where you can disappear people? Does this sound like America, or does this sound like Chile during the Pinochet regime, when they disappeared thousands, or Argentina during the dirty war? So, when I looked at that, it caused tremendous concern to me early on, when I heard that they had announced that they were going to take people to a place where there was no law and they could do whatever they wanted.
The second part of your question, which is why should Americans care about it, well, to get people there, you have to go through a huge number of hoops. You first have to decide, particularly with people picked up in a war zone, that the Geneva Conventions do not apply.
Once you do that, you're saying that we're not going to apply the Geneva Conventions, and there was a huge objection to that by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State. He said, if we don't apply the Geneva Conventions, how are we going to protect American troops overseas? American troops, when they're captured, we want to insist that other governments apply Geneva. If we don't apply Geneva, what will happen? In other words, do unto others as you want done unto you.
He also said that there's a hundred year moral history and legal history of the United States, applying first the Hague Conventions that protected prisoners, and then Geneva. We have to be able to do that in order to uphold any legal or moral authority we might have in the world. So, one reason Americans ought to care, apart from what we're doing to human beings, is our own interest in protecting our own soldiers.
Cody Said: I'm not falling for it. I've given you all the proof you need, but you still disagree no matter what.
You have given me ZERO proof.
"I guess you think those laws are fine for every other country, but the United States doesn't have to follow them."
Apparently you werent smart enough to understand. let me put it in lamest terms for you. what I said means that if the person's nationality cannot be identified, they cannot be given geneva convention rights, and therefore, are sent to guantanamo bay. That is why those people are there. they were just guys out on the battlefield with a gun, belonging to neither side, and these people were sent to guantanamo bay. if we let these people back to where they came from they will be killed.
"You have given me ZERO proof."
3 links and 30+ pictures is = to zero. Uhh, right...
And you can stop calling me deluded any time now. Your little strategy doesn't work on me. I know I'm right and your propaganda isn't going to effect me.
Jayson Said: what I said means that if the person's nationality cannot be identified, they cannot be given geneva convention rights, and therefore, are sent to guantanamo bay.
You don't know what you're talking about! The Bush administration is calling them "unlawful combatants", which is why they think they can hold them indefinately and deny them any rights. They are NOT claiming that they can't identify any prisoner's nationality! Do some research instead of making things up! The fact that you can make these statements without doing any research what-so-ever makes it clear to me that you are blindly going along with whatever the Bush administration says is right. You don't care about what actually is Right or Wrong, only what Bush says is Right or Wrong.
The Bush administration's disagreement (that Geneva Convention Rights apply) is based on the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Art 5 apply all combatants, should any doubt arise as to whether persons is a lawful combatant they will be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Art. 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIII, because it forms, (along with parts of 4 Art. of the GCIV and Art 5. of the GCIV ,) the Administration of the USA's interpretation of unlawful combatants. The exact definition of "lawful combatant" has been subject to a number of discussions in view of a number of public military conflicts in the 2000s, including the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Because many of the people fighting are not members of the armed forces of a Party and do not have uniforms it is claimed that they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" they are thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention as "unlawful combatants".
dkfz Said: The following puts an end to the arguement as far as I am concerned. Note that "the U.S. Army's own field manual states that GCIV (Geneva Convention, Article 4) protects "all persons who have engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct but who are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506230006
Top five Gitmo falsehoods
Falsehood #1: Abuse at Guantánamo is "minor", allegations are based on "rumor".
Conservative commentators have repeatedly attempted to dismiss the alleged detainee abuse at Guantánamo as unsubstantiated or harmless. But these claims ignore firsthand accounts by FBI agents and human rights monitors that paint a much grimmer picture of detainee treatment at Guantánamo.
Falsehood #2: All Guantánamo detainees are confirmed terrorists.
Numerous media figures have stated or suggested that the prisoners held at Guantánamo are all terrorists. On the June 21, 2004, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "From what I understand, they had -- they took most of [the Guantánamo detainees], like 95 percent of them, off the battlefield, number one. So what the heck were they doing there?"
But the Pentagon's decision to release numerous Guantánamo detainees suggests that many were not terrorists. In a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Matthew Waxman reportedly wrote that, as of April 2005, "167 [Guantánamo] prisoners had been released and 67 had been transferred to the custody of other countries." The 167 detainees released were presumably found not to be terrorists, as in the cases of Abdul Rahim and Mamdouh Habib. Both men were captured in Pakistan following September 11, 2001. The U.S. later transferred them to Guantánamo, where they remained for more than two years, accused -- but never charged -- of involvement in terrorist activities. In 2005, the United States released them without charge.
Falsehood #3: The Geneva Conventions apply only to prisoners of war.
Numerous media figures have defended the harsh treatment of Guantánamo detainees by claiming that the Geneva Conventions apply exclusively to prisoners of war (POWs). Though many legal scholars agree that Al Qaeda detainees are not entitled to POW status under the Third Geneva Convention, which details protections specifically for POWs, the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) grants different protections to non-POWs.
But the U.S. Army's own field manual states that GCIV protects "all persons who have engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct but who are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war".
Falsehood #4: Enemy combatants do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Some conservatives have disputed whether the Guantánamo detainees even qualify for protections under GCIV. Their common argument is that GCIV applies specifically to civilians, thereby excluding so-called "illegal enemy combatants."
Again, the Army's field manual recognizes GCIV protections for non-POWs "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct."
Further, the ICRC -- the organization that pioneered the concept of international humanitarian law and has monitored compliance with the Geneva Conventions for more than 140 years -- concluded in a 2003 legal analysis that "unlawful combatants" are entitled to protections under GCIV, citing its 1958 analysis of GCIV, which stated:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law. (Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 1958)
Falsehood #5: Detainees captured on the "battlefield" are not criminal defendants, so they have no right to petition U.S. courts.
A June 22 Washington Times editorial warned, "If the critics are right, and detained terrorists have an inalienable right to access U.S. courts, then they have created a new standard -- one which has no precedent in the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution or U.S. history".
But it is not merely "critics" who have taken the position that the detainees "have access to U.S. courts"; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions in federal court. In Rasul v. Bush, the high court ruled that the "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay."
Conservatives also have attempted to paint opponents of the Bush administration's detention policy as advocates of granting detainees the full due process rights that U.S. citizens enjoy. The Times, for example, referred to "the current effort to treat Guantanamo detainees like American criminals, with full access to our courts". In fact, while "critics" have frequently argued that detainees must have some legal recourse to challenge their detention, Media Matters for America found no instances of human rights groups or elected officials arguing that the detainees have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens or that they deserve the same treatment as "American criminals".
dkfz Said: There you have it -- definitive proof that you are WRONG. I am NOT going to debate this any further.
Jayson Said: if we let these people back to where they came from they will be killed.
dkfz Said: This is completely false. Your uninformed opinion does not constitute truth.
Cody Said: 3 links and 30+ pictures is = to zero. Uhh, right...
dkfz Said: Staged government propaganda is not proof. I have provided numerous links to articles disproving your beloved Rusty Humphries' claims -- You ignored them all.
Cody Said: And you can stop calling me deluded any time now. Your little strategy doesn't work on me. I know I'm right and your propaganda isn't going to effect me.
dkfz Said: Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you are deluded. Either that or you are a total freaking moron. I don't know what other explaination there could be when someone continues to irrationally deny the truth.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8722.htm
05/02/05 -- The story that Sgt. Erik Saar, a soldier who spent three months in the interrogation rooms at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, paints a picture of bizarre, even sadistic, treatment of detainees in the American prison camp for Correspondent Scott Pelley.
Experts in intelligence tell 60 Minutes that if what Saar says is true, some soldiers at Guantanamo have undermined the war on terror, bungling the interrogation of important prisoners.
60 Minutes also reveals previously secret emails from FBI agents at Guantanamo that warn FBI headquarters that prisoners are being tortured.
"I think the harm we are doing there far outweighs the good, and I believe it's inconsistent with American values", says Saar. "In fact, I think it's fair to say that it's the moral antithesis of what we want to stand for as a country".
Saar volunteered for Guantanamo Bay in 2002. He was a U.S. Army linguist, an expert in Arabic, with a top-secret security clearance. He was assigned to translate during interrogations. The prisoners, about 600 in all, were mostly from the battlefields of Afghanistan. And Saar couldn’t wait to get at them after what the administration said: the men were "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth".
With that in mind, Saar went to work, but he was surprised by what he found. How many prisoners did he think were the worst of the worst -– real terrorists?
"At best, I would say there were a few dozen," says Saar. "A few dozen [out of 600]".
And who were the rest of the guys? "Some of them were conscripts who actually were forced to fight for the Taliban, so actually had taken up arms against us, but had little or no choice in the matter," says Saar. "Some of them were individuals who were picked up by the Northern Alliance, and we have no idea why they were there, and we didn't know exactly what their connections were to terrorism".
However, when they got there, Saar and the rest of Guantanamo's intelligence personnel were told that the captives were not prisoners of war, and therefore, were not protected by the Geneva Convention.
"Your training in intelligence had told you what about the Geneva Conventions?" asks Pelley.
"That they were never to be violated", says Saar. "As a matter of fact, the training for interrogators themselves, their entire coursework falls under the umbrella of you never violate the Geneva Conventions".
"If the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply, what rules did apply?" asks Pelley.
"I don't think anybody knew that", says Saar.
dkfz Said: You think these people deserve to be locked up for the rest of their lives?
Some of them were conscripts who actually were forced to fight for the Taliban, so actually had taken up arms against us, but had little or no choice in the matter.
See, this is what I am talking about. Having scanned through the last deluge - any argument that is intended to be taken seriously must have support that is unbiased and verifiable. Otherwise we end up with a lot of conjecture and uninformed opinions being thrown around as "evidence".
So taking a look through the commentors here, what do we see?
Jayson: In a spectatcular move, seemingly aimed at destroying his own credibility, he has taken to blithely inventing facts and throwing them out there as if we were stupid for not having this information. No attempt whatsoever is made to back most of it up, nor does most of it resemble anything close to the facts. *shakes head* .. Astonishing, really.
Cody: On the other hand, Cody is somewhat more open to the idea that the right ain't always right (but not THAT open). While Cody doesn't necessarily balatantly make stuff up that sounds sort of good like Jayson, his information is extremely biased and all of the (few) things he provides as backup are also from entirely biased sources, and really can't be taken seriously as proof. Really, its like claiming that the Earth is flat and citing an article by the "Society for Medieval Mindsets" as evidence.
dfkz: Not to say that I agree with everything he says, as he leans more to the left than I think anyone should, but look at his sources. They are numerous, mostly neutral, and clearly back him up from unbiased news perspective. Honestly, this guy is opening a can of REAL whoopass on everything that Jayson and Cody are saying, simply because he can verify what he says and they cannot.
"its like claiming that the Earth is flat and citing an article by the "Society for Medieval Mindsets" as evidence."
It's more like saying the truth and backing it up. He is using what people said about what it was like in 2002. If it was still 2002 he would be right.
I'll say it again, pictures don't lie. I don't lie. And Rusty Humphries doesn't lie.
But since you don't believe any of us, maybe a government website would be more necessary.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050620_1779.html
"They also apparently raised you to be judgmental and sanctimonious so that was 18 years well spent."
You obviously don't know me.
-Cate
Dates given for the articles I posted above:
Top five Gitmo falsehoods: Thursday June 23, 2005
More Torture Revelation From Guantanamo: May 2, 2005
Both these dates are later than 2002. Agree or disagree? Anyway, 2002 is NOT ancient history -- no torture should have taken place EVER. You didn't answer my previous question -- are you saying that since (according to you) these things took place in 2002 we should forget all about it? Are you saying that (according to you), they are being treated so well (to well according to you), that it doesn't matter that their Geneva Convention rights are being denied?! Your argument makes no sense! Even if the prisoners are no longer being tortured, they are still being held indefinately -- without rights of any kind -- in a legal limbo.
Despite what you might think about them -- they're evil; they don't deserve rights since when they capture our people they behead them on video; they would go right back to fight against us if released -- shouldn't the US take the moral high ground -- or are we no better then them?
I'm not saying go easy on them -- I'm not saying release them (or sing koombiyah with them). I'm saying we need to give them the rights that the U.S. Army's own field manual states they are entitled to. After that, it may be determined that some of them should stay locked up indefinately (because the they would immediately rejoin the fight).
You don't address any of these concerns (which was what I was expecting) -- instead you keep repeating -- over and over -- "yes, they were tortured -- but that was 2002! Now they are getting ice cream and cap'n crunch!".
How is it even relevant to my argument that they are not being granted rights they qualify for under the Geneva Convention????? They didn't have those rights in 2002, they don't have them now! The torture stopped (according to you) -- so they should rejoice and everyone should forget about the fact that they still aren't getting rights they are entitled to???
Answer the DAMN question or stop responding!!!!!!!!!
As for your government website link -- I called your "Rusty Humphries" pictures staged Government propaganda. What makes you think I am going to believe a government website??! OF COURSE they are going to insist that the prisoners are being treated humanely!!
George Bush is a evil lying a$$hole. I do not believe anything that comes out of his mouth! (also: Rusty Humphries is a lying partisan hack.)
Three years and counting...
[quote from article Cody provided the link to above] Bush defended U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, urging reporters to go to the facility to judge for themselves as a federal court weighs whether detainees there should be tried in a military court or in the civilian courts. "When the courts make the decision they make, we'll act accordingly", he said.
dkfz Said: That's all bullcrap.
In 2002 they were breaking the Geneva Convention. And I agree there. People that were part of anything in-humane should be fired. But as of now I am very sure that the Geneva convention is not being broken. That's all I'm saying.
This is my last post on this subject. We both have our beliefs and it's pretty obvious that neither of us are going to give in, and this could go on forever. I just want you to know that I'm not for breaking the Geneva convention. If we were breaking it, I would have something to say. But I believe that they are not. You can believe what you want. And I'll believe what I want.
See ya!
did I say fired? I meant arrested. Sorry.
What I'm saying is that the Geneva Convention covers more than torture. It also says these prisoners cannot be held indefinately without some type of hearing/trial. According to the dubya qote above, that is still in process. I guess you think three years is reasonable. What about four? How about five? I think they intend to keep most of these people locked up forever.
did I say fired? I meant arrested. Sorry.
That person -- the one who should be arrested -- is Donald Rumsfeld. Bush too, because he is the one who gave the go-ahead (approved of using torture).
saint: made up? no. listen to me. The Geneva Convention rights was signed by nations. An individual cannot have geneva conventions, only if you belong to a country. did you know what we did to combatants on the battlefield who didnt have a uniform in ww2? they shot them and moved on. I think this is a much better way to treat illegal combatants. if you do not belong to a country, YOU DO NOT HAVE GENEVA CONVENTION RIGHTS AND CANNOT BE GIVEN THEM.
Why would you say this is made up? I am apalled.
cody o conner: you shouldnt argue with dfkz about what the geneva convention rights cover, because the people that were sent there could not be given the rights. So it ends right there.
Jayson, what in the hell are you talking about? How do the people in Gitmo not have any nationality? They all have names and the ability to be identified - what you are saying does not have any basis in reality. The geneva conventions are expressly FOR the purposes of protecting individuals. You are completely wrong!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this is what has happened in gitmo - rogue fighters on the battlefield who had no nationality were taken to gitmo. thats why there only like 500 people there. go ahead and check. these people have no nationality, they belong to no country.
Jayson Said: YOU DO NOT HAVE GENEVA CONVENTION RIGHTS AND CANNOT BE GIVEN THEM.
Wrong. They can, and they have been given.
Apparently you aren't smart enough to understand. What you really meant to say is that you agree with Bush that Geneva Convention Rights don't apply because the "illegal combatants" were not wearing uniforms or displaying a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance". In other words, they are not fighting on behalf of a Signatory Nation. This is NOT the same as saying their "nationality cannot be identified". Obviously, if it were a simple matter of identifying their nationality their lawyers would have produced the required documents long ago.
I pointed out the difference in my post above. Obviously you did not read it -- if you had you would have said "yes, that is what I meant". So, yes, it appears that using a strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention that the Guantánamo Bay detainees do not qualify for protection under article four.
However (and this is a BIG however), as I pointed out above, The ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) concluded in a 2003 legal analysis that "unlawful combatants" are entitled to protections under GCIV -- and the US Army is in agreement (or was, previous to bush)! -- the Army's field manual recognizes GCIV protections for non-POWs "engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct".
This is all in my post above, under "Top five Gitmo falsehoods, falsehood #4". Don't you think that if you are going to disagree with someone that you should read their entire argument? Bottom line: The Bush administration is using a strict interpretation of the Geneva Convention to do exactly as it pleases. While Bush may be technically correct, he is morally wrong. When you're immoral (like Bush is), you can do whatever you please. I take it that you don't believe in morals either?
Of course this is further proof that Bush is the antichrist. Calling a prison a "Camp", denying prisoner their rights (rights which the rest of the international community says they are entitle to) through the use of legalese, torturing those prisoners and then pinning the crimes on scapegoats who were only following orders... the list goes on and on.
Here is the explaination for what is happening:
http://www.raptureready.com/soap/rr-id.html
Revelation 13:2 says that Satan himself gives the Antichrist his power, throne and authority. Satan will possess and use the Antichrist to mock God by showing that most of the world would rather bow in worship to an image of this evil man (George W. Bush) than to bow to, and worship, the true and living God and His Living Messiah, Jesus.
GEORGE BUSH IS MOCKING YOU!
this is what has happened in gitmo - rogue fighters on the battlefield who had no nationality were taken to gitmo. thats why there only like 500 people there. go ahead and check. these people have no nationality, they belong to no country.
That is all bullcrap. Everyone has a nationality!
A lot of stuff has been said but i feel this is important; you say
"they shot them and moved on. I think this is a much better way to treat illegal combatants. if you do not belong to a country, YOU DO NOT HAVE GENEVA CONVENTION RIGHTS AND CANNOT BE GIVEN THEM."
What about the innocent civilians? What about the British "combatants" who were released uncharged?
Everybody has right, unless it seems they are in a country the US chooses to invade.
You lack any clear perspective and I just see you awful rhetoric as borderline racism.
EVERYONE has a nationality. You do not know a single solitary thing about this, and are posing the stupidest argument EVER.
yes I do, we talked about it in debate. this is the truth, if it sounds wacked out to you, maybe thats because you guys disagree with me on everything. But also let me note that my position on gitmo is neutral, this has been a debate exercise.
My my...maybe we should all just take a deep breath...there...feel better? I think Eric Saar's book Inside the Wire was brought up? If I missed that portion...my apologies. I read it. It was very interesting. It is worth picking up and reading. Enjoy!
You can't say that someone doesn't have a nationality just because you don't know what it is.
oh give me a break. This is so stupid. Whine"your just a kid. . . "whine - dont give me that crap. I am completley aware of what I have been debating, because this is a key idea to win for my debate class. I am sick and tired of this crap.
"You can't say that someone doesn't have a nationality just because you don't know what it is."
But if you don't know what they are you can't lable them, therefore they have no known nationality, so it's impossible to be breaking the Geneva Convention.
So that could be our loophole, but we don't break the Convention anyways. They get trials to confirm that they're terrorists, and depending on how good you act at the cells in gitmo you get a different amount of "comfort items". Things like cards, books, ice cream, movies, etc.
So we don't HAVE to be following the Geneva Convention, but we are. Now that's the America I know, and if you think for one second that we would do such savage things, I guess you don't know what America stands for.
Excactly.
Cody Said: ...so it's impossible to be breaking the Geneva Convention.
I guess the truth is whatever you (or bush) decides it is.
Jayson Said: oh give me a break. This is so stupid.
It certainly is.
I am out of here. What a waste of time. Maybe I'll check in from time to time, but no more long posts that require me to do extensive research to prove you wrong. You obviously don't care about the truth (I'm talking to Jayson and Cody).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/22/133923/44
Bush supporters are misinformed
What better example of the faith-based versus reality based community?
75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them. (Jayson)
72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war. (Jayson)
60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (Jayson)
58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.
57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected. (Jayson)
56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD. (Jayson)
55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (Jayson)
51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.
20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. (Jayson)
These people are definitely not part of the Reality Based Community.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You're really running out of arguments now aren't you? You can't back up your arguments anymore so instead you pull up polls which pretty much states that people like me are thinking like the majority of Americans. And then you call them all "dellusional". That was honestly the most pathetic post I've seen today.
Why don't you bring that crap to people who are stupid enough to agree with it?
In fact your whole style for debating is pathetic, this is how it is.
Cody: *says something*
DKFZ: that's bullcrap, just go to this liberal blog, they said you're wrong so they must be right.
Cody: can you actually prove me wrong?
DKFZ: I can prove that your a dellusional peice of crap
www.Republicanssuck.org
Cody: *states more intelligent info and truth*
DKFZ: I don't believe you, you're delusional. *flame* *flame* *goes back to same statement that has already been proven wrong*
Cody: *proves it wrong again*
DKFZ: Stop messing around and answer the question! *doesn't state question*
Cody: *more truth*
DKFZ: *more lies*
Cody: *more intelligence*
DKFZ: *more flames*
THE END
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No more proof is needed than your post above to show how delusional you are -- since it is the exact opposite of what actually transpired. Anyone (who isn't delusional) can see that quite clearly by reading for themselves.
You'll never run out of stupid nonsense to post will you? You can't back up your arguments (and never could), so instead you flat out lie and declare yourself the winner. You are quite clearly delusional. Your last post was honestly one of the most pathetic post I've ever seen.
Stay here with Jayson and Gayle -- they're deluded enough to agree with everything you say.
The fact is your whole style for debating is pathetic.
dkfz: states a fact or an opinion backed up with facts.
cody: that's bullcrap, trust Rusy and Hannity, they said you're wrong so they must be right.
dkfz: can you actually prove me wrong? Can you back up what you are saying with links?
cody: ignores question, or provides links which prove nothing.
dkfz: provides more links proving what he is saying.
cody: totally ignores the provided proof, continues to state why he is right -- even though he is quite clearly wrong.
dkfz: asks cody why he won't state why the provided proof is wrong by providing links of his own.
cody: (who can't provide links because his arguement is extremely weak, disproved long ago and no longer accepted by the majority of Republicans, or flat out wrong) continues to restate the same incorrect argument.
dkfz: more truth
cody: more opinions and lies presented as the truth.
dkfz: (who has just about had it) provides more links backing up what he is saying, even though he knows it is probably a waste of time.
cody: declares victory, even though he has quite clearly lost the argument.
dkfz: realizes continuing the argument is pointless, since cody will declare victory no matter what -- since he is clearly DELUSIONAL.
THE END
PS. every single question the poll I posted above asks has been proven to be false. You say you agree with every statement? That does not surprise me. Bush knows Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Rummy knows. Just yesterday I read a news story which stated that rummy acknowledges that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. That you continue to believe this clearly shows how DELUDED you are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200407211107.asp
Oh there is a connection all right.
if you think for one second that we would do such savage things, I guess you don't know what America stands for.
I know what bush stands for. He (through rummy) knew of, and aproved of using torture. I've believed this since the scandal broke (So I've been thinking about it for more than a second).
no there isn't.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm
Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
Maybe he didn't help with 9/11 (although he probably did), but the point is, is that there was a connection. He still helped a lot with other things.
read the article, just read it.
...although he probably did
No, he did not.
As you pointed out on you own blog -- the United States provided weapons to saddam. Therefore, there is a connection between the united states and Iraq.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
Reagan’s WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 18, 2004
Given all the indignant neoconservative “outrage” over the financial misdeeds arising from the UN’s socialist oil-for-food program during the 1990s, when the UN embargo was killing untold numbers of Iraqi children, one would think that there would be an equal amount of outrage over a much more disgraceful scandal — the U.S. delivery of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.
After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S. officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people into supporting the invasion and war of aggression against Iraq, a war that has killed or maimed thousands of innocent people — that is, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq’s 1996 accounting of its nuclear program....
Unfortunately, the U.S.-WMD connection to Saddam Hussein involved more than just delivering those WMDs to him. In an August 18, 2002, New York Times article entitled “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” Patrick E. Tyler wrote,
A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter’s questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq’s use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq.
dkfz Said: We need a Regime Change here in the United States!
Why do Republican presidents (Reagan: another scum-bag Republican) continue to think they can interfere in the politics of sovereign nations and there will be no repercussions?
BTW: the weapons were destroyed, not moved. If he still had them (which he did not), why didn't he use them?! [note: this is a QUESTION. It is total BS when you claim above "doesn't state question". THIS IS THE QUESTION.]
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
Given that the WMDs that were used to justify the invasion and war against Iraq never materialized, one would think that the neoconservatives who pushed and misled America into the war, and those members of Congress who complacently rubber-stamped the president’s actions, and those members of the press who served as the administration’s cheerleaders would be at least mildly outraged over how Saddam Hussein acquired his WMDs in the first place — from the United States and other countries during the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, the response has been the standard ho-hum one hears whenever the rot at the center of the empire surfaces: "It was just a policy mistake; it happened a long time ago; we need to put it behind us; and it’s now time to move on".
It is that mindset of denial, however, that is certain to doom our nation to increasing conflicts, crises, and turmoil. To restore political, moral, and economic health to our country, it is necessary to excise the cancer associated with the unrestrained — and oftentimes secret — exercise of government power. In order to excise such a cancer, however, it is first necessary to acknowledge and confront its existence.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303h.asp
The Rot at the Center of the Empire
by Jacob G. Hornberger, March 14, 2003
Last weekend’s announcement that the U.S. government had relied on
fake and false evidence in the attempt to secure approval of its upcoming invasion of Iraq was, by and large, met by a collective yawn from the American people, especially the members of Congress. It’s just one more example of the depths of moral depravity to which our nation has fallen.
dkfz Said: Arrest, try, and execute the traitor George W. Bush for his crimes against humanity. The Bush administration and all Neo-Cons are "The Rot at the Center of the Empire".
Sorry, dfkz, but calling the Bush administration "The Rot at the Center of the Empire" makes you look like a raving lunatic. You will never pursuade anyone of anything with that sort of hostility. Our country is doing more, and has done more good for other countries on this planet than any other country on earth ever! We stupidly pore billions of dollars into South Africa to attempt to help the people, and it's ripped off by a corrupt government but guess what: "The Rot at the Center of the Empire" keeps sending them more money. Your rhetoric is absolutely vile and I, for one, consider you personally to be a traitor of this country. Now go ahead and rant, rave and insult me as I know you will do, because I stand up for this country, for this administration, and against people like you with every breath of my being.
Sorry, dfkz, but calling the Bush administration "The Rot at the Center of the Empire" makes you look like a raving lunatic.
First of all, I did not say it.. I repeated it and agreed with it, but I was not the one who wrote it. (follow the link I included in my post to view the original article.)
I point out the corruption within the Bush administration and that makes me a "raving lunatic"? I dislike Bush because of this corruption and that makes me a traitor? Yes, that makes complete sense -- to a deluded bush-bot.
There is a greedy murderous lying traitor in the white house -- and you think my being angry about this is unreasonable?!
"There is a greedy murderous lying traitor in the white house"
Ooh a ghost story! I bet it took place during the Clinton administration!
"Your rhetoric is absolutely vile and I, for one, consider you personally to be a traitor of this country. Now go ahead and rant, rave and insult me as I know you will do, because I stand up for this country, for this administration, and against people like you with every breath of my being."
Right on Gayle! I'm glad someone is out there helping me fight evil. From 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM I've had to put up with this guy and his "Bush should die" bull crap. Bush is one of the best leaders this country has had, and all he wants to do is kill him. I don't get it you liberals. If you hate America so much, then why don't you move to Canada?
I don't get it you liberals. If you hate America so much, then why don't you move to Canada?
I do not hate America. I hate Bush. But of course in your mind Bush IS America. Funny thing, the same is true for Bush:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060736704/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Ff/103-2862693-98670/103-2862693-9867032
The President suffers from "character pathology", including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable.
(From: "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President" by Justin A. Frank)
Come on, admit it, you HATE this country. I would never call for the death of ANY president EVER, you know why? Because whether I like them or not, they are the leader of the country and like it or not, they're there until the end of the term. Hating the person who is the leader of your country is VERY un-american. I think you need to just sit there for a minute and rethink your values. I mean, you want to kill the guy for gods sake!
I can stand some Democrats when they can disagree with me in a civilized manner. But you are physically incapable of it and it's people like you who give your party a bad name, you should be embarrased.
I do not have anything to be embarrassed about. The guy is a greedy lying murderous scum-bag. I think that the death penalty should only be applied in the most severe cases. Cases where there is a lot of evidence. dubya is such a case.
I don't think it is going to happen though -- impeachment or indictment -- because if either of those things happened it would be pretty solid evidence that he wasn't the Antichrist.
YOU are the one who hates this country. Bush is for everything this country does not stand for. Preventative war (which is not the same as preemptive war), Stealing other countries' natural resources, Denying Geneva Convention Rights to prisoners, plutocracy, raping the environment, etc. etc.
YOU are un-American Cody!
I mean, you want to kill the guy for gods sake!
I'd pull the lever, or push the button.
"Bush supporters are misinformed
What better example of the faith-based versus reality based community?
75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.
74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them. (Jayson)
72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.
69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war. (Jayson)
60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (Jayson)
58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.
57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected. (Jayson)
56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD. (Jayson)
55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. (Jayson)
51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.
20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. (Jayson)
These people are definitely not part of the Reality Based Community."
No, these are normal down to earth people. they are the reality based community. get out of lala land, dfkz. I went to better wing and saw that comment about "wouldnt an intelligent person know how to spell intelligent?" All I can say is, your so stupid its unbelievable. Maybe you dont type fast enough to make spelling errors.
Its because the liberals really are out to get bush!
HELL YEAH! We are trying to get him OUT of office!
You do realize that Cheney is more Conservative than Bush right? He doesn't just disappear when the president gets impeached. And sorry to dissapoint you, but he will NOT be impeached. Just because you have different political views (and I know that's the reason) is the WORST reason to want to impeach a president. And I know you'll be preaching to impeach our next president if he's Republicans. You guys are just plain pathetic.
Yeah, wait until we put Jeb in. Can you imagine what they're faces'll look like?
"Just because you have different political views (and I know that's the reason) is the WORST reason to want to impeach a president."
wow, I just had a weird resolution about this. Ill write a post about it.
Wow! I just came back here to check out new comments and found out that DFKZ called me a "Bush bot." That's okay. I can take it. In fact, coming from him it's a wonderful compliment. Thank you, DFKZ! :)
Looking forward to your new post, BC08!
Hyprocacy is never pretty! (For those of you who may not know who Mary Jo Kopechne is, do a search of her with your web browser.)
"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished drowned."
-- Ted Kennedy on Hurricane Katrina
"Ditto"
-- Mary Jo Kopechne
interesting.
I wanr to start off with this: fuck you, Cody O'Connor.
Who in their right fucking mind would support a fucking twit like Bush with a fucking straight face.
For you, dkfz, what would killing Bush solve? Want Cheney as a President? Have more caution in what you say, I am pretty sure the DIA and CIA have bugs in your phone for that little phrase of yours.
Anyone thinking Bush is a moral person or a Christian should take a good look at the Bible and compare that with the bullshit Bush has done. Jesus healed the sick, encouraged that a society should share wealth (i.e., socialism), was definately pacifist, and, above all, was not one to show off power.
Bush has done the exact opposite of the above (condoning war, giving taxcuts to the rich while trying his damn best to take poor people down another knotch.)
Bush isn't the anti-Christ or Hitler though, I mean, he isn't intelligent enough to be.
The anti-Christ is to be a man of stature, an orator and will bring peace to his nation before attacking others (according to the Bible and most Biblical prediction, in the span of 3 and 1/2 years). Bush didn't take that long to get us into war - orator? huh.
So, WTF? WHY ARE THERE STILL BUSH SUPPORTERS.
GET THE DICK OUT OF YOUR BRAIN.
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
FUCK BUSH
Post a Comment
<< Home