CBS’s Rodriguez Cites NYT to Criticize Obama Gitmo Decision

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
  • Bookmark and Share

Maggie Rodriguez, CBS In a rare instance of critical coverage of the Obama administration on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman about Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay: "I'm not sure if you've seen the New York Times this morning. On the front page there is an article that reveals that a terror suspect released from Guantanamo a few months ago...is now heading up Al Qaeda in Yemen. I'm wondering if this makes you less inclined Representative Harman, to support closing down the prison?"

Harman actually doubted the credibility of the usually left-wing newspaper: "Not at all. Obviously, if that allegation is true and if this fellow has now become a key Al Qaeda operative, that's shocking and disappointing." Harman went on to argue: "But there is really no justification, and there was no justification, for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law. As President Obama said two days ago, there's a false choice between our safety and our values." Rodriguez then turned to Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra: "It all sounds great, but Representative Hoekstra you said yesterday that's placing 'hope ahead of reality,' right?"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

One point Hoekstra made in opposition to closing Guantanamo was: "...where are these prisoners going to go in the United States? There was a good reason to move them to Guantanamo, we recognized that-" At that point, Rodriguez interrupted him to bolster his argument: "A lot of people say ‘not in my backyard.’"

At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith actually wondered: "Honeymoon over? Republicans spar over President Obama's order to shut down Guantanamo Bay...While they battle over his economic recovery plan...Can the president deliver on his bipartisan promise?"

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Honeymoon over? Republicans spar over President Obama's order to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

BARACK OBAMA: America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.

SMITH: While they battle over his economic recovery plan.

JOHN BOEHNER: It looks like a bill that spends too much and spends it too late.

SMITH: Can the president deliver on his bipartisan promise?

7:02AM SEGMENT:

JULIE CHEN: But first, it promises to be another very busy day for President Obama. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante joins us with that. Bill, good morning.

BILL PLANTE: Hey Julie. This morning the president gets up close and personal with members of the House and Senate from both parties. An important meeting, because he wants to push them on his plan to aid the ailing economy. Mr. Obama wants it known that he'll be paying very close attention to the financial crisis, getting a daily economic briefing, just as he does a national security briefing.

ROBERT GIBBS: The presidents asked that this be added each day to his schedule as the country's in the midst of an economic crisis and an economic emergency.

PLANTE: In a public gesture designed to highlight a campaign promise, Mr. Obama signed an order closing the prison at Guantanamo within a year and forbidding the so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'

OBAMA: Once again, America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.

PLANTE: Still finding his way around the White House, the president ventured into the press briefing room for a tour and suggested that we need more healthful snacks in the vending machine. If he looked cheerful, there was a good reason, Mr. Obama got word that he'll be able to keep his Blackberry, which will have special security.

OBAMA: I won the fight, but I don't think that, you know, it's actually up and running yet.

PLANTE: Now, the president's visit to reporters came as a surprise, it seldom happens. And there's a reason the president seldom comes down into the press briefing room, and that is because when they do, we start asking them questions. Julie.

CHEN: You're going to push him away by doing that, doing your job. No, I'm just kidding there. Alright, Bill Plante outside the White House. Thanks a lot, Bill. And now let's head back to New York and Maggie.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Julie. President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay has ignited a debate, especially over the issue of where to put those prisoners. We're joined this morning by Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman. Good morning to you both.

JANE HARMAN: Good morning.

PETER HOEKSTRA: Hey, good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure if you've seen the New York Times this morning. On the front page there is an article that reveals that a terror suspect released from Guantanamo a few months ago, someone who said that if he was ever released he would reunite with his family and work for their furniture business, is now heading up Al Qaeda in Yemen. I'm wondering if this makes you less inclined Representative Harman, to support closing down the prison?

HARMAN: Not at all. Obviously, if that allegation is true and if this fellow has now become a key Al Qaeda operative, that's shocking and disappointing. The Saudis are ones who should worry about Al Qaeda attacks and so are the Yemenis. This fellow, I think, is a Yemeni national. But nonetheless, what it tells me is that President Obama has to proceed extremely carefully. But there is really no justification, and there was no justification, for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law. As President Obama said two days ago, there's a false choice between our safety and our values. And I believe that the system that he has set up will bring some people to the U.S. for prosecution, we've already successfully prosecuted and imprisoned 145 terrorists, both U.S. nationals and foreign nationals, since 9/11 in U.S. federal prison. It will release some people, obviously, more carefully, those who committed absolutely no crimes and who were no danger. And it will send others back to their country of origin or to appropriate tribunals elsewhere in the world, where they can be tried, and if convicted, imprisoned.

RODRIGUEZ: It all sounds great, but Representative Hoekstra you said yesterday that's placing 'hope ahead of reality,' right?

HOEKSTRA: That's exactly right, I mean the executive order that was signed yesterday really is very short on specifics. Yes, we have processed about 500 people through Guantanamo, but as your -- or as the New York Times points out, that about 10% of the people that we've released out of Guantanamo, there's indications that they are back on the battlefield, they are attacking American troops. The real question that we now face is what is President Obama's strategy to confront this threat from radical jihadists? Are we going to go back to what we did in the 1990's where when we were attacked in 1993 at the World Trade Center we said, 'you know, if you attack the United States, we are going to throw the book at you and we are going to prosecute you.' And after 9/11 we found out and we recognized that that was not an effective strategy. So that's one of the questions, what is the real strategy, is it prosecution or prevention? The second thing is, where are these prisoners going to go in the United States? There was a good reason to move them to Guantanamo, we recognized that-

RODRIGUEZ: A lot of people say 'not in my backyard.'

HOEKSTRA: That's right, because we knew -- we knew that we didn't want them -- we wanted them in Guantanamo because we knew that if we put these people in the United States they would become a magnet for attacks on the homeland. So put them someplace that is safe and secure. And I think that as people start getting an indication that there going to Kansas, that they're going to California, that they're going to Illinois, or to Michigan, people are going to say 'no, why would we want them here-

HARMAN: Wait a minute-

HOEKSTRA: -and put them in a general prison population and make our hometowns a target for terrorists.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

HARMAN: Okay, but wait a minute-

RODRIGUEZ: We're out of time so I want to give the last word in ten seconds to Representative Harman.

HARMAN: Thank you. Most of these folks who've been successfully prosecuted are in Supermax Prison in Florence, Colorado, and that is exactly where they should be. Let's retire the fear card, let's understand that we can do both.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

HARMAN: We can be safe and we can protect our values.

RODRIGUEZ: Thank you so much for your time, Representatives Harman and Hoekstra, appreciate it.

HARMAN: Thank you.

HOEKSTRA: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This harks right back to

This harks right back to the Clinton era.

Instead of seeing these people as enemy combatants who were lucky not to have gotten a bullet in the head they want to fight them in the courts instead of the battlefield.

Lawyers

Most of them are lawyers and think they can win if they can just manipulate the law or find favor within the court system. It is kind of a myopic view of the world and frustrates the hell out of us military types who see someone with an assault rifle  and an RPG as a combatant and an enemy, not some misguided criminal who was not breast fed when they were babies so they are not to blame.

You are very correct, this

You are very correct, this is the perfect example of the liberal "Soft Power" view on the world.

A person is detained in Afghanistan for being an Al Qaeda terrorist and taken to Gitmo.  While there, the AQ detainee does the typical:

  •  
    • Claims he was in the boonies of Afghanistan in a war zone in search of "The authentic Islamic Life" and also to score chicks.  (Chicks?  In Tora-Bora?)
    • Then claims he was never a terrorist regardless of where he was caught and what he was doing.  Claims he was searching for rugs for his families rug business even though his family business has nthing to do with rugs.
    • Begins doing the old "OOOhhhhhh, I have been tortured.  I was forced to eat glazed chicken that was too WARM", Oooo, woe is me.  (Cue "Hell Hole" by Spinal Tap.

I rode the jet stream, I hit the top
I'm eating steak and lobster tails
The sauna's drafty - oooh, the pool's too hot
The kitchen stinks of boiling snails

The taxman's coming, the butler quit
This ain't no way to be a man
I'm going back to where I started
I'm flashing back into my pan

Yeah, that's what I am doing, and why not?
It's better in a hell hole
You know where you stand in a hell hole
Folks lend a hand in a hell hole
Girl get me back to my hell hole

  •  
    • Asks for as much legal representation as is possible in an effort to make a nuisance of himself.
    • Then when the ACLU sponsored lawyers make him a cause celebre in some backwood country somewhere, the US decides to release him to Saudi Arabai who promises to set up a re-education procedure before releasing him.
    • Undergoes six or seven weeks of "Re-education" in some Islamic Version of Mr Rodgers who shows him pictures of smiling children and says "Well Mahmoud, how does that make you FEEL?"
    • Upon his graduation from the program he is released and within minutes is in the back of a van driven by his former comrades and headed away to renew his jihad.  They promptly give him a cool new nom de guerre to mark the occasion.  In this particular case it is Abu Sayyaf Al Shihri or "Bearer of the sword from Shihri."
    • When news come to light the ACLU begins back up story number 5 whic his "He is NOW a terrorist because we treated him so badly."

And the libs think that their policies on both the war and Criminal punishment WORK?

Values

Amazing the Dems are more worried about the well being and treatment of known terrorist committed to murder our citizens yet see nothing wrong with using our tax money to pay for abortions that murder the innocents in other countries on top of giving over $350 million tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to do the same ...President Obama and each member of congress and the Senate should have to watch an actual abortion and then talk about US values and protection of rights !!!   Our country will see no internal peace or financial stability as long as we de-value life ...

The rights of terrorist vs the rights of law abiding citizens

"[It's a]mazing the Dems are more worried about the well being and treatment of known terrorist committed to murder our citizens..."

I disagree.  It is not amazing at all.  This matter is salutary because it brings right to the surface just how much the Democrats hate this country. 

There is also another fairly likely possibility and that is after a few weeks of hemming and hawing The Zero will announce that the closing of Gitmo is to be postponed indefinitely.  This will be met with some outrage and a lot of grumbling, but then the super smart O will explain, and then it will be just matter of time before all will proclaim that this is just another proof of Obama’s extreme genius.  Why? Because he did this with the blessing of the Press, whereas while this will be the same thing that Bush did, Bush did it unilaterally and especially against the wishes of the Press.  In other words this will reveal just one more instance of politicizing events and issue manipulation by the Press.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Close It

If he does close gitmo he'll have no one to blame but himself when they all come back an start ruining more people's lives. But knowing the media thay'll find some way to spin it and make it Bush's fault.

    "But knowing the

    "But knowing the media thay'll find some way to spin it and make it Bush's fault."

      That's not a joke...wait and see.  They say the reason they attacked the USA was because BUSH wrongly imprisoned them.

I find it interesting that Obama

Thinks we should hold our values above our security. But he fails to identify which "values" he is referring to!

"Waterboarding is only torture if it leaves a mark" --MM

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Torture

I have been waterboarded, couple of times in training. Ive been more scared riding in the car with my mother in law.

Waterboarding. Didn't Ted

Upside down and restrained with a polyurethane fabric over your face as water is applied to simulate drowning.

Didn't Ted Kennedy invent that?

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

- Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

" The Cake is a lie."   

Gallop Poll - Do not close Gitmo

Gallop January 21, 2009 

Americans Send No Clear Mandate on Guantanamo BaySlightly more prefer keeping the prison open than prefer closing it, but 20% unsure

by Lymari MoralesWASHINGTON, D.C. -- With President Barack Obama already taking action relating to the U.S. prison Guantanamo Bay on his first full day in office, Americans are sending no clear mandate on the issue.   Slightly more think the United States should not close the prison than say it should, 45% to 35%.

LIBERAL RAG

The NY Liberal Rag, formerly known as the NY Times, also just posted a big headline of the indictment of ex-senate leader Joseph Bruno, and lo and behold, wasted no time labeling him:

"Joseph L. Bruno, the former Republican leader of the New York State Senate, is accused of reaping money from companies seeking state or union business."

Yawn.

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

Maggie may as well start

Maggie may as well start looking for a new job. She is not following the liberal Old Media playbook, despite all that political re-education they gave her.

For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.

It's been only three days

It's been only three days and history is already smiling on President Bush.

Yep, it is. So far the

Yep, it is. So far the Obama administration looks like a very bad frat party. It won't get better.

For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.

Just like the NY

Just like the NY Times....after doing so much to turn sentiment against Gitmo, it publishes that report a day or two after The One said it will close...

We are being defrauded by ostriches!

"...if that allegation is true and if this fellow has now become a key Al Qaeda operative, that's shocking and disappointing."

There are at least 61 documented cases of GTMO releasees returning to fight US troops in either Iraq, Afghanistan and/or re-joining Al Qaeda.

The best that Jane Harman can come up with is that she is "disappointed" with this terrorist? Is she Freakin' kidding!!!??

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

RE: GITMO

It would be interesting to find out what, if any, deterrent effect the mere existence of GITMO had on wannabe jihadists.

If GITMO goes away, what do potential jihadists they have to fear? 

If they martyr themselves they go and enjoy their 72 virgins, if they get captured they go to federal court and get an ACLU lawyer to get them off the hook.

At least with GITMO they were looking at being locked up for a long, long time in a land far, far away.

Well Rep. Harman...what

Well Rep. Harman...what say we send them to Los Angeles' South Bay, so you can be really disappointed in them. Or, maybe they could migrate to Hollywood, where they would fit right in.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

The closing of Gitmo will

The closing of Gitmo will eliminate the only good health care on the island

I am not surprised by him closing Gitmo .... it was one of the pillars of of his campaign ......it baffles me to no end how the left in general care so much about the treatment of these blood thirsty pigs .. these prisoners have it much better than prisoners within our own system as far as accommodations ....on our soil they will be able act like cancers within our prison system in recruiting etc... .. think of it like the Crips ... just add another gang to our prisons

AQ and others are starting to  see that the paper tiger is back

 Can we Kool Aid Board still... durka durka ... dark_ds said that

New

New Field Handbook:

Coerce prisoner, collect intellegence, kill prisoner.

Next;

If you are a Bible student

If you are a Bible student you can recall the time God told Saul to kill all the Amalekites. Who brought the head of Saul to David? It was one of those Alamekites that he was supposed to have killed. Moral of the story: Be careful or your sins will out. Moral of closing Gitmo: This whole nation will suffer from BHO's sin.

Ricky Joe the Plumber 

Isn't it amazing when libs

Isn't it amazing when libs wins an issue in the polls by two points its a landslide in favor of their position, when conservatives win an issue by a net ten points, its a very close divisive question.

Good News

Our wonderful Governor Ritter here just put a couple more nails in his coffin for the next election.  He says he would take some of the prisoners in our Supermax Prison in Florence Colorado.  That's just what I want is a terrorist in my state indoctrinating other prisoners into there terrorist world and then be released to unleash their hell.  Not to mention the target this prison will have on it.

These people are over the top.

"He is who we thought he was" Dennis Green ( kinda )

Good Twilight Zone idea: 

Good Twilight Zone idea:  This guy suddenly finds himself on an airplane taken over by hijackers about to be flown into yet another building. The head hijacker gleefully brags that the Feds had him, but admitted they were unable to force him to talk and had to let him go.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

RR GOP, Twilight Zone idea...

Yours is good, I have one to add...

Terrorist guy kills a woman and is sent to an American prison since Guantanamo is closed.

His cellmate is a mass-murderer who killed his own wife's family and tried to kill her, but failed.

The problem is that the murderer has spent the last fifteen years waiting to get out so he can finish the job and kill the wife that the terrorist has recently killed. He now has nothing, his only motivation to get out has been taken from him, from the man now in the cell with him. The murderer isn't angry that the terrorist killed his wife, he's angry because he himself wasn't able to.

Instead of "You don't love her like I do," it's about "You didn't hate her like I did."

Two psychos in a dark and locked cell for the night, with plenty of ways to kill eachother.

Mike

 

someone from Gitmo returns to terrorism

Let's just be clear on this: if someone released from Gitmo returns to (or picks up) terrorism, then the fault is with the system that let him go--which was Bush's system.

Think about it: Al-Shihri was taken into custody years ago, and released months ago (according to reports)--all of which happened under the watch of people that Bush's administration put in charge.

So, Bush's system failed--and Obama is changing that system. We can debate the merits of Obama's proposed changes (i.e., shutting down Gitmo), but the fact that someone was released from the Bush administration's prison camp can only serve as an example of what Obama needs to be careful about (and what the Bush administration was insufficiently careful about).

In fact, let's put the release of Al-Shihri into the running tally of exceptions to the idea that Bush kept us safe (as Peggy Noonan said-- http://online.wsj.co... ): Bush kept American safe except for 9/11, except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq, except for the National Intelligence Estimate of 2006 which said that Americans were at a higher risk thanks to the global war on terrorism ( http://www.nytimes.c... ), and except for releasing Al-Shihri.

(And you'll notice, I didn't mention the anthrax attacks--surely that falls under the umbrella of terrorism?--and I didn't mention his response to Katrina, because I know that's a hot-button topic around here. But just ask yourself: if Bush could end his vacation abruptly and try to involve the federal government in the internal workings of the state in regards to the Terri Schiavo case, why couldn't he try to involve the federal government in the internal workings of the state in regards to Katrina?)

Nice try Nick

I hope you didn't hurt your back with all that twisting. You should post that in the joke thread.

Jesus Loves You

ha, I only hurt my back shoveling snow

Hey coco,

If you can refute any of my argument, please do so. 

Squeers swung down out

Of the trees, whooping loudly and flinging his feces at the crowd.
Let's see....where to start...

1. Bush bent over backwards to do things the Democrat way and let some terrorists go instead of shooting them all..FAIL. But Nancy and Harry were happy.

2. 'Americans were at higher risk BECAUSE of the war on terror'
And our alternative is to ask them nicely not to hurt us? FAIL. Go back to school and study logic, Squeers.

3. Who died in the 'anthrax attacks'?

4. The President is prohibited by Constitutional law from sending in the military unless the State requests. EPIC FAIL for SQUEERS.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

Blackberries

  Careful there girl, Blackberries weren't designed to make that many good points in one post. Yer gonna sprain a thumb.

ah, much better

See Coco, that's how a refutation is done. Or at least, attempted.

1. Could you provide some evidence that suggests that the Democrats want the detainees from Gitmo released? From what I understand, the standard line from the Democrats is that they want the detainees processed--which means that some people (like the Chinese Muslims--the Uighurs) held there would be released, since they clearly are not terror threats (and since, in the case of the Uighurs, their release has been ordered by a federal court ( http://www.cnn.com/2... ), and that some people, who might be terror threats, would be kept locked up. Of course, you may have noticed that the torture that some of these suspects have undergone have made it harder to deal with them legally ( http://www.guardian.... ).

See, chose, here's where you're wrong: not everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist--they are terror suspects. Some of them should be released, and some of them shouldn't be. They need to be processed so that the ones who are prone to terror (like al-Shihri) don't get released. The fact that Bush's Gitmo released him is a fail for him--and for us.

Again, if you can provide some evidence that Reid and Pelosi have argued that the prisoners in Gitmo should be released without review, I'd be very interested in that.

2. Do you see where you go wrong here? You assume that the only options are a) bombing people and b) asking them nicely. There are, in fact, a range of other options. 

So, the question here is, how do we make the world safer for us? Certainly, asking people nicely is not the way to do it--you and I (Allah be praised) agree on that. So, does attacking other countries make us safer? According to the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate report, no. 

(You can argue that point if you want, but this is something which many people agree with: if you bomb someone's house/family/school/business, you actually give them less things to live for--thereby increasing the chances that people who have nothing to live for will engage in deadly combat and suicide missions.)

So, my point is that the previous use of our military has not made us safer--and that's not been disproven by your point that we can't just ask people to be nice. (They're two separate points, you see. You might want to be a little more careful in your logic, chose.)

3) Who died in the Anthrax attacks of 2001? Robert Stevens, photojournalist; Thomas Morris, Joseph Curseen, postal workers; Kathy Nguyen, hospital worker; Ottile Lundgren, widow of a prominent judge. That's 5 people who died; a further 17 were hospitalized.

4) Katrina is a huge argument that we've had on these boards for a while, and I don't disagree with you that NOLA and LA politicians screwed up. All I'm saying is that we can compare Bush's response to the Schiavo case (flying back to DC to sign an act in order to interfere with a state's ruling) with his response to the Katrina crisis, which was to have a cake with Sen. McCain on his birthday. I'm not saying that Bush was legally required to do something for NOLA, only that he exerted himself more to save Schiavo then he did to help NOLA.

And that, Coco, is how a refutation is really done. Squeers FTW.

Hellooooooooo Nick

  • 1 - The words "The democrats want the prisoners from Gitmo released" are yours not mine. The democrats want the Gitmo prisoners in The American court system so the ACLU can get them released. BIG difference.
  • 2 - When a fanatical group murders over three thousand Americans and vows to kill the rest of us it is too late for "nice" talk,
  • 3 - The anthrax incidents have nothing to do with Gitmo or the islamic terrorists.
  • 4 - Terry Schiavo was murdered by depriving her of food and water. You also would die if you were deprived of food and water, or didn't you know that?
  • Don't bother trying to tell me about Katrina. Our local DEMOCRAT leaders were totally useless and incompetent. The only real help we received was from the federal government courtesy of PRESIDENT BUSH.

    I hope you feel properly refuted.

    Jesus Loves You

    coco, please read again.

    hi coco,

    my refutations were to ChoseLife3x's points, but I welcome your input. However, just to be clear, some of the things I said were responding to her post, not yours, so:

    1) you didn't say that Dems want the Gitmo prisoners released, but CL3x implied that, so I was responding to her. See, her point was that al-Shihri and other terrorists who were released from Gitmo were released because of Democrats pressuring Bush--so I did what any sensible person would, I asked for evidence. And I'll do so again--what evidence do you have that the ACLU was involved in getting people released from Gitmo?

    2) Please read this point again: I didn't say we have to talk nicely to people--I only pointed out two things which I think are true, and which we can argue about: a) that it's a false choice between talking nice and playing tough--there's more options out there; b) playing tough has a way of radicalizing moderates--which leads to the old  (2003) joke about how powerful a US bomb is: so powerful that one blast can create 1000 suicide bombers.

    3) I didn't say the Anthrax cases have to do with Gitmo--I pointed out was that Bush has not kept us safe, as demonstrated by the 5 people killed and 17 hospitalized by anthrax. (And if sending anthrax through the mail isn't terrorism, then what's your definition? I mean, wasn't the Unabomber a terrorist, and he did practically the same thing.) 

    4) Please reread what I wrote: I didn't say anything about whether or not it was right to let Terri Schiavo die and I didn't say anything trying to excuse the giant mistakes made by the LA democrats. All I pointed out was that when there was one life on the line, Bush flew home--and when there were thousands of lives on the line, Bush didn't do anything (at first) except say "Heckuva job, Brownie." Seriously--some of the people in NOLA also died because they didn't have appropriate food and water--that just makes it worse that Bush didn't try to act faster. I mean, the Florida courts didn't ask Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case, but he did anyway.

    you didn't say that Dems

    you didn't say that Dems want the Gitmo prisoners released, but CL3x implied that, so I was responding to her. See, her point was that al-Shihri and other terrorists who were released from Gitmo were released because of Democrats pressuring Bush--so I did what any sensible person would, I asked for evidence. And I'll do so again--what evidence do you have that the ACLU was involved in getting people released from Gitmo?

    Sooooo, who if not the Human rights watch and ACLU demanded the releases>

    Was it the US Special Operations COmmand?  nnoooo...

    Was it the Faculty of Hillsdale College?  No, it was YOUR side of the aisle...

    a) that it's a false choice between talking nice and playing tough--there's more options out there;

    Oh, please, by all means list these techniques and your experience using them.

    b) playing tough has a way of radicalizing moderates--which leads to the old  (2003) joke about how powerful a US bomb is: so powerful that one blast can create 1000 suicide bombers.

    Total nonsense to those of us who know the arabic mindset which respects overwhelming acts of force.  Please see "Hama Rules" for guidance.

    3) I didn't say the Anthrax cases have to do with Gitmo--I pointed out was that Bush has not kept us safe, as demonstrated by the 5 people killed and 17 hospitalized by anthrax. (And if sending anthrax through the mail isn't terrorism, then what's your definition? I mean, wasn't the Unabomber a terrorist, and he did practically the same thing.)

    Domestic terrorism vs islamic based.  Please justify.

    force is not always military

    I'm only going to deal with two of the things that BD said here, because they're going to be important moving forward.

    (Okay, only two, but first as for Domestic vs. Islamic-based terrorism, I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that Bush has not kept us safe from terrorism, as people have claimed. If you wanted to say he's kept us safe from Islamic-based terrorism, then we could talk about US deaths in Iraq, not to mention the recent attack in Mumbai, connected as it was to our good ally, Pakistan.)

    But the two issues I really want to address are the idea that the Arabic mind only can understand force. First, BD, I didn't know you were so deeply versed in the Arabic mind. (For the sake of this argument, I'll assume you were talking about a cultural mindset, and not making a racist claim about Arabs.) Given the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza, I guess you would assume that, since the Israelis showed overwhelming force, the Gazans have been cowed--taught who the boss is. And yet, from what I hear (both from the news and my Israeli cousins), nothing has really changed--or rather, things have changed for the worse. So, since you think that the Arabic mind only responds to force, and yet force did not work in Gaza, what's your explanation.

    I've said this a few times, because I believe it, and because I think it's a concept that any Vietnam-era person should understand: you don't win hearts and minds by blowing up chests and skulls. You win hearts and minds by showing the benefits that are available.

    And that brings us to the second issue--what lies between trying to talk nice and trying to bomb people: it's a concept which has sometimes been called smart power, and it involves all the other avenues of power that aren't killing people. For instance, think about this: let's say we had a scholarship that enabled more people to go to secular schools in Arabic countries instead of religious madrassas--wouldn't that cut into the supply of possible recruits? (After all, terrorism, like many other not-very-well-thought-out ideologies, works well when people are indoctrinated young.) Now, let's further imagine: let's say someone was suffering from some easily treated medical condition and US or US-trained doctors helped--wouldn't that person likely be grateful? Wouldn't his family likely be grateful? 

    (This, by the way, is not merely a hypothetical situation. You may have heard the story of how US liaison officers are giving out Viagra to elderly chiefs in Afghanistan--which has helped to, let's say, firm up support for the US among those chiefs.)

    Now, these are ways to use US power (technology, education, money) in ways that help to win hearts and minds.

    (There is another way, which was actually a part of the CIA's techniques during the Cold War--to make Hollywood movies more enticing to the Third World, the CIA actually had Hollywood studios put in more minority characters into their films. That's another type of smart power--our cultural industry. Seriously: send some blue jeans and some Rolling Stones, and we'd be winning a lot of hearts and minds--not to mention swiveling hips.) 

    Okay, only two, but first

    Okay, only two, but first as for Domestic vs. Islamic-based terrorism, I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that Bush has not kept us safe from terrorism, as people have claimed. If you wanted to say he's kept us safe from Islamic-based terrorism, then we could talk about US deaths in Iraq, not to mention the recent attack in Mumbai, connected as it was to our good ally, Pakistan.)

    If we were to add up all the non-combat losses taken by the US under GWB's administration since 9/11 it will be a token compared to the losses sustained under Clinton, and undoubtedly far less than those I expect under BHO.

    The key thing is that under GWB, the nation finally was led to fight back.  And it successfully has, driving a significant wedge towards defeating islamic terrorism by taking and controlling, then modifying Iraq.  That will have the largest positrive effect in the current fight.

    But the two issues I really want to address are the idea that the Arabic mind only can understand force. First, BD, I didn't know you were so deeply versed in the Arabic mind.

    Thank you, my staff arabist took great pains to coach me through most of it. Some I learned the hard way.

    For the sake of this argument, I'll assume you were talking about a cultural mindset, and not making a racist claim about Arabs.)

    You are correct, the issue with the Arabs springs from a peculiar facet of tribalism, it has nothing to do with race.  For the record, I find virtually NOTHING is inherently race based.

    I guess you would assume that, since the Israelis showed overwhelming force, the Gazans have been cowed--taught who the boss is.

    No, not enough force was used by Isreal.  The Hamas faction assumes they have won, and since they control the "Word" in Gaza that is what will be said.

    Hamas must have been unequivocably beaten during the conflict to have any meaningful gains.  Sadly, Isreal was too restrained and left too early.

    Now, if Isreal had pulled a "Hama Rules" scenario in Gaza, they would be remarkably unpopular in the western world and the UN, but highly respected in the middle east and peace would reign.

    I've said this a few times, because I believe it, and because I think it's a concept that any Vietnam-era person should understand: you don't win hearts and minds by blowing up chests and skulls.

    Simplistic.

    Blowing up chests and Skulls, then piling the bodies in mass graves and bulldozing them shut is PRECISELY what has worked in most cases including your point of Vietnam, but also Cambodia, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, et al. 

    Culturally it is not our first option, but it is in most cases used by most other countries and is quite effective.

    Cases that match perfectly with this group dymanic in the middle east include the afformentioned Hama Rules scenario in Syria, and the earlier Jordanian "Black September" massacres.

    You will note that the terrorist group Black September did not counter-attack the Jordanian Government who had wiped out their families, but rather attacked the Isrealis who had nothing to do with the Massacres inflicted upon their people.  Why is that?  Because they know Isreal as a Western democracy will NOT massacre them.

    It is called the "Stick".

    You win hearts and minds by showing the benefits that are available.

    The method you refer to is called "The carrot." 

    That is our preference, but it does not always work out that way, particularly when the other guy is using the "Stick".  Prime example is Vietnam.  We show up and show them the glories of democracy by MEDCAPS and drilling wells.

    Then that night the other side slips in and kills the town leadership and displays their bodies.

    Which has more effect on the popualtion?

    And that brings us to the second issue--what lies between trying to talk nice and trying to bomb people: it's a concept which has sometimes been called smart power, and it involves all the other avenues of power that aren't killing people.

    If your foe is not culturally inculcated with the notion of diplomacy as method, then you will lose no matter what avenue you try diplomatically.

    Prime examples include Vietnam, PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, North Korea etc. 

    These tyranical regimes see diplomacy as nothing more than a tool to weaken enemy resolve while filling coffers and resuppling arms.

    So you really think peace can be attained by the west through talk with AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, and North Korea?  THey do not seek PEACE, they seek victory and negotiation is simply a stop gap weapon.

    For instance, think about this: let's say we had a scholarship that enabled more people to go to secular schools in Arabic countries instead of religious madrassas--wouldn't that cut into the supply of possible recruits?

    How do you prevent the secular schools from being blown up by the individuals from the madrassahs?

    Why do you think the exportation of mosques in the west concentrates on Wahabism?  Because it is a tool to victory.

    If we funded such schools in Pakistan, SA, Kuwait etc, then the funding would simply be found in the Wahabi coffers in six weeks time and a few dead bodies of our studnets laying about.  (And the school principal of your institution would be found minus a head.)

    Now, let's further imagine: let's say someone was suffering from some easily treated medical condition and US or US-trained doctors helped--wouldn't that person likely be grateful? Wouldn't his family likely be grateful? 

    MEDCAPS.

    That is the technique we used to GREAT effect in Basilan.  (THANK YOU) but you will note that it only worked because the locals thought the ASG leadership had been chased off to Jolo or Mindinao by the US/Filipino troops.

    THe locals were not willing to assist while Khaddaffy Janjalani squatted in the bush nearby with no US/Filipino force to defeat his rear end.

    Do you label that as soft power?  I consider it the aftermath of VERY HARD power.

    There is another way, which was actually a part of the CIA's techniques during the Cold War--to make Hollywood movies more enticing to the Third World

    Yeah, right.  THe same Hollywood types who have labled me and my comrades alternatingly victims and war criminals (usually both) is going to make a movie showing the positive actions in the GWOT?

    Are you smoking a high volume of crack?

    I have been asking why Hollywood cannot seem to assist us for the past five years, and have gotten NOWHERE.

    Hollywood is finally making a screen version of "Killing Pablo" which will come out next year based on Mark Bowdons book.  Normally, I would be overjoyed aobut such a thing, but I have a nagging suspicion that Hollywood is going to shaft us again somehow.  Likely by ultra-humanizing that sociopathic thug Pablo Escobar.  probably gonna get someone handsome like Javier Bardem to paly him too.

    Seriously: send some blue jeans and some Rolling Stones, and we'd be winning a lot of hearts and minds--not to mention swiveling hips.) 

    Speaking of Rolling stones.  THere is a famous (at least to us in my biz) photo of the ASG lined up carrying M-16 and M203's.  In it, terrorist leader Mujib Susukan wearing the Rolling Stone bands logo of red lips and red tongue.

    These guys know our culture. It is NOT a big draw to them.  In fact they usually hate it and think we are weak because of it.

    They kidnap their women to be their wives - usually from the group of hostages they have just taken.  Enough said?

     

    we may disagree on this...

    ...but I don't think you have to choose between the Stick and the Carrot method of persuasion--because you're not dealing with a homogeneous group of people who all believe one thing.

    I mean, there are people who belong to terrorist organizations--people who won't ever be won over in any way--they're the people who you approach with a stick. Then there are the people who like you--they should get the carrot. (In effect, I'm agreeing with your example of Basilan--the combination of Stick and Carrot, or Hard and Soft power.)

    (Also, instead of "soft power," I think the new phrase is going to be "smart power"--which I prefer because it doesn't preclude military intervention.)

    (Also, as for the Hollywood comment, I wasn't saying "Hollywood needs to show the bright side of the War on Terror," I was merely pointing out one historical use of non-military power. I'm not going to say what they should do now, only using this as an example of what the US government has done in the past to exploit our cultural production. It might not work now to do that, but there might be other methods of non-military smart power--like, as I said last time, giving viagra to local chiefs. I know you like your historical comparisons, but you haven't yet attacked that present-day practice of shoring up support for American forces.)

    ...but I don't think you

    ...but I don't think you have to choose between the Stick and the Carrot method of persuasion--because you're not dealing with a homogeneous group of people who all believe one thing.

    I concur.

    But nor do I think the carrot alone has any chance of making a positive change in a culture that is more attuned to the stick than the carrot.

    Also, instead of "soft power," I think the new phrase is going to be "smart power"--which I prefer because it doesn't preclude military intervention.)

    I do not approve of the new term since it assumes that we in the past have conversely used "Dumb Power" which is clearly not the case.

    Obama has tepped on it in the past four days by saying things in his Administrative orders that insinuate just such conversality.  Sort of a "No longer will we be dumb" which I find highly insulting.

    Also, as for the Hollywood comment, I wasn't saying "Hollywood needs to show the bright side of the War on Terror," I was merely pointing out one historical use of non-military power. I'm not going to say what they should do now, only using this as an example of what the US government has done in the past to exploit our cultural production.

    So, by extension you seek force to cause Hollywood to do waht is right?  No more "In the valley of Elah" or "Rendition" crap and more of "Not a good day to die"?

    It might not work now to do that, but there might be other methods of non-military smart power--like, as I said last time, giving viagra to local chiefs.

    And you assume that it is not being done?

    I know you like your historical comparisons, but you haven't yet attacked that present-day practice of shoring up support for American forces.)

    Nonsense.  I am all for shoring up our support.  And indeed we HAVE done so in most cases.  (MEDCAPS, Well Drilling etc) but a soldier handing out daisies in the square of an unsercure village is a dead soldier.

    And to secure the village square you need the enemy to fear you....

    i think we agree in general (though I'm sure once we started in

    ...to talk particulars, there'd be some more arguing).

    But I want to stress this again: when some of the commenters here say that we have to choose between dropping bombs and talking nice, they're missing a) the whole range of other options (e.g., MEDCAPs and other civic action projects/programs), and b) the fact that we can both bomb some people and entice other people with benefits.

    I don't want to misrepresent your position--and maybe if we started to talk about percentages of military vs. non-military power, we'd get into an argument--but I think we agree on this issue broadly.

    It is the left in society

    It is the left in society who mis-addresses the situation.  They make th efalse assumption tht for the past eight years we have ONLY been dropping bombs which is patently not the case.

    By saying "We need to use soft power, not military action" obviously misses that fact.

    pr is part of the problem

    You're right that there needs to be more PR from the military about its humanitarian actions, but we also need more smart power in the form of hospitals and schools as well as medical CAPS and engineering CAPS. As I said, we may disagree about proportions of military/non-military power.

    (As well as gestures like Obama appearing on Al Arabiya. But time will tell.)

    Regarding the PR from the

    Regarding the PR from the military, the Pentagon set up an agency to do just that - get our story out immedialely after 9/11 called  Information warfare.

    It was announced by the DOD and the next thing you knew the MSM had an extreme Hissy fit.  "You can't do that, that is our job, to tell your story."

    The DOD then sheepishly caved in.

    I ask you, has the MSM told our story adequately?  My answer is hell no!

    Nick

    It is not the federal government's job or responsibility to provide us with food and water.

    If you can prevent crime or solve crimes in an instant, you should get into the crime fighting business.

    The things you say President Bush should have done are impossible.

    Planes came in with food and water as soon as the airport was useable. Helicopters were here the same day of Katrina, airlifting people to safety. You are totally misinformed as to what went on here. I witnessed it all first hand whereas you get your misinformation from your Bush hating sources.

    Will you be posting any hateful rants about Obama? I don't think so because your hateful left-wing extremist sites won't print any.

    And yes, I am a right-wing extremist and part of the radical religious right.

    Jesus Loves You

    compare Schiavo to Katrina

    Coco, just to be clear, I support your religious freedom and your political freedom, and I appreciate your perspective on NOLA.

    But you have to admit that there's a difference between these two cases:

    NOLA in trouble--Bush sharing cake with McCain.

    Terri Schiavo in trouble--Bush interrupts his vacation in Texas to sign a bill having to do just with this case.

    I'm not arguing that the feds didn't do enough--but we can easily see a difference: in one case, Bush flew home to enact a law which only had to do with Terri Schiavo; in the other, he ate cake.

    Nonesense NN

    Blanco did not ask for disaster releif (via State of Emergency) for almost 3 days. Even still you had the Coast Gaurd doing rescues and National Gaurd arriving and being told by the State Police they could not enter the city. I was also here, and you dont know what you are talking about,,,again!!

     

    "Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

    It is worse than that.  It

    It is worse than that.  It was the local populous that failed at Katrina.

    They actively decided not to evacuate and then left each other behind after the crisis began.

    All the federal assitance in the world could not fix that.

    Welfare kills.

    democRATS and Katrina

    New Orleans is run by democRATS in a state run by democRATS. 99% of the blame rest solely upon the state and local governments. The same governments that saw fit to divert money away from levies, among other things.

    THIS.. is what the democRATS have planned for the U.S. as a whole. It's a working(?) model of their dream.

    Bolton/KEYES 2012 

    Dont paint all of us with that brush.

     New Orleans is run by democRATS in a state run by democRATS.

    The first part is correct, but other then Blanco sneeking in as Govenor after Foster retired, we have been pretty Red for the last 15 yrs or so. 

    Unfortunatly our Dems seem to get us the most attention, Jefferson, Nagin and Blanco more resently. But I do agree that most of the fault of Katrina lies within the State, and old media over exaggerating. 400 dead in the Super Dome, Riots, Shootings that never happend. Reports like this, most likely contributed to some of the uglyness that did take place. 

    "Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

    Hey Nick

    "Bush kept American safe except for 9/11, except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq"  9-11 was developed, planned and set in motion on Clinton's watch,  and do you perhaps, recall 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, found in Iraq, and transported out of that country to Canada?  Or another way of describing it, "weapons-grade uranium.    Ring any bells?  Not to mention Sarin found in 155mm artillery shells? 

    Nah, nothing to see here, move along.  I wish I could develop selective memory like the libs have.  

    i've got a good memory

    do you remember Condi Rice saying that her team at the State Department ignored security threat warnings labeled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and reports that terrorists were working on using commercial jets as weapons?

    As for the tons of yellowcake, do you mean the tons of yellowcake that were in the Tuwaitha facility, which were purchased sometime in the 80s, and which have been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Commision since that time? Oh gosh, that must mean that, in fact, Saddam had yellocake for 20 years! It's a good thing that yellowcake isn't weapons-grade uranium. (Yellowcake is a stage before processing into uranium for nuclear reactors or (after further processing) into enriched uranium for weapons. So, you're close, but you're not right.)

    See, UpNorth, I've got a pretty good memory--I even remember my chemistry!

    Condi Rice

    wasn't at the State Dept. when 9/11 happened. Colin Powell was.

    thanks for the correction

    It was Condi Rice, who was National Security Advisor, who gave testimony to the commission that included the information on the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (August 6, 2001)--and I had to look that date up.

    You've got a good memory

    You've got a good memory except for this:

    New York TimesSaddam was 1 year away from building nuclear bomb

     

    "Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media."  -- Lowell Ponte

    that's what I love about conservatives online!

    That's what I love about arguing with people here: when I say Saddam had no WMDs, someone says they had weapons-grade uranium. When I point out that yellowcake is not weapons-grade uranium, someone else pipes up to say, "well, yeah, he didn't have nukes, but he could get them, in, like, a year."

    See, Free Stinker, you're just reinforcing my point that Saddam had no WMDs at the time of the US-Allied invasion.

    This is what I love about Liberals on-line

    This is what I love about Liberals on-line . . .

     

    So, Nicky, can you make the Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX gas, go away?

    no, I can't

    but then again, in his state of the union in 2003, Bush didn't say "oh, no, Saddam has sought mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX gas."

    Yes, you're right, WMD=NBC--Nuclear, biological, or chemical. But the bill of goods sold to the US people was Nuclear--and there weren't any nukes.

    (Also, as for the potential terror threats of most chemical gases, since the Tokyo Sarin attack, the authorities have been a lot more careful. It would, I think, be harder for someone to get Sarin from Iraq to the US, than it was for Aum Shinrikyo to move their Sarin to Tokyo from... was it Russia? The point being, delivery of chemical and biological weapons is a serious problem, but unless someone infects themselves (suicide patient zero), much less threatening to the mainland US than nukes--which may be why Bush's famous 16 words involved nuclear material rather than biological or chemical.)

    [Edit: As further research indicates, weren't most of these reports of deadly toxins wildly overstated? Wasn't most of this material actually from the Iran-Iraq war?]

    Nonsense.  Once again you

    Nonsense.  Once again you miss the other 15 rationale for the resumption of hostilities. Your assumption follows the poorly educated press of dubious mental flexibility which assumed only one rationale was in evidence.

    As far as the deadly toxins

    As far as the deadly toxins being "wildly overstated" - not necessarily so.

    http://www.jcpa.org/...

    The Iraqi biological weapons program was the most
    secretive of all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts. Indeed,
    Iraq only acknowledged this capability in August 1995 after the
    defection of Lt. General Hussein Kamel to Jordan. UNSCOM's former
    Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, recently noted in the New York Times
    (October 18, 2001) that biological weapons were closest to Saddam
    Hussein's heart "because it was in this area that his resistance to our
    work reached its height." Nonetheless, UN inspectors were able to
    discern significant details about Iraq's biological efforts.

    For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me.  As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.

    Ian Anderson "Wind up"

     

     

    Truth is

    we did not know exactly what he did or didn't have as the UN played footsies with him for years, meanwhile he was shooting missiles at our aircraft on a regular basis. If we threw out that one thing that he had or might be developing WMD we still had more than ample reason and justification to go into Iraq and drag his smelly butt out of that spider hole. He had been trying to develop WMD, we knew he had the means and the intent. The prudent thing to do was not wait until there was a mushroom cloud over someone's city before doing something. Bush got accused of not connecting the dots but when he did everything he could afterwards to avoid another 9/11 and to connect the dots he was raked over the coals for it. You can't have it both ways.

    connecting the dots

    here's the thing doug: when you don't connect the dots, and the dots are "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and "terrorists investigate using commercial airliners as missiles"--well, then you're not very good at connecting dots.

    but when several intelligence agencies are telling you that Iraq does not have nuclear capabilities, but you still announce to the nation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials--well, then you're not very good at connecting dots either.

    See, I'm not being inconsistent--the Bush administration was not very good at connecting dots. I'm not saying that I could have done better--but then again, it's not my job. (On the other hand, it was Condi Rice's job.)

    If that were true

    but, dang near every intell agency in the world, including ex President Clinton, the FBI, British intell, etc. were saying he did have a WMD program and with the piss poor UN inspectors program we did not know for sure what he did or didn't have. As I said earlier, that was not the only reason we had for going after Saddam. There was enough doubt or concern about all of it to be proactive. Clinton had ample opportunity and time to take Bin Laden and refused to do anything about it. You ignored the part about Bush trying to implement programs that would allow us to connect those damn dots and got slammed for it. Yet to date there have not been any more attacks on US soil.

    the piss poor UN and IAEA inspectors...

    ...were right--just about everything he had was accounted for (like that yellowcake).

    Bush's administration that connected the dots were wrong.

    You can try to argue that Bush was right (when he wasn't) and that his 16 words in the State of the Union were correct (when they weren't), but the result of the conservatives arguing against reality is that the conservative base will shrink.

    The British report saying

    The British report saying that Saddam had inquired about aquiring Yellow Cake Uranium was "ACCURATE."  Saddam DID inquire.

    Live with it.

    is it "clear and present inquiry"? no-"clear and present danger"

    Saddam also probably had dreams were he had multiple heads and could breathe fire--but that doesn't make it so, and it doesn't provide a rationale for war. Inquiry is not a casus belli--possession is.

    Saddam also probably had

    Saddam also probably had dreams were he had multiple heads and could breathe fire--but that doesn't make it so,

    Hell, that marked with the other 15 rationale is good enough for me.

    and it doesn't provide a rationale for war. Inquiry is not a casus belli--possession is.

    Nonsense.  Are you a lawyer?  It seems you suffer from that particular stream of lack of logic only usually found in the judicial set.

    What it works out to is that there were plenty of reasons to take Saddam out, and no good reasons to keep him in place. Only a Lawyer would then state probable cause was not in effect.

    If you want Casus Belli, then Saddam earned a resumption of hostilities the first time he engaged US aircraft overflying the No fly zone.

    If we had slapped him to death then, we would have been greatly admired by the Arabic Street. 

    Gee, a report saying

    Gee, a report saying someone wants to hurt us.  How novel.

    Regarding liberal fixation with WMD when it was only one of sixteen rationale for the resumption of hostilities.  But you fixate on it.

    rationales for war

    sorry, BD, I've forgotten the other 15 reasons. I remember WMDs--particularly the nukes that weren't there and chemical and biological weapons that were mostly degraded (since they were from the Iran-Iraq war); I remember connections with Al-Qaeda--that didn't exist.

    What were the other reasons? And how many of them turned out to be true?

    Before the war the

    Before the war the president presented the US point of view twice, once to a joint session at the capital, the other time to the UN.

    I will summarize and combine several into one:

    1.)  Saddam had put a bounty on the heads of US aircrew patrolling the no fly zone.  - true.  He had ordered US aricraft engaged repeatedly by his ADA network.  VERY TRUE!

    2.)  Saddam had not followed through on his requirements to provide data on the captive Kuwaitis.  - True.

    3.)  Saddam had attacked his own population in the north - hence the northern no fly zone and south - hence south no fly zone.  True.

    4.)  Saddam had fostered a culture of sucide terrorism in middle east by paying a bounty of $40,000 to the family of every successful suicide bomber to attack a western target. True

    5.)  Saddam had plotted the assasination of a former US president.  -true.

    6.)  Saddam had sought WMD.  True.

    7.)  Saddam was not cooperating with UN Personnel as required by the armistice.  True.

    8.) Saddam had kept weaponry not in accordance with the terms of the Armistice.  VERY TRUE.

    I think you get the point.

    THe fact that you can only remember WMD is telling.

     

    WMD was the bill of goods we were sold

    I push the WMD angle because that's the angle Bush pushed. Remember, it wasn't 16 words in the State of the Union about how Saddam was a danger to his own citizens--many leaders are a danger to their own citizens, but that's not the rubric we use to decide whether or not we invade a sovereign nation. The rubric that we tend to use for acting with force is the old "clear and present danger"--which Saddam didn't represent.

    For instance, ask yourself this: you say that the culture of suicide terrorism was fostered by Saddam--so, how many Iraqi suicide bombers were there and how many Americans did they kill before the US invasion? Now, how many Iraqi suicide bombers have there been and how many Americans have they killed after the US invasion?

    (And remember, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis and Egyptians?)

    Good evening Nick

    WMDs was the bill of goods sold to the public by the left-wing extremist old media. Your questions are all nonsensical.

    Are you possessed by the WMD demon?

    Jesus Loves You

    I push the WMD angle

    I push the WMD angle because that's the angle Bush pushed.

    Total nonsense.  Day after day the Administration tried to not just focus on the WMD rationale, but kept being pulled back to it by a press which could not understand any other rationale.

    We used to stop what we were doing and watch the pressers in our shop, and were constantly amused by the press who could not keep more than one rationale in their heads simulataneoulsy.  Hense, Iraqi Freedom became a simple war over WMD.

    Total nonsense.

    Remember, it wasn't 16 words in the State of the Union about how Saddam was a danger to his own citizens--

    Thank you!  Perfect example.  They even coined a phrase for it "16 words".

    THe press and the left hyper-focused on it, causing nearly all replies to questions to focus on it as well.

    When you do your research you will find that the rationale presneted to both congress and UN contains more than just WMD.  Now, perhaps you do not see them as worthy (Human rights, resuming hostilities to defeat an eenemy who has not stopped fighting etc) but we do.

    but that's not the rubric we use to decide whether or not we invade a sovereign nation.

    Gee, that was EXACTLY the rubric we used to invade Haiti, Somalia, portions of Africa particualrly Liberia.

    Hell, FDR did not even bother with these rubric when he invaded French North Africa, Algeria, Tunesia during WWII.  He just needed the turf and invaded. IS FDR not in keeping with your policies?

    The rubric that we tend to use for acting with force is the old "clear and present danger"--which Saddam didn't represent.

    THat phrase (CLear and Present Danger) was not used when presenting the rationale.  You watch WAY too much cinema.

    THe phrase was a "Gathering Threat" which is totally accurate.

    For instance, ask yourself this: you say that the culture of suicide terrorism was fostered by Saddam--so, how many Iraqi suicide bombers were there and how many Americans did they kill before the US invasion?

    Well, I hae no hard numbers, but while I was in Tel Aviv in the 90's we had three in a single day around my hotel and with in feet of the embassy.  And that pace kept up for two years.

    Were the suicide bombers from Iraq?  No.  Does not matter.  The suicide bombers in Iraq today are likewise not usually from Iraq.  (Talk about your foreign imports!).  Ergo our operations in Iraq have not caused additioanl suicide bombers.

    One of the great items released to the press that that went virtually no where (Because it confirmed US victory) was a captured note from a Jihadi from Northern Saudi Arabia who complained that he had travelled to Iraq to shoot at Americans, but was being forced to become a suicide bomber instead.  He also said that nearly all the foreign fighters were thus being "Converted" and being brainwashed for the vent.

    At the same time, a great note came out from another foreigner fighting in Fallujah which complained that fighting Americans is "Like Being stalked by a death machine." 

    Did you hear of either of these?

    Let's just be clear on

    Let's just be clear on this: if someone released from Gitmo returns to (or picks up) terrorism, then the fault is with the system that let him go--which was Bush's system.

    •  
      • Or the fault could be shared with the Judicial system which is conitnuously threatening to release them,
      • or it could be the fault of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch etc that have all DEMANDED their release.
      • Or it could the fault of the press that continuously downplays the danger of each detainee (ooooh, he was just a poor farm boy who was seeking an Islamic wife in Afghanistan - he had no idea how that RPK machine gun ended up attached to his backpack)

    Think about it: Al-Shihri was taken into custody years ago, and released months ago (according to reports)--all of which happened under the watch of people that Bush's administration put in charge.

    Under pressure from the worldwide left.  THey demanded, he aquiesced, now they slap him for it?

    So, Bush's system failed--and Obama is changing that system.

    Yeah, immediate release or charging with administrivia crimes IS SOME KIND OF CHANGE.

    We can debate the merits of Obama's proposed changes (i.e., shutting down Gitmo), but the fact that someone was released from the Bush administration's prison camp can only serve as an example of what Obama needs to be careful about (and what the Bush administration was insufficiently careful about).

    Your kind DEMANDED.  George Bush DID.  NOw you  SLAP HIM?

    In fact, let's put the release of Al-Shihri into the running tally of exceptions to the idea that Bush kept us safe

    Since there has been a singular lack of attacks on US soil, I guess I would have to concur that we have been kept safe.

    Bush kept American safe except for 9/11,

    Thank you WJC.

    except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq,

    And WMD being only one of sixteen seperate rationale for the war.  Or did y ou enjoy Saddam popping away at the pilots overflying the No Fly zone with SA-8?

    except for the National Intelligence Estimate of 2006 which said that Americans were at a higher risk thanks to the global war on terrorism

    And Americans were more in danger in 1942 than 1941 around the world, what is your point?

    (And you'll notice, I didn't mention the anthrax attacks--surely that falls under the umbrella of terrorism?

    Domestic, not related to Islamic Terrorism.

    I didn't mention his response to Katrina

    Federal response within acceptable norms.  State, local and most importantly individual response horrendous.

    American Carol not a documentary

    There's a lot there to respond to BD, but can we agree that not everyone at Gitmo should be at Gitmo? Some of them are not combatants and never were--like the Uighurs. Can we agree that there might be some people there who shouldn't be in prison?

    Now, how should we deal with those people who are there? Some of them are guilty of crimes punishable under international law, and some of them aren't. Now you say the ACLU wants them released from Gitmo, and you make it sound like the ACLU wants these prisoners released back into the battlegrounds, with their guns. Except that's not what they want--they want these people processed. Did you know that there have been 2 trials at Gitmo in all this time--out of the approximately 250 people who are there? Gosh, at this rate, I'm sure Gitmo can go through those remaining in only, oh, 1500 years.

    Nobody is saying that prisoners should be released--the ACLU wants these people processed according to the rule of law--our law.

    Now, as for the "no global terrorist on American soil," that's true for now, but if something were to happen tomorrow, would you blame Bush for it the same way you blame Clinton for 9/11? So Bush was president for 8 months and it's still Clinton's fault--how many months would it be before it's Obama's fault if something were to happen? Come on, fess up: are you really going to blame Bush if something were to happen in September?

    There's a lot there to

    There's a lot there to respond to BD, but can we agree that not everyone at Gitmo should be at Gitmo?

    I totally disagree.  I belive MORE should be at GITMO, and recognize that international political pressure has caused the release of some such as David Hicks who SHOULD be room temperature.

    Others such as that moron California kid Lyndh captured in a firefight in Aghanistan should be dead, but minimally at GITMO.

    Some of them are not combatants

    People who ran supply and logistics operations for them need to spend time at GITMO to.

    Can we agree that there might be some people there who shouldn't be in prison?

    THis will surprise you, but I agree.  Most who fought while not wearing uniforms should be executed, not in prison.

    Now you say the ACLU wants them released from Gitmo, and you make it sound like the ACLU wants these prisoners released back into the battlegrounds, with their guns.

    No, they want them released in the US interior. Anywhere as long as it is not the ACLU home office in New York.

    When offered the choice of them being released in oh, lets say Jordan, they suddenly see justice being carried out on the tarmac and become very frightened.

    Did you know that there have been 2 trials at Gitmo in all this time--out of the approximately 250 people who are there?

    GOSH!  I am stunned!  Particualrly since the trial should have been conducted on the battlefield where the witnesses simply say "yep, dummy here was shooting at me while wearing no uniform."  "As tribunal senior officer I inform you the verdict is unanimous - Guity.  BANG!

    It is obvious you are not familiar with warfighting so I will give you a quick hint.

     I realize the intelligence value in having them continuing to draw air so we bring them someplace, feed them orange glazed chicken and ask them questions. If we get info from them, that is better than simply digging a hole and filling it partially with their bodies.

    By the way, what was the percentage of German Waffen SS captives prosecuted in US prisons in WWII?  HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

    I thought the Dems were big on due process?  Why didn't the ACLU demand Sturmbahnfuhrer Horst Hoffelters release from the Montgomery POW camp when he was never tried?

    Nobody is saying that prisoners should be released--

    Ummmm.. Check again.  The ACLU defense attourneys are EXACTLY saying that.  So is their leadership.  So is Amesty Intenational, Human Rights Watch, etc.

    the ACLU wants these people processed according to the rule of law--our law.

    Then why ins't the ACLU assisting us in executing them for being illegal combatants?  After all, that is pretty cut and dried.

    Hell, I will loan the ACLU attourneys a 9mm if they will shoot them in the head after the obvious conclusion of the testimony.

    ACLU Attourney:  "Mr Abu Sayyaf-Were you wearing a uniform while shooting at SPC Jacobs here?"

    "Of course not, infidel, I cannot hide amongst he women and children that way and cause you to accidentally shoot them."

     Guilty....BANG!!!!!!!

    Do you encourage the ACLU to assist our prosecution?

    would you blame Bush for it the same way you blame Clinton for 9/11?

    No, because he has taken active steps to attempt secure us.  Totally unlike WJC and plans by BHO.

     Come on, fess up: are you really going to blame Bush if something were to happen in September?

    Depends.    Need more data. 

    But I do know that virtually everything WJC did RUINED operations from which we are still recovering.  Most things GWB did made things on me easier to get my job done.

    You seem to be behind the times

    BD, not everyone at Gitmo was an enemy combatant or provided succor to enemy combatants. There are 17 ethnic Uighurs (Chinese Muslims) who are refugees from fighting in Afghanistan and they were cleared of any charge in 2004.

    You might also be interested to learn--if you believe it (it's from WaPo)--that there are several people at Gitmo, who have been there for years, who have no files opened on them: http://www.washingto... .

    Let's be clear: I agree with you that some people should probably be in prison at minimum, but they have to be the right people--do we agree on that? That's why they need to be processed--files need to be compiled, charges levied, trials held, and guilty people punished.

    Or put it this way: you think that everyone caught fighting out of uniform should be executed--but imagine this scenario: US forces capture someone running away from them. Now, are these enemy combatants who have ditched their weapons or are these refugees who simply thought it was better to be away from the fighting? Is it better to lock up/execute everyone we find in Afghanistan--potential allies along with enemies?

    Nick your questions are total nonsense.

    Nick your questions are total nonsense. Are you possessed by the Gitmo demon also?

    Jesus Loves You

    BD, not everyone at Gitmo

    BD, not everyone at Gitmo was an enemy combatant or provided succor to enemy combatants. There are 17 ethnic Uighurs (Chinese Muslims) who are refugees from fighting in Afghanistan and they were cleared of any charge in 2004.

    My analysis says they were enroute to join the Jihad.  WHy else flee to Afghanistan when other destinations were avialable.

    The reason the past adminstration was seeking countries to drop them on is obvious, good PR by their lawyers.

    You might also be interested to learn--if you believe it (it's from WaPo)--that there are several people at Gitmo, who have been there for years, who have no files opened on them: http://www.washingto... .

    I must say I am stunned, particularly since almost no one had files opened on them in WWII.  Did Helmut Ritter at the Montgomery Minnesota POW camp have a "File" opened on him?

    Good lord no, why did we hold him?  Do you think we shaould pay Helmut reperations for illegal detention?

    Let's be clear: I agree with you that some people should probably be in prison at minimum, but they have to be the right people--do we agree on that?

    And I assert they are.  Most detainees were processed at Bagram prior to being flown there.

    THe left then did themselve no favors by complaining of their treatment (Blindfolded- that is an OPSEC precuation to prevent escape) (wearing orange jumpsuits for just such reasoning),  Why did th eleft do that -side with our enemies rathe than US?  Because BDS has no bounds and they hate the US military anyway so there was not any qualms.

    Or put it this way: you think that everyone caught fighting out of uniform should be executed--but imagine this scenario: US forces capture someone running away from them. Now, are these enemy combatants who have ditched their weapons or are these refugees who simply thought it was better to be away from the fighting?

    Hahahahaha!  Have you BEEN to the mountains of Afghanistan?  TOra Bora? Serkhenkhal? Shahi-Khot valley?

    REfugees!!!!!  Ha!

    THis reminds me of the mistaken thoughts of the vast left wing conspiracy who thought that US troops in the central highlands were constantly shooting up refugees in the 1960-70's.  WHAT REFUGEES!

    As I recall BassnDude was there at that time. Ask him about it.  The left always asserts that we are killing refugees - then can rarely provide them.

    Like in the recent fighting between Isreal and Hamas.  In the opening days the report came out that Isreal had killed 86 Refuegees.  All male, all age 15 and above.  Ha!

     Is it better to lock up/execute everyone we find in Afghanistan--potential allies along with enemies?

    Gathering combat information is more important.  Hense the need to lock them up and interogate.  Butg your end of the aisle does not want that to happen.

     

    what we need files for

    BD,

    About the Uighurs at Gitmo, you say:

    My analysis says they were enroute to join the Jihad.

    But that's exactly the sort of info we need in the files in order to make the right decision about whom to let go and whom to keep incarcerated and whom to execute. Think about this: you said that Bush only let al-Shihri go because of left-wing pressure to release some of the inmates--but why did they let al-Shihri go rather than some other inmate? That's the kind of decision-making that you need files for.

    (And I don't care if they didn't have files on Ritter after WWII, they probably also didn't use cellphones then either--by which I mean that the cases and contexts are totally different. If we want to show people how great democracy and the rule of law is, we have to practice on our enemies what we preach to our friends. Do you disagree? We may have some different beliefs at the foundation of our arguments, but I've enjoyed this debate, and I'd like to hear your opinion on how we can inject democratic rule into the Mideast by disappearing people and not charging them. I don't think we can, but I'm curious as to what you might have to say.)

    But that's exactly the sort

    But that's exactly the sort of info we need in the files in order to make the right decision about whom to let go and whom to keep incarcerated and whom to execute.

    And themiltiary commission reviewing the cases HAS such information which dtermines who to keep as a threat and who not to.

    But the leftists in the US who work at such places as the ACLU, Human rights Watch etc do not trust just such a military commission dur to inherent prejudice.

    They will trust a 60 year old judge who was appointed by some leftist hack in the 70's, but someone who has served their country for three decades is inherently evil?

    Think about this: you said that Bush only let al-Shihri go because of left-wing pressure to release some of the inmates--but why did they let al-Shihri go rather than some other inmate?

    As we all know amny facts come into play in such a case.  Perhaps Al Shihri was considered a lower threat case.  In which case do you REALLY WANT TO LET THE OTHERS GO ala Code Pink, the ACLU, Human rights watch etc.?

    That's the kind of decision-making that you need files for.

    I think we covered the role of the reviewing officers....

    (And I don't care if they didn't have files on Ritter after WWII, they probably also didn't use cellphones then either--by which I mean that the cases and contexts are totally different.

    Are you telling me an AQ terrorist is more of a threat than an SS Sturnbahfuhrer if he were to be released? 
    What is the difference?  The ACLU did not spend the 40's actively campaigning to subvert the war effort.

    Thus the context IS different.

    If we want to show people how great democracy and the rule of law is, we have to practice on our enemies what we preach to our friends.

    Which of course we do.  After all nearly all other countries would have already rolled their dead bodies into pits, covered them with lyme, and hasitly buried them.

    Instead, we feed them Orange glazed chicken with flafel, Hummous, while awaiting their soccer match and have prayer rugs adorned with culturally sensitive designs.

    During the opening days of the conflict GWB said that the detainees would not be sonsidered POWs, but would be treated nealry universally in accordance with the Geneva Convention.  In fact, we have done far BETTER than any other signatory to the conventions.

    But the hard work of the guards at GITMO who are shellacked with a concoction of feces, urine, semen, and anything else the detainees can shower on them is ignored.  And the left allows GITMO to unfrily be considered a stan on our honor when in fact it is the height of honor.

    I'd like to hear your opinion on how we can inject democratic rule into the Mideast by disappearing people and not charging them.

    Gee, seeing how it worked against Germany, Italy, Japan and Romania during WWII I cannot see a dichotomy in the way you assess.

    Unless you belive all the detainees from those four countries were given due process in some manner during WWII?  Were they charged in some manner?  Did they have a "Release on or prosecute" date stamped on their forheads the day the were captured?

    Okay, I must confess that our actions with the Romanians did little to help since they were immediately swallowed up by the Sovs.

    Largely our actions speak overhwelmingly positively for us.  Millions of blue fingers in the air voting as they desire outweighs a handful of Detainees being held in POW status.

    OUr press I must admit does us no favors with the BDS inspired characterization fo the war.  Do you really think GWB ordered anyone to contact Charles Grainer and have him run his psychotic three ring circus with the Abu Ghraib detainees?  To include his sex shows put on with his accolytes?  If that is the belief in the arabic world, it is only because a BDS inspired press allowed it to happen.

    files and Japan's democracy

    BD,

    If the military commission reviewing the detainees has the information, then why do the incoming agents say that the files are in complete disarray and in some cases don't exist? 

    http://www.washingto...

    (The money quote from that article might be this one:  

    Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are
    incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with
    pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each
    prisoner.

    Now, if the reviewing officers reviewed all the information on a detainee, where did it go?)

    As for the democracies of countries that were beaten in WWII, first, I think the cases are different since our biggest threat now is actually probably a non-state actor. (I would argue that here the issue is largely PR, which I think we would agree on, though we might parcel out the blame differently.)

    But second--and I bring this up not as conclusive proof, but only as an interesting historical fact--several of the post-WWII democracies had help from a man named Roger Nash Baldwin: Macarthur invited Roger Baldwin to Japan in '47 to help build a democratic and civil society that respects the rule of law, and Baldwin was later invited by Germany and Austria to do similar work.

    Who was Roger Baldwin? One of the founders of the ACLU. (Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that Japan is a democracy because there is a JCLU, which Baldwin helped found. I just want to offer an anecdote to indicate that maybe the ACLU is not the enemy of democracy and the enemy of America that some conservatives paint it as.)

    If the military commission

    If the military commission reviewing the detainees has the information, then why do the incoming agents say that the files are in complete disarray and in some cases don't exist? 

    What, you expected them to say "hey everything with these cats is Ducky"?

    Each detainee has had to be reviewed by the panel to determine whether they should be detained.  The files presented to these panels exist.

    Now, if the reviewing officers reviewed all the information on a detainee, where did it go?)

    Back into the safe in the SCIF where it belongs I imagine.

    Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner.

    Boy, I must say you do not understand the nature of intelligence work.  Nor do you understand the interservice web we face.

    Detainees acquired by the CIA have differing documentation than those picked up by the SF.  Also, other organizations who review documentation such as the FBI always have differing concerns than the Military - likely as it should be.

    The FBI always attempts to produce prosecutions at the cost of ignoring most other actions.  Likewise, the Military is more interested in securing the prisoner and gaining combat information - with prosecution being down the line.  Both with have differing opinions on a review panels packet.

    Since we are in time of war, I will side with the military .

    As for the democracies of countries that were beaten in WWII, first, I think the cases are different since our biggest threat now is actually probably a non-state actor.

    Populations are populations.  By the way, terrorism has once again become a state action with Hezbollah, Hamas, and sectors secured by AQ.

    But second--and I bring this up not as conclusive proof, but only as an interesting historical fact--several of the post-WWII democracies had help from a man named Roger Nash Baldwin: Macarthur invited Roger Baldwin to Japan in '47 to help build a democratic and civil society that respects the rule of law, and Baldwin was later invited by Germany and Austria to do similar work.

    Democracy was well on its way to fruition by '47.

    Others were invited as well, and almost total credit must be given to both Dug out Doug and DD Eisenhower for this.  And hwo did they use, mostly the local public and military toolbox.

    Who was Roger Baldwin? One of the founders of the ACLU. (Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that Japan is a democracy because there is a JCLU, which Baldwin helped found. I just want to offer an anecdote to indicate that maybe the ACLU is not the enemy of democracy and the enemy of America that some conservatives paint it as.)

    Gee, please direct me to the ACLU lawyers who defended martin Borman please.

    Can you show me the ACLU attourney who travelled about western europe and said "The US is at fault because it is holding Hans Frank at the evil detention center at Nuremburg Castle?"

    Can you show me the ACLU attourney who repetitvely filed suits to do away with the Military commissions that were trying Karl Donitz?

    How about the ACLU attourney who enjoined the US Supreme court to give US rights to Wilhelm Frick?

    The ACLU IS the enemy since they support them with far more vigor than they would support any of my comrades.  In fact, they seek to harm my comrades.

    the files do not exist, and the ACLU fights for America

    I think we disagree on the facts about the Gitmo files sufficiently to lay out the difference:

    You seem to be arguing that someone somewhere has the information; I am arguing that the information does not exist in a useable fashion--a position which is based on the articles I've read, which have included quotes from officials of the Bush administration who have stated that the files do not exist. But this is purely a factual argument--either the files exist or they don't--so there's no reason for us to keep arguing about it: more facts will probably come out about this, and we'll see.

    We have a more interesting--because less factual and more opinion-based--argument here about the ACLU. However, since it's our opinions, there's very little chance that we're going to convince each other: you see the ACLU as putting soldiers into harm's way, whereas I see the ACLU as fighting for the ideals that America was founded on--freedoms of speech, religion, and limited government power. I know we're going to disagree about the role of the ACLU, but I have to point out that they would fight for your rights if Obama's administration was trying to limit your freedoms.

    → Right nickleby

    Aclu fights for American ideals.

    The check's in the mail

    I'll still love you in the morning

    This is just a cold sore

    All true.

    Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran

    You seem to be arguing that

    You seem to be arguing that someone somewhere has the information;

    Yes, as each detainee is captured, a capture tag is created so the analysts can prepare the interogators to aks approriate questions.  From that point on the combat information gleaned from each detainee is recorded - else why interogate, right?

    I am arguing that the information does not exist in a useable fashion--a position which is based on the articles I've read,which have included quotes from officials of the Bush administration who have stated that the files do not exist.

    Likely because the interested parties cannot understand the material outside of a law enforcement/judicial model.  "Why was this man not mirandized?  Sworn statement etc."

    Since we are at war I would say "Too bad."

     I see the ACLU as fighting for the ideals that America was founded on--freedoms of speech, religion, and limited government power.

    Except that they are not. They are now a fully integrated tool of othe liberal left.  They seek to destroy society as we know it and reshape it in a new model.

    but I have to point out that they would fight for your rights if Obama's administration was trying to limit your freedoms.

    Extremely doubtful.

     

    By the way, I reviewed my

    By the way, I reviewed my comments from above in comparison to your points and you only have an option to attack me on THIS?

    I must be getting good at this to only have to clean up this little "THe ACLU wants to process them crap."

    well

    I was focusing on the main issue, which is the closing of Gitmo and the processing of the prisoners. If you wanted to continue arguing Katrina and anthrax and Clinton's culpability for 9/11, we could, but I thought it would be more useful to move on. I mean, Bush clearly did not keep American safe, considering only the number of Americans killed in Iraq because of poor planning and a failure to recognize how things would really be--remember when Cheney told us that we would be greeted as liberators and other people said our troops would be home in 6 weeks or so? Yeah, those are Americans that Bush's administration failed to keep safe. (Of course, Bush did keep the rest of us safe from Saddam's imaginary nukes--but then he also kept us safe from Saddam's imaginary dragons and those terrorist unicorns. Bush kept us safe from a lot of things that didn't exist.)

    Nonsense. US policy has

    Nonsense.

    US policy has been injecting democracy into the arabic world which will be far more efective at destroying radiacal islamic fascism than all the "USAID" and peace corps projects from here til the end of time.

    I hate to say it, but casualties are inevitable when fighting a war.  And I count several as friends.

    You seem to simply view those of us in the miltary as "Victims".  We do not see ourselves that way and call for you to stop.

     

     

    nicholas, its time for you to go help wash Osama's camels

    After all, we here @ NB, being the compassionate types that we are, would not want to see an interruption in your income stream.  :-^)

    BTW-Just how much is Osama and his turban-sporting illiterate goons paying you, you enemy-coddling f*ck?

    -Dave

    “Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.

    The last time I

    The last time I saw 'em they were in the Camel-lot.

    Jesus Loves You

    coco,

    have you stopped being such a racist about Arabs yet?

    hi dave,

    I really enjoyed the other thread where someone said something totally racist, and everyone--including you--called him out on it. It made me wonder if you've stopped being such a racist about Arabs--or are you still calling them--what was it?--the "7th century illiterate horde"? Anyway, here's hoping you will stop being such a racist some day, if you haven't yet--I really believe you could.

    [Slightly edited after I reread that post and the response to it.]

    Sorry, Nicholas, but I don't give a damn if the Islamists are...

    ...green with pink polka-dots covering them from head to toe, or lilly-white from the ground up.

    The fact remains that, intellectually, they are stuck in the 7th Century, and as such are not sufficiently sophisticated to exist peacefully in a civilized environment.

    That is not a racist observation, but a cultural one.

    Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all have their violent pasts, yet they were all able to mature.

    Why, after over fourteen centuries, have the Islamists been unable to do likewise?

    I am asserting that it is due to the fact that Islam is not actually a religion, but an oppressive, totalitarian political movement, which is exactly what it was intended to be by its child-molesting, murderous founder.

    I also find it curious (and not a little amusing) that you lefties, who claim to be so much more advanced in your thinking than the rest of us knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers, and who rail against religious fundamentalism ad nasueam, while claiming to champion the rights of women and children, have embraced the bass-ackward, primitive Islamists with open arms.

    I already know why this is. The question is, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit it?

    -Dave

    “Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.

    I couldn't have said this

    I couldn't have said this any better. 

    Dave 1:  Nickleby 0.

    so, you hate a political movement

    Dave,

    My apologies then for calling you a racist, since you don't hate Arabs, just Muslims--Arab, white, black, Asian, it doesn't make a difference to you. Presumably, if there are any Inuit Muslims, I assume you hate them also.

    For the record, I think it's fine to dislike and oppose political movements, particularly totalitarian ones--but what you've never really explained is why you don't think Islam is legitimate. What's your criteria for a legitimate religion and why isn't Islam a legitimate religion?

    As for your argument that Muslims aren't sufficiently sophistocated to coexist peacefully, that leaves you with quite a historical and contemporary problem: if Muslims can't live civilly with people, then:

    Why was Al-Andalus a center of learning where Jews, Christians and Muslims got along (remember, it was only after the Christian Reconquista that the Jews and Muslims were forced to convert or expelled from Spain--how do you explain that?);

    Why was Baghdad in the Middle Ages a center of learning open to scholars of all faiths? (last time we argued this, you seemed to agree with this point but countered that Islam now doesn't foster education or peaceful coexistence--which means that you can't explain my next point, which is);

    How can Indonesia have a flourishing democracy with respect for all religions written into their Constitution since it's a Muslim majority country?

    Can you explain those 3 points according to your argument that Islam is a murderous and backwards ideology?

    And still more importantly, can you tell us why Islam isn't a real religion?

    Now, to switch gears, you raise a good point in your final paragraphs about the inconsistency of some liberals--they want religious tolerance, let's say, but not so much for Christians; or they want women's rights here, but religious tolerance abroad. I'll admit, there are some people who take such positions, sometimes not seeing the inconsistency (and sometimes because they do the so-American thing of rooting for whomever they perceive as the underdog). So, that's true, there is sometimes a double-standard (or a failure to see who is really the underdog in some situations).

    But I'm a little more consistent. We've never talked about this, so you have no way of knowing, but generally speaking, this is the way I feel: I like religious tolerance--but once a religion starts encroaching on someone's civil liberties, that religion has got to be taught that its boundaries end in the political public sphere.

    So, I think you give Islam short-shrift by thinking of it as an ideology that cannot coexist with other religions--which is particularly disturbing since the logical end of your position might be mass conversion or genocide--but I may agree with you on this: when Islamic fundamentalists say that women can't go to school, then I get mad. (Similarly, when people here argue that abortion shouldn't be legal for religious reasons, then I also think they're bringing religion into the political sphere, where it doesn't belong.)

    (For the record, I don't mind when people say "Merry Christmas" to me, even though I'm not Christian--that's not political public sphere in the same way that banning abortion or limiting a women's ability to get an education.)

    The criticisms are premature...

    There were many other options on handling these prisoners without creating the first American gulag. We sit on our high 'moral' horse, condemning the behavior of others while we're doing things this country would never have considered doing prior to the Bush presidency. Gitmo was a boil on the nose of the country and it needed to be lanced. Before we start attacking its closure using an example of someone who was released under the Bush administration, let's wait and see how it's handled by a president who has some brains and competent people around him. 

    Hi Jr

    Long time no see, I hope all is well. As you know I have never been a huge fan of President Bush, but to keep this country safe for 7 years with many people wanting to destroy our country was not a simple feat.

    Excuse me for saying so, but I believe you have taken your safety and way of life for granted.

    He had my vote

    ya see shawn

     bush keeping america safe is "not a simple feat", but doprah ruling morning tv is "AMAZING".  kind of says alot when you start putting recent statements back to back, doesn't it?   seems it would make more sense if your descriptions were reversed.

    "Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason"  Ben Franklin

    Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

    ppb

    I really don't see the point of you bringing up something I said in another thread to make a comparision.Oprah has nothing to do with Gitmo

    I was complimenting President Bush and you have to downplay it, just to make me look bad. Grow up will you?

    He had my vote

    yawn....

     shawn...quit being such a baby.  in less than 5mins on one post you are lauding doprah with words like amazing and then in your words ,"complimenting" bush with much less flattering language.  doesn't matter if they were different threads....you are still the same person aren't you?  btw, your "compliment" of bush was also tempered by your usual obligitory "even though i really don't like bush" caveat which lessens it's effect even more.

    dude, you're the one who has some growing up to do.

    "Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason"  Ben Franklin

    Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

    PPB

    It is a fact that I have not been a big supporter of this President and I am acknowledging something that he accomplished.

    Your just trying to get attention and making a name for yourself by trying to start an argument that is not needed.

    If you want to bring up other threads that is fine. How about the one when you were practically in tears when I said its a steroetype republicans drive pickups. Your iddy biddy feelings were so hurt that you had to whine and wihne and have not gotten over it since.

    Please ppb, we don't need any this today, no one really wins in a flame war, just  knock it off

    He had my vote

    really jrj08?

    >>We sit on our high 'moral' horse, condemning the behavior of others while we're doing things this country would never have considered doing prior to the Bush presidency. <<

     how's your math? wasn't lincoln ( bho's "model" ) b4 bush? well.....

    In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

    "Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason"  Ben Franklin

    Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

    Right!

    Reading an excellent book about the War of Northern Aggression.

    Lincoln jailed over 13,000 political prisoners, dissenters. Little known fact you won't find in any revisionist history books.

    'A president who has some brains'

    Ooh, JRJ is privy to Obama's test scores! Awesome! Please share your exclusive information with the rest of the class.

    'Doing things this country would've never considered doing before'

    You're right, we used to shoot out of uniform enemy combatants. Then, in the Clinton era, we shipped them off to Egypt to have their body parts ripped off.
    Sounds good to me. Hell, why should we just imprison some and waterboard three?
    Bad, BAD Bush.

    In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

      Well if he has the test

      Well if he has the test scores then he is the ONLY one, because those are sealed up tight with the birth certificate.  We only get to GUESS at whether he is intelligent based on his actions.  So far I am not giving him an A+

    Who

    might that be?

    The "first" American gulag???

    The Japanese interred during WW2 would find that comment interesting. 

    Of course, you are nothing but a drive by troll, but I would like to see where you get the idea that illegal enemy combatants are afforded any rights under our Constitution. 

    "This
    liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
    basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008