Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Regardless, they
are entitled

The U.S. government asserts this because they: a) Engaged in combat
upon
our civilians and our military troops,

Except some of them were not, they were shopped to the U.S. by Afghan
warlords looking to collect rewards for Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters and
said warlords' motivation was getting paid, that and maybe settling a
personal or tribal grudge too. Many residents of Gitmo are without question
rat-******* terrorists and guerillas, and some were just in the wrong place
at the wrong time and were held for years even when their captors had
long-since figured that out. Legalities aside, when did we decide that
simple human decency was something we no longer cared about?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

This is a prime example of why its impossible to have a reasoned discussion
with the Bush-haters.
This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented.

I have never said anything on this or other groups to indicate my opinion of
Bush. You are jumping to conclusions.
-- Doug

On May 2, 6:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

No play there Robot - Bush was wrong on many front, but nowhere near
as wrong in 8 years as the Hopeium dealer has been in 3 lousy months.

So.. people did not lose their lives because of Bush's lies? A simple
yes or no will suffice.....but unlikely.

No, they did not.

You and Mark drink from the same well?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his organization
ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed to them with a
stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin' lovely.

HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the
issues as crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war
problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in
"In all criminal proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees and
everybody else are entitled to constitutional protections.

The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it
applies to more than just criminals. One of the independent clauses
continues " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law..." No crime required.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime..."

Sound like it applies to criminals to me.



For example, we incarcerate people all the time who are
not "criminals:" Civil contempt, juveniles, illegal aliens,
contagious disease carriers, and more.

All subject to habius and judicial review, no?

Habeas corpus is a judicial determination of whether the original
sanction was proper. In virtually all cases, the finding is that the
original incarceration (be it for civil contempt, contagion,
juveniles, etc.) WAS proper. A habeas hearing is extremely rare
because all of the instances I named, that take place many times a
day, are proper.


* The people at Gitmo are "unlawful enemy combatants" in the same
category as spies, guerrillas, saboteurs, fifth-columnists, etc.
Under the customary rules of war, they can be summarily executed.

Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"?

The president, or his designee, determines whether an individual is an
unlawful enemy combatant.

Regardless, they
are entitled to judicial process under the Geneva Convention, which
covers all persons in an occupied country or combat zone, just solely
combatants.

The Geneva and Hauge conventions are completely silent on the subject
of "unlawful enemy combatants." The 4th Geneva Convention defines
"lawful enemy combatant" as one who:

* Bears arms openly,
* Bears a uniform or distinctive insignia visible at a distance,
* Subjects himself to a chain of authority and command, and
* Abides by the customary rules of war.

Anyone NOT following all four of the above can be classed as an
"unlawful enemy combatant." Note that Granny Goodbar, sitting in her
rocker, knitting a cosy for her lap dog, is not following all four of
the above requirements and can, should the president so choose, be
classed as an "unlawfull enemy combatant."

In addition, the 4th covers incidental combatants such as a citizens
militia hastily organized for purposes of defense, non-combatants
assisting in the war effort such as construction workers or medical
personnel, and other participants.

You're right, it does not have to be the same process as
US citizens. Except for a few, we have failed to provide them any
judicial process.

No, they no longer can be summarily executed. They need at least a
drumhead court martial.


We have always provided some sort of hearing, as we did with our
first spy, Major John Andre.

But there is no treaty, convention, or paragraph in the customary
rules of war that demands such. As much as we deplore the conduct,
German officers summarily executing resistance fighters was well
within the rules.

Per the Hague Convention, Article 30: "A spy taken in the act shall not be
punished without previous trial." The Hague Convention predates WWI.

The Geneva Conventions add additonal limitations but do not remove that one.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 1:16 am, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done better.

Weak, Mike. Weak.


Not really. He's implying she has a lack of foreign affairs knowledge
based on a tongue-in-cheek comment made in a television interview.

Since it's common knowledge that our President reads off a teleprompter
any time he makes a television appearance, the correlation can easily be
made that he's not quite as intelligent and elegant about the affairs of
which he speaks on television, as his worshipers would have us believe.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 1:16 am, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
THAT was her take on foreign affairs.

Please, anyone who supports a vice president who made the following
statement, ""When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on
the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of
greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." " has absolutely zero leg to
stand on in terms of criticizing the other VP candidate. NONE.

For those who are not aware of this: FDR wasn't president when the stock
market crashed in 1929 and only experimental TV sets were in use at that
time.

Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done
better.

Weak, Mike. Weak.


Not really. He's implying she has a lack of foreign affairs knowledge
based on a tongue-in-cheek comment made in a television interview.

Since it's common knowledge that our President reads off a teleprompter
any time he makes a television appearance, the correlation can easily be
made that he's not quite as intelligent and elegant about the affairs of
which he speaks on television, as his worshipers would have us believe.



Whenever the teleprompter screws up, or doesn't have the answers, The One
is reduced to a stuttering, stammering litany of uhhhh, uhhm, aahhh,
errr's -- painfully so. The man cannot string a dozen words together if
they haven't already been written for him. That is indicative of one of
two things: either he is not all that bright and needs time to formulate
responses to just about anything (witness his inability to answer a
question regarding the executive order for Gitmo that he was signing), or
he is having to stall for time and is censoring himself to avoid saying
what he really thinks because of the backlash it would cause (as in his "I
think everybody benefits when you spread the wealth around" answer during
the campaign). Neither of these reasons is encouraging. In the first
case, it shows that POTUS can't think for himself and is reliant upon what
*somebody* has typed into TOTUS (teleprompter of the US) -- gives one lots
of re-assurance when he is going to be confronted with a problem that
requires an on-your-feet response. In the second, it shows that he is
unable to reveal his core beliefs, i.e., what he is projecting to the
nation is pure fraud and he needs to manage that image carefully in order
to prevent a backlash against his true intentions.

Yes, other presidents have used teleprompters. However, they have not
used them for such things as announcing a cabinet appointment. This
president is lost without the teleprompter.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On May 2, 7:34*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 1:16 am, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
Maybe if she read everything someone else researched and wrote for her
off the teleprompter, like the guy who got elected, she'd have done better.

Weak, Mike. Weak.

Not really. He's implying she has a lack of foreign affairs knowledge
based on a tongue-in-cheek comment made in a television interview.

Since it's common knowledge that our President reads off a teleprompter
any time he makes a television appearance, the correlation can easily be
made that he's not quite as intelligent and elegant about the affairs of
which he speaks on television, as his worshipers would have us believe.

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I have seen Mr. Obama handle all kinds of town-hall style impromptu
questions from attendees. Same with impromptu answers, nay ELOQUENT
answers, to questions during press conferences and in the field.

What surprises me, is that the right-wing nutbars actually have the
audacity to comment on Mr. Obama's eloquence after what we all
suffered for the last 8 years from MMMMMMBush.
But you know what? Keep attacking the guy who got the job, after all,
there is nothing left of the repuglican party... and there is no
leader in sight other than *coughs* Louisiana Bobby "volcano" Jindal,
Rush, or Newt? LOL.. or Mr. "Special Sex Pajamas" Mitt Romney.

You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.

"Robatoy" wrote:

................................................. ......
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.
............................................... ..

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

Talk about having your ass handed to you, that is a serious ass
whuppin.

Hell, Strom Thurman had that much support when he walked out of the
Democratic convention in Philly in 1948 to form the Dixiecrats, and
the Dixiecrats went nowhere.

The geography is the same, only the name has changed.

Listening to the Republican honchos today is an indication just how
isolated from realty they have become.

As the old adage about debate, politics or the law goes:

If you have the facts, use them.

If you DON'T have the facts, throw crap on the wall and see if you can
get some thing to stick.

So far, nothing is sticking.

Lew

On May 2, 9:22*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
..

If you DON'T have the facts, throw crap on the wall and see if you can
get some thing to stick.

So far, nothing is sticking.


Like that teleprompter bull****. Obama does just fine without one,
Bush couldn't string together two words WITH a teleprompter.

And the poor *******s in here who drank the neocon KoolAid still won't
give up. Go figgur.

DGDevin wrote:
It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.


So you voted for the community organizer?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his organization
ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed to them with a
stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin' lovely.


Bull****. One way or another, it's bull****.
Either it's a made up quote, or it's bull**** from the AlQaeda guy's
mouth.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Robatoy wrote:
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.

That's very true.

Thankfully, I have two very good reasons to be against him.

1. His domestic policy.
2. His foreign policy.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On May 2, 9:50*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
*It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.

So you voted for the community organizer?

Why the disdain for a community organizer? Have you ever done any?

Robatoy wrote:
Like that teleprompter bull****. Obama does just fine without one,
Bush couldn't string together two words WITH a teleprompter.


I could dig up plenty of youtube clips showing he doesn't. But I don't
really care.

It's a moot point to me.
I will take substance over style and character over charisma every day
of the week.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 9:50 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.
So you voted for the community organizer?

Why the disdain for a community organizer? Have you ever done any?


I have no disdain for anyone.
My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience than
Mr President.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On May 2, 10:00*pm, -MIKE- wrote:

I will take substance over style and character over charisma every day
of the week.


So do I.
What some people have to learn, is to see beyond the dazzle of the
charisma and evaluate the character without being distracted.
Just because a guy is polished in his demeanor, doesn't mean that is
all there is to the man.

Like in Bush's case, that simpleton oafishness and swagger belied the
fact that beneath all that aw-chucksiness lied a..wait, bad
example....

Larry wrote:
Us radical centrists are having a hell of a time. We got
to enjoy the left-wingnuts ranting about Bush for eight
years (although truth be told at least he provided good
reason to rant) and now the right-wingnuts (while still
ignoring their party's abuses) foaming at the mouth over
Obama being a raving socialist who intends to destroy
America and sign over the deed to the UN blah blah blah.
Whatever happened to common sense, is it really the
endangered species it appears to be?




In Washington it is. As far as I can tell it's extinct...

But you can't tell. Lawrence J. Peter (founder of the "Peter Principle")
once said: "I have been studying government, man and boy, for over forty
years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools
or by really intelligent people who are just putting us on."

'Course Peter was a Canadian...

On May 2, 10:01*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 9:50 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
*It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.
So you voted for the community organizer?

Why the disdain for a community organizer? Have you ever done any?

I have no disdain for anyone.
My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience than
Mr President.

The whole planet should be on their knees in gratitude that that her
election never happened. Regardless of yumminess.

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Bush was wrong about some things.

Yeah, some things, those Iraqi WMDs for example, four and half
thousands Americans have paid for that little mistake with their
lives, not to mention three billion bucks a week for six years.


Oh, bother! Those who died were volunteers. They signed up knowing the risk
of death or injury, but sign up they did. For the opportunity to kill people
and blow things up. Just like mountain climbers or skydivers or race car
drivers accept similar risks for the thrill of the avocation.

Further, other figures confirm this observation. 85% of those who've served
in Iraq or Afghanistan re-enlist at the first opportunity. The remaining 15%
were killed, invalided out, retired, or married harridans.

And our nation benefited. Fully every commander now in uniform - from
sergeant to 4-star general has led troops in combat. The tip of the spear is
polished to an unbelievable gloss.

No, our warrior class trained to be there, they want to be there, they NEED
to be there. For their family. For their country. For honor's sake. For
glory's sake. They march. Into the Hot Gates they march, where Xerxes hordes
count for nothing...

Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 6:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

No play there Robot - Bush was wrong on many front, but nowhere
near as wrong in 8 years as the Hopeium dealer has been in 3 lousy
months.

So.. people did not lose their lives because of Bush's lies? A
simple yes or no will suffice.....but unlikely.

No, they did not.

You and Mark drink from the same well?

I drink from the cup of knowledge. Don't know about Mark.

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the
issues as crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war
problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in
"In all criminal proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees
and everybody else are entitled to constitutional protections.

The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it
applies to more than just criminals. One of the independent clauses
continues " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law..." No crime required.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime..."

Sound like it applies to criminals to me.



For example, we incarcerate people all the time who are
not "criminals:" Civil contempt, juveniles, illegal aliens,
contagious disease carriers, and more.

All subject to habius and judicial review, no?

Habeas corpus is a judicial determination of whether the original
sanction was proper. In virtually all cases, the finding is that the
original incarceration (be it for civil contempt, contagion,
juveniles, etc.) WAS proper. A habeas hearing is extremely rare
because all of the instances I named, that take place many times a
day, are proper.


* The people at Gitmo are "unlawful enemy combatants" in the same
category as spies, guerrillas, saboteurs, fifth-columnists, etc.
Under the customary rules of war, they can be summarily executed.

Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"?

The president, or his designee, determines whether an individual is
an unlawful enemy combatant.

Regardless, they
are entitled to judicial process under the Geneva Convention, which
covers all persons in an occupied country or combat zone, just
solely combatants.

The Geneva and Hauge conventions are completely silent on the subject
of "unlawful enemy combatants." The 4th Geneva Convention defines
"lawful enemy combatant" as one who:

* Bears arms openly,
* Bears a uniform or distinctive insignia visible at a distance,
* Subjects himself to a chain of authority and command, and
* Abides by the customary rules of war.

Anyone NOT following all four of the above can be classed as an
"unlawful enemy combatant." Note that Granny Goodbar, sitting in her
rocker, knitting a cosy for her lap dog, is not following all four of
the above requirements and can, should the president so choose, be
classed as an "unlawfull enemy combatant."

In addition, the 4th covers incidental combatants such as a citizens
militia hastily organized for purposes of defense, non-combatants
assisting in the war effort such as construction workers or medical
personnel, and other participants.

You're right, it does not have to be the same process as
US citizens. Except for a few, we have failed to provide them any
judicial process.

No, they no longer can be summarily executed. They need at least a
drumhead court martial.


We have always provided some sort of hearing, as we did with our
first spy, Major John Andre.

But there is no treaty, convention, or paragraph in the customary
rules of war that demands such. As much as we deplore the conduct,
German officers summarily executing resistance fighters was well
within the rules.

Per the Hague Convention, Article 30: "A spy taken in the act shall
not be punished without previous trial." The Hague Convention
predates WWI.
The Geneva Conventions add additonal limitations but do not remove
that one.

You are quite correct - I overlooked that one.

Of course the good folks at Gitmo were not accused of being spies...

-MIKE- wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his
organization ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed
to them with a stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin'
lovely.


Bull****. One way or another, it's bull****.
Either it's a made up quote, or it's bull**** from the AlQaeda guy's
mouth.



That's just another amusing liberal meme. Like the AQ guys and their
recruits loved the US before Abu Ghraib. The argument sort of worked
before the surge, after the surge it has been shown for the pure BS it is.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with
a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ
torture?

You can still do that - that hasn't changed.

What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they aspire is
the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE me!"

I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of the
Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Silver
Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.

Maybe Achmed al-BoomBoom will straighten up and do right.

Robatoy wrote:
On May 2, 5:31 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:


I'll agree that Saddam was a bad actor, but beyond that I have no
way of knowing the motivations behind choosing any country. To me it
seems equally likely that the motivation was "he tried to whack my
daddy so I'm gonna whack him."


ANYthing to gain favour from the man who saw the evil in his son and
his son being the mirror of that pearl-wearing pitbull of a mother.

Yup 100,000 people died because of a family gripe? Naaa.. he killed
because he could.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing?

cm wrote:
Both parties are ****ing us equally. They just operate under different
agendas.


At least the Republicans want to get married first and, er, to opposite
sexes.

"HeyBub" wrote:

I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

What ever happened to George?

Lew

-MIKE- wrote:

I have no disdain for anyone.
My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience
than Mr President.

She has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he became
President too, or JFK for that matter. Would you suggest that she would
make a better potential President than either of them on that basis?

If you figure "community organizer" is the portion of Obama's life that is
the most important when assessing whether he's qualified to be President,
then why not evaluate Palin's qualifications to be Vice President on what
she was doing at an equivalent point in her career--sports reporter.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

What ever happened to George?

McCarthy.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Robatoy" wrote:

................................................ .......
You guys had your ass handed to you, now suck it up and try again.
Simply being against Obama for the sake of being contrary is a weak
position and laughable.
................................................ .

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?

Mark & Juanita wrote:

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his
organization ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was
handed to them with a stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just
friggin' lovely.


Bull****. One way or another, it's bull****.
Either it's a made up quote, or it's bull**** from the AlQaeda guy's
mouth.


That's just another amusing liberal meme. Like the AQ guys and their
recruits loved the US before Abu Ghraib.

Please quote me or anyone coming within a mile of even hinting at anything
like that.

crickets

The argument sort of worked
before the surge, after the surge it has been shown for the pure BS
it is.

And yet I heard it just yesterday (the first part, the stars and stripes bow
is my comment) on one of the Sunday morning talking-heads show, from an
American journalist who got it straight from the terrorist's mouth. Of
course in your mind that means it's just spin from the liberal media so
there's no point in searching for a quotation you'll just reject anyway.

As for the surge, do you have any idea what it really is? Are you aware the
U.S. has armed tribal militias (the so-called Awakening) and paid them to
kick Al Qaeda out of their areas, in effect creating warlords who have
secured those areas outside of the control of the Iraqi govt.? It's been
compared with some justification to the cops paying the Bloods to fight the
Crips, especially considering that not long ago those same militias were
shooting at American troops. Hey, I'm glad it's worked as well as it has.
But it's the real basis of AQ getting beat-up in Iraq, not just more U.S.
troops being there (and being used more intelligently). Wouldn't it have
been nice if Rumsfeld hadn't cut down the invasion/occupation force to a
size he was warned was inadequate to the task from the beginning? Brilliant
decision to strip it of the MP units that were to secure military arms dumps
among other key sites huh? Wouldn't it have been nice if Bremer hadn't
fired the Iraqi army (instantly producing tens of thousands ****ed-off armed
men with no income)? Maybe if the occupation hadn't been a catalog of
blunders for years or so, breaking about every rule in the book of
counter-insurgency warfare, we wouldn't have four and a half thousand graves
containing American men and women who paid for those mistakes with their
lives.

DGDevin wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:

I have no disdain for anyone.
My point was that Mrs. Palin has had much more executive experience
than Mr President.

She has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he became
President too, or JFK for that matter. Would you suggest that she would
make a better potential President than either of them on that basis?

If you figure "community organizer" is the portion of Obama's life that is
the most important when assessing whether he's qualified to be President,
then why not evaluate Palin's qualifications to be Vice President on what
she was doing at an equivalent point in her career--sports reporter.

So, what exactly are we supposed to judge Obama's experience by? If not
his days as a community organizer, then the days he spent working with Bill
Ayers and the Anneburg challenge? That's probably not your most prudent
course of action. His time as a constitutional lecturer? In which, during
an NPR interview he made the statement bemoaning the fact that the
Constitution does not address "redistributive" justice? His time as an
Illinois legislator where his most notable accomplishments were supporting
infanticide and multiple gun control bills including opposing one that
absolved homeowners protecting their own lives with a firearm? Or was it
his 140 days in the Senate before he started running for President? Can you
point to any significant bills that he sponsored or pushed through the
Senate during his 140 days there?

What exactly are The One's accomplishments that made him the leading
candidate from the Democrat party?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

DGDevin wrote:
evodawg wrote:

But wait now we have a Community Organizer as the Commander and
Chief.

Harvard Law specializing in international relations, professor of

Sorry, he was no "professor" ... he was adjunct faculty in the form
of a whiny lecturer.

constitutional law, state and federal Senator and so on. IMO he had less
experience than I would have liked, but the "community organizer" crap is,
well, crap. It's like the left claiming Bush was unqualified to be
President because he was just a former baseball team owner.

Us radical centrists are having a hell of a time. We got to enjoy the
left-wingnuts ranting about Bush for eight years (although truth be told at
least he provided good reason to rant) and now the right-wingnuts (while
still ignoring their party's abuses) foaming at the mouth over Obama being a
raving socialist who intends to destroy America and sign over the deed to
the UN blah blah blah. Whatever happened to common sense, is it really the
endangered species it appears to be?

Please review the last 100 days and the last $4 Trillion and get back to
us about ObamMessiah's qualifications.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

DGDevin wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his
organization ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was
handed to them with a stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just
friggin' lovely.


Bull****. One way or another, it's bull****.
Either it's a made up quote, or it's bull**** from the AlQaeda guy's
mouth.


That's just another amusing liberal meme. Like the AQ guys and their
recruits loved the US before Abu Ghraib.

Please quote me or anyone coming within a mile of even hinting at anything
like that.

crickets

Good grief, are you really this dense or just trying to grandstand?

Did you not just say, above, that "An Al Qaeda leader said the single
greatest recruiting tool his organization ever had was the Abu Ghraib
photos, and that tool was handed to them with a stars-and-stripes bow
wrapped around it"? I don't need to quote anyone else, you said it
yourself.

Now, by saying that, you are implying that AQ *needed* some kind of
recruiting tool. The US military was in Iraq, the US military was
suppressing AQ and other insurgents. Do you really think that a few
pictures of some people suffering something no worse than college hazing
was the tipping point for recruiting? Had not AQ just flown three planes
into US buildings only a few years earlier? It's not like they didn't
already view the US as the great satan. If they hadn't had the AG
pictures, all they needed was some pictures from Hollywood to convince AQ
recruits (conservative Muslims by definition) of the utter depravity of the
country occupying theirs.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see
Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

THAT was her take on foreign affairs.
THAT was the take her handlers permitted.

Did the words come out of her mouth, or not? Why would you cut her slack
you'd deny to someone from the other party, aside from the obvious reason?
Picking Palin was a brilliant tactical move as it reversed McCain's
declining fortunes for a time. But strategically it became painfully
obvious why they kept her away from the press as much as they could, she was
as qualified to be VP as she is to be an NFL linebacker. Eventually I think
enough people (those not hopelessly partisan) realized that, and it cost
McCain votes in the endgame. It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.



Palin was better qualified than either Obama or Biden ... and she was not
really qualified at all...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

HeyBub wrote:

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with
a straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ
torture?

You can still do that - that hasn't changed.

What color is the sky on your planet?

What is more distressing, however, is whether you care whether anyone
believes you. For some, the moment in their lives to which they
aspire is the time when they can shout "You like me! You really LIKE
me!"
I'd like to call your attention to John Cavett Marshall. General of
the Army, Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
State, Silver Star, Legion of Honor, architect of the Marshall Plan.

Marshall was waterboarded and he turned out okay.

Are you by any chance attempting to refer to George Catlett Marshall? Your
argument might be more convincing if you could at least get his name right,
oh, and do research that goes beyond listening to talk radio.

http://op-for.com/2009/04/if_the_pre..._outlawed.html

"LEXINGTON, Va., April 30, 2009 -- False reports have been circulating on
some talk television and radio programs and on the Internet alleging that
cadets are routinely waterboarded at VMI as part of a “ritualized hazing.”
These false accusations are apparently being made to justify the practice of
waterboarding suspected terrorists, now banned by the President.

VMI does not waterboard anyone, nor can we find any reference in our records
that such a practice has ever occurred here. Some reports are specifically
alleging that George C. Marshall, a graduate of VMI’s Class of 1901 and
arguably one of the greatest soldiers America has produced, was waterboarded
when he was a cadet. We have found no reference in our records or in the
voluminous biographical information about General Marshall that he was ever
subjected to waterboarding.

In their first months at VMI, cadets experience the Rat Line. This is a very
tough period, both physically and mentally. The Rat Line at VMI today is a
carefully calibrated experience that is professionally run. It does not
include waterboarding, and it cannot be equated with hazing.

These allegations are not appropriate to the reputation of General Marshall
or the Virginia Military Institute."


Maybe Achmed al-BoomBoom will straighten up and do right.

That's funny, anything that happens to someone other than yourself being
funny even if it's kind of bad.

I'll tell you what sport, we'll strip you naked, chain you in an agonizing
postion and leave you there for a few hours, then kick the crap out of you,
then lock you in a cold cell for a few days, maybe pound on you some more,
then we'll strap you down and put a suffocating wet cloth over your face
over and over until you tell us what we want to know. At the end of that do
you figure you'll conclude you have been tortured, or not?

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Again I ask. What rights did YOU lose under W?

How about the right to hold up his head before the world and say with a
straight face and a clear conscience that America doesn't employ torture?

I did and can continue to do so.


An Al Qaeda leader said the single greatest recruiting tool his organization
ever had was the Abu Ghraib photos, and that tool was handed to them with a
stars-and-stripes bow wrapped around it, just friggin' lovely.

Yes, they'll come to love us under the swine currently in power.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

I previously wrote:

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative
Republican point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the
electorate.

LD asks:

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?

Good question, may I ask why do you ask?

Today's Democratic party contains a broad spectrum of views from very
conservative to very liberal.

OTOH, near as I can tell, only the ultra onservative point of view is
now represented in the Republican party.

Everybody else has apparently bailed out.

Lew

I asked:

What ever happened to George?

"J. Clarke" responds:

McCarthy.

Huh?

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
I previously wrote:

Based on today's numbers, it appears the ultra conservative Republican
point of view is now supported by less than 20% of the electorate.

LD asks:

What percent do you suppose support the Extreme Left?

Good question, may I ask why do you ask?

Today's Democratic party contains a broad spectrum of views from very
conservative to very liberal.

OTOH, near as I can tell, only the ultra onservative point of view is now
represented in the Republican party.

Everybody else has apparently bailed out.

Lew



You really think the Extreme LEFT has disappeared?