Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, May 28, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Liberal Hypocrisy on the 2008 Campaign Trail
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


There’s been no shortage of stories to strengthen the “hypocrite” label that’s dogged John Edwards’s presidential campaign, but that doesn’t mean the other Democrats running for the White House haven’t been acting holier-than-thou.

Here are few liberal campaign follies you might have missed because you were watching the Johnboy’s “I Feel Pretty” YouTube for the 100th time.

OBAMA WANTS YOU TO BUY A HYBID, HE LIKES AV-8

Last month, Barack Obama traveled to Detroit, Michigan to chastise auto industry officials for not producing as many hybrid vehicles as he’d like. In the Motor City, he praised Japanese hybrids for averaging 45 miles per gallon. Listeners were stunned when Obama criticized that Americans “were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars” while “foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology.” He said, “Whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies lobbied furiously against it spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry.”

The Detroit Free Press’s Mark Phelan reported that the Obama family auto isn’t a hybrid, though. Obama packs his wife and two daughters into a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C that gets about 25 miles per gallon. “Obama’s choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars,” Phelan wrote.

HILLARY SPURS PROTESTERS

Members of the anti-war group Code-Pink take pride in the number of times they get arrested outside of Hillary Clinton’s office or at her campaign events. This is ironic because as a 1969 Wellesley graduate, Hillary made the cover of Life magazine for a speech she gave celebrating the right to protest. Her caption underneath her feature photo? A quote from the fresh-faced radical’s address that said, “Protest is an attempt to forge an identity.” At the time, she said protest allowed people to come “to terms with our humanness.”

SELMA SLIP UP

Barack Obama wants you to believe he is a straight-talking candidate, but he was willing to alter his life story for political gain down in Selma, Alabama. When he went there on the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” he made up a sham of a story about his birth. There, he said his parents fell in love and conceived him as a result of “what happened in Selma.” He said, "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

The problem? Bloody Sunday took place on March 7, 1965. Obama was born on August 4, 1961.

MRS. OBAMA DISSES WALMART

Michelle Obama recently resigned from the board of TreeHouse Foods Inc., a major food supplier to Wal-Mart. She became a board member in 2005 and was paid $51,200 by them since then, according to tax forms. She said it was because of “increase demands” of her husband’s campaign. More likely, her resignation was because of demands from Big Labor. Mr. Obama has been a leading supporter of the group WakeUpWalmart, a union-backed campaign dedicated to organizing the mega-store and demanding pay hikes for Wal-Mart workers.

RICHARDSON WANTS THE ‘RACE CARD’– SOMETIMES

This week, Bill Richardson told the Washington Post he hoped to avoid the “Hispanic label.” He said, “I’m not running as Hispanic candidate, but I’m trying to convince Hispanics that I am Hispanic, and they don’t know.” He explained, “I go to Los Angeles, they don’t know I’m Hispanic. When they know, it’s a positive.” Richardson also defended the embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales because of his race. When asked about Gonzales’s management over the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys, Richardson defended him because of his race. Richardson told the media: “The only reason I’m not [calling for Gonzales’s resignation] is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him. It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest.”

HILL DIDN’T REPORT HUBBY’S CHARITY

Hillary Clinton supports burdensome campaign finance reform legislation. Yet, even with scores of lawyers and staff, she can’t keep up with the laws. When she filed her Senate financial disclosure forms in February she “forgot” to disclose anything about her involvement with her husband’s multi-million dollar charity, the Clinton Global Initiative. Since 2001, Hillary has been a treasurer and secretary of CGI, but she didn’t report her affiliation with the group until the Washington Post discovered the omission. Among those who received grants from CGI was the Dana Blair Foundation. James Blair, husband to Dana Blair, was the one who helped Hillary earn $100,000 profit in a suspicious cattle future gamble thirty years ago.

And, of course---the Edwards story that exemplifies liberal hypocrisy at it’s best:,

EDWARDS CHARGES COLLEGE $55,000 TO DISCUSS POVERTY

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards ate crow when the San Francisco Chronicle found out he took $55,000 from the taxpayer-funded University of California Davis to deliver a speech on “Poverty, the great moral issue facing America.” This disclosure comes just weeks after the Politico found receipts for two $400 haircuts for the candidate in his first quarter campaign finance reports. When asked by NBC’s Matt Lauer how he might convince the public that he is “not just a rich guy talking about poverty,” Edwards replied, “I’m a have.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Thanks Amanda for exposing
the truth about these wanna-be presidents! Lier's and Hypocrites all! Is this the best America can come up with!?? I wouldn't want these slime balls near my dogs! Let alone run our country!

It's all about oil
Back in WWII days, we hammered the enemy's oil supply. Why? Because without it, industry comes to a halt. Terrorists are doing their damnest to stop the flow through choke-points or from the source.
Their (the candidates) talking points seem to center on the oil flowing as usual. Not so! First, we fix the main problem by guaranteeing flow from the mid-east or drilling like crazy on our own turf to keep this country from shutting down. Jobs, our economy, everything will come to a grinding halt. An advertisement out there shows what a room looks like without plastic; that stuff comes from oil. Go out in your driveway and picture your car without its plastic…or even the gas in the tank or the oil in the crankcase. "Someone" needs to talk realistic. Let’s put food (for thought) on the table; then discuss the seating order.

Point of the article?
So I shouldn't vote for Obama because he talks about hybrids, but drives a Chrysler 300 (which by the way Chrysler is promoting in their ads for its fuel efficiency)?

Who the heck, except for radicals from either side, cares?

I want to vote for people based on their positions on the issues.

Haven't you folks figured out that you keep getting manipulated by this type of stupidity?


This is an incomplete list
when you think of Edwards clearcutting forests to build his mansion and Hillary's story of being named after Sir Edmund even though she was born before he made his climb. And imagine--it will take a 3 volume set to document this if Al Gore gets in the race.

No Substance
I'm searching for one good candidate. I won't find it on the democrat side. And, I don't think I'll get one through the Republican primary.

We're in for a long, hard ride.

President Obama!
There is not one single thing in this entire article that changes my mind: "President Obama" is music to my ears.

Thank you, Dear God, for sending this wonderful, articulate, SMART man to save our poor country. He will need all your help, Dear God, as he tries to undo the damage of 6+ years of this horrible administration.

about Edwards...
Amanda cut off the last part of his quote.

He said, "I'm a have...that takes from the have-nots."

Nah, just kidding, he didn't say that.

Truthfully, I don't have a problem with him spending a lot of money. It's his money.

I have a problem with a) him exploiting the poverty issue to make more money, and b) his ridiculous lefty solution to poverty...take more money from those of us who work hard to give to those who never study because they are too busy drinking a six-pack.

If he wants to donate all of his money to charity, that's his right, but I don't want HIM taking MY money to give to someone else.




Leftist Shills All Over TH!
Dogjudge, as usual the leftists always miss the point of these criticisms, and many do it intentionally - sort of a "pretend" game with them.

The point is if ANY republican candidate told these kinds of flagrant lies, or indulged in the rank hypocrisy these democrats routinely and habitually display, they would be mercilessly skewered by the MSM. Effectively, the MSM is now little more than an arm of the DNC.

No better proof of this exists than what they did to Dan Quayle, a man who was far more qualified to be president than Edwards will ever be. They pounded that guy mercilessly for his pretty-boy appearance and "deer-in-the-headlights" demeanor, never letting up. See any of the major news networks or printed media going after Edwards in this fashion?

And don't tell me about the internet or a few conservative columnists and bloggers, fer chrissakes! I am talking about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and any of the major newspapers in this country which are all leftist. See any of these folks go after Edwards like they did Dan Quayle?

You talk about a vacuous, moronic twit - they don't come any more superficial and plastic than John Edwards, but you won't be seeing the MSM ridiculing this idiot. But if this were a republican John Edwards running, the MSM would have ran him out of town on a rail. You can take it to the bank.

That's the point, sir. One party gets a free pas and the republicans get picked off like turkeys as they trot across the landscape.

It's not overstatement to suggest that the democrats could nominate OJ Simpson and the MSM would come to his defense. You folks add an entirely new dimension to the word hypocrisy.

great point Gabby
If I was a football coach, I first would be concerned about the skills and fitness of my own players as that is the only thing I can control, I would want to know what the other team(the Democrats)is up to,but I would be most watchful of my own side. Townhall columnists should set a set of principles and criticize Republicans who stray. This might insure that the "conservative" side has better players that keep their word, as it seems the problem really isn't with the Dems(as bad as they are)it is with Republicans who want big government.

Right On Gabby
Hypocrisy has come to define the Republican Party. It's the reason I haven't voted for one in quite some time. However, I will return to the fold if Ron Paul is nominated. But of course that won't be the case. More than likely our sad and pathetic party will nominate one of the truly pathetic creatures of this election season, Mr. Rudi Giuliani.

dogjudge, the new Loyal Democrat
the take-home message of dogjudge's rant above is "I don't care what people practice, I care about what they SAY they stand for." If he weren't so earnest about the left in all of his rants, I would think him a satirist.

The sad part is that the left is into words, not deeds. That is how their candidates can flip, and flop, and vote against the war before they vote for it, throw away their military medals but still have them (and claim they threw away someone else's; BTW, is that like using other people's money to support charities you favor like the libs do to the "rich")?

Dogjudge, when can you know what a candidate stands for? Is it like Bill Clinton, who stood up for women's rights except when he was abusing them, or what? What is Hillary's real position on the war? Is she for it but for withdrawal, or what? What is Obama's position on anything? All you really care about is whether the person has a D after his or her name; that is your idea of knowing what they stand for. Too bad most of them can't or won't tell the truth about what they stand FOR; they would have LOST 100 seats in the 2006 election.

TheHistorian
Thanks for the comments.

Hillary and the war? I wouldn't vote for her specifically because of this issue. I have listened to her enough to know that, in my mind, she continues to support our involvement in Iraq. She placates her base by saying that she's against the war, but I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her about the issue.

You may disagree with me about if we should be involved in Iraq and that's fine. At the same time, do you believe Hillary would remove the troops from Iraq, or leave them there?

As far as the Republicans are concerned. I wouldn't vote for McCain because of his stance on the war. As far as the rest are concerned, torture is as much of a hot button issue for me as abortion is for many on the right. For that issue alone, I wouldn't vote for the remaining Republicans.

At the same time, if someone like Chuck Hagel ran, and knowing what I know about him, I would probably seriously consider voting for him. For me Hagel versus Obama would be an extremely tough decision.

The "gotcha" list
Its funny to me how Republicans cry bloody murder when Media Matters points out inconsistancies in the stance of the right but turn around and play the same game. At least on Media Matters, they point out things of substance and provide the actual transcript or web page where you can read for yourself. They actually quote you all. Here, no proof, no web links to click on to verify what you guys are saying. And you wonder why you hate Media Matters so much. Because they expose Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush, and all the other "faux news" worshipers for the right wing bigots they are. Your ideology is that if you dont agree with our opinion, you not only hate Bush, but you hate America. Let someone question your love for your country, you'd lose your mind. Tell me how your gonna get gas under 3.00 a gallon and I might vote Republican. Because John Edwards "$400" haircut, Bill wanting to leave Hilary, Bill Richardson saying whether or not he's hispanic, are NOT issues if give a damn about. My brother being in Iraq for 2 1/2 years and missing his son's first two years of life (which he will never get back), maybe never to return, like 3,000 others, is what I care about. And why again are we over there??? The reasons change every other week. (or depending on which way the political wind is blowing) p.s.....is anyone gonna mention the report that the Bush Administration was warned of the violence that would occur once Saddam was toppled? Even tho we were supposed to be greeted as liberators??? If yall want me to believe that this Admin has my best interest in mind, then, yall must be sippin on that same sauce that caused Prez Bush to fall off his couch when he "choked on a pretzel and passed out for a brief second." You wanna play a gotcha game? Show me some proof. Give me a weblink where i can read or see this stuff for myself. Until then, I believe what i see with my own 2 eyes. That's gas at 3 dollars a gallon, rent goin up, milk goin up, coffee goin up, tuition for school has ALWAYS been up, etc etc. Guest worker program *shakin head* and you wonder why the Chinese are kickin our asses internationally. Blind loyalty is a fool's route.

This Guy Needs a Brain Transplant
Dog, "torture" is when you gouge out eyes, hook people up to electrical current, tie them upside down from ceiling, force feces down their throat and stuff like that. IOW, what your insurgent pals in Iraq are doing.

Ask anyone of five billion people on the planet whether they'd prefer panties on their "intact" head or no panties on their severed head rolling in the sand? Think you'll get any takers, you morally-confused cretin? Imbeciles like you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

JailTheSocialistStreetUrchins
No there a lot simpler rules about these sorts of things.

Things such as the Geneva Convention, etc.

I'm not talking about how you handle the way people go through some type of system to decide whether they are guilty, or not, I'm talking about the way you treat people while they are in your custody.

First, what the other people do is TOTALLY immaterial to the way that you treat them. Their acts of inhumanity does NOT give you justification to use different techniques to handle them.

Second. Due to this issue, the United States has lost a tremendous amount of respect throughout the world. It rings rather hollow for us to pontificate the high road while waterboarding people in our control. It's wrong and it violates HUMANS basic rights.

Third. Try going to your priest/pastor/preacher whatever and ask THEM if it is acceptable in God's mind to torture people. I've yet to find any religious person who has written off on this yet.

Fourth and final point. I served in the Air Force. Why do you think John McCain and others such as Petraus are against torture? You are extremely misguided about this. We're not going to get any useful information and this policy has put our troops now and for the foreseeable future in MORE danger not less.

Gimmee A Break!
Sir, I stand by my comments. Like the vast majority of extreme leftists in this country, you are morally-confused. People like you who hold the United States to a set of standards the rest of the world spits on, or merely pays lip service to, will get us all killed. And this includes much of Europe which does business with these monstrous barbarians, especially France and Germany.

The Geneva Convention is a freakin' joke, sir, and no one gives a crap about it except the UN when it's hammering the US or Amnesty International when they're doing the same.

Tell ya what, Twinky. When most of western Europe, the UN and Amnesty International pay as much attention to these murderous bastards beheading whoever gets in their way, blowing up innocent civilians on a daily basis, and mercilessly torturing every US soldier they get their hands on, then get back to me. In the meantime, forget this waterboarding horseshit. You're not comparing apples and oranges, but rather apples and tire rims!

BTW, you leftist shills and assorted demmie operatives should stay at home on moveon.org and leave the rest of us the hell alone over here.

In a nutshell
This is why Mormons are not credible in politics.

According to a prior poster: "The point is if ANY republican candidate told these kinds of flagrant lies, or indulged in the rank hypocrisy these democrats routinely and habitually display, they would be mercilessly skewered by the MSM. Effectively, the MSM is now little more than an arm of the DNC."

The Republican party is so full of lies and hypocrisy today, from illegal vote manipulation to felonies and war crimes committed by most of their administration, which are very underreported in the media. But this person feels the need to restrict criticism to "liberals". There seem to be no honest Republicans left. Romney is the worst of the worst. All real freedom-loving conservatives have gone elsewhere.

Obama
...is no longer himself. He is now the carefully crafted, manufactured fake replica of himself. The robotic product of a p.r. machine that has programed him into a typical politician whose opinions on the issues stand for as long as he's in front of a certain audience, then change completely in front of another.

JailTheSocialistStreetUrchins
No, I am not going away.

You need folks such as us to keep you honest.

As I mentioned above, I served four years active and two inactive for this country. I DIDN'T fight so that fools such as you could try to force their misguided "morals" on the rest of us. Folks such as you are as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything we might see from islamofascists. That's because your threat is from the inside of the US.

Please show me ONE credible religious leader who agrees with your vitriol.

Yeah, we need to ignore the Geneva Convention, etc.

By the way. You are aware of the fact that once the Senate ratifies a treaty that it carries the same weight as a law that's passed here in the US? In other words, YOUR administration, by not adhering to the Geneva Convention (which we signed) is violating that, plus the laws of the US, plus international laws.

So big mouth. You want to tell me again why McCain, Petaerus, and other heads of the military are against torture, but geniuses such as yourself know more than them?




Seminar Lefties Posting to TH!
Yeah, right Dog! At last count there were about 400 billion plus veterans against the war, more "anit-war veterans" than there are stars in the Milky Way Galaxy!

You demmie operatives are as transparent as Saran Wrap on a bowling ball. You remind us of those seminar callers who call radio talk show hosts such as Limbaugh and Hannity et al. Yeppers, ya coulda fooled me!

As for credible religious leaders, Dog, since when have any of you leftist atheists started giving a rat's a** what political position religious leaders take on these issues? When did that happen? Likely about the same time you lefties all of a sudden got religion and miraculously became concerned with presidents "lying" - just as soon as Bush was inagurated. Prior to that, you spent eight years telling us what it was OK to lie about when Clinton was busy perjuring himself about Lewinsky and lying his head off about why he bombed Yugoslavia into a pile of glass for 78 days straight.

Yeah, we got it, Dog. Thanks for the tip.

Geneva Converntion
I wonder if all those bleating about how we, the US don't abide by the Geneva Convertions know what one result could be if we did. The enemies we face are not signatories, and most assuredly do not abide by it. Also, they do not wear uniforms, they have no identifiable chain of command, they fight from mosques, hospitals and schools, they set booby traps (IED) that kill indiscriminately, they explode car bombs attacking civilians, and they blend in with the civilian populace. Thus, if we abide by all the provisions of that Geneva Convention, and the Laws of Land Warfare, whenever we capture them on the battlefield, we can execute them on the spot. Would you agree with doing that?

Heads They Win, Tails We Lose!
WB, once one comes to the inevitable conclusion that these leftists really hate America and want to see it destroyed in its present form, then all the rest falls in place. Of course they know the other guys could give a s*** less about the Geneva Convention, and truth be told this makes them hysterically happy! That means we lose and this is exactly what they want.

If it were otherwise these leftist frauds wouldn't spend their entire lives seaching for "evidence" of American war crimes, such as turning down the air conditioning or not providing prayer rugs in jail cells.

The Geneva Convention doesn't
apply to non-uniformed combatants, but that's okay. The WOT will last longer than these combatants will live, and it certainly makes no sense to turn them loose while it lasts. Shoot them. And while I am on the subject, if I take fire from a mosque, the mosque is going down. And if you harbor militants in your house, don't come crying to me about your wife and children when I blow it out of existance.

Reminds me of Bubba Clinton's
tax "rollback", where taxpayers didn't actually get back a dime because we "couldn't be trusted to spend it wisely".


PopYoColla
If your using media matters as your source then that explains your ignorant rant and quite frankly your ignorance. Go outside and play with kids your own age.

This article
left out all of them blaming Bush for all of the woes of the world and all of their personal problems as well. My favorite was Clinton blaming her vote against the supplemental on...you guessed it...Bush!

Thanks for "keeping us honest" dogjudge
LOL. The more you write, the more you reveal yourself as an unhinged moonbat. Let's compare: we're engaging in a difference of opinion with keyboards, but we're more dangerous than people who indiscriminately turn innocent human beings into a fine pink mist and a shower of severed limbs. That's the problem with you folks on the left, your moral compass is spinning like Linda Blair's head. You never identify or condemn true evil when you see it. Instead you fixate on waterboarding, which is uncomfortable, but hardly fatal. Meanwhile jihadis slit another poor schmuck from earlobe to earlobe. Culural differences I guess.


Another note to "dogjudge"
There is a fundamental dishonesty in people who loudly espouse a particular behavior in public, but do the opposite in private. That's why so many people take delight in revelations like that of the conservative preacher who is "outed" a homosexual drug addict.

Politicians engage in the same high & mighty hypocrisy. When they feel generous, they hand-out money by the millions and billions. Trouble is, it's not their money, it's yours and mine. Then they cajole and shame us for not giving more.

And when a politician calls on Americans to make sacrifices -- like driving smaller, less safe cars or allowing people from other countries to take American jobs, they never, ever share in the sacrifice. That's why it matters that Obama drives a Chrysler Hemi when he's asking you and I to drive a Ford Focus or a Prius.

career politicians
term limits..... sounds like a step in the right direction

But that's for the Proles!
You misunderstand people like Edwards and Obama -- their pronouncements are meant to apply not to the Nomenklatura to which they belong (they are supposed to inspire us with their opulence and wealth) but to the Proletariat toiling in the backgrounds of their privileged bubble world.

The people phoning in their columns from their limousines while stuck in traffic on the way in from their McMansions are always screaming that "people" (meaning Proles) must be jammed into more and more high rises set closer and closer together, into smaller and smaller apartments, with "green space" they can't get to because they ought not to own cars -- they can trudge on foot or by bicycle to the high rises in which they work -- and so on. The fading hippies on Toronto Island who demand that the biggest city in Canada be hushed by 9:00 p.m. to the decibel level of a modern refrigerator humming in the kitchen are cut from the same cloth.

When you listen to the Nomenklatura and the Apparatchiks pontificate, remember, they are talking about YOU, the Prole, not about themselves and their friends. THEY are entitled to their cushy lifestyle -- to give you a chance to see what life would have been like for you had you been permitted to be One of Them. And by the way, to encourage you to waste your money on lottery tickets in the vain hope that you may one day be able to afford a "luxury" condo in that downtown high rise and have 1200 square feet of space and an air conditioner just like your Betters. (But don't hold your breath.)

I have been around enough to know
that all pols are liars, When I was born FDR was president, now THERE was a true bullshitartist, he slipped more communistic ideas through the cracks than anyone.

The dems are the worst because as others here today have said, they need to BS the truly stupid and give them stuff at our expense, always have, always will.

The worst over the weekend was edwards, his little "support the troops" speech was about the most despicible slap in the face I ever heard.
He'll support them,[I should say US as I have 20 years service in Uncle Sam's canoe club] by bringing them home and giving them goodies.

We are NOT whores to be bribed edwards, we fight this countries battles because we love the country! We serve her because we love her and for no other reason and this old Chief gets a little steamed when wimps like you hide behind our sacrifice and make your millions "channeling" dead kids to blow smoke at stupid juries.

And you want to Be CinC? You gotta be kidding.

All these dems claim their love and support of the military and yet not one has a clue as to why we fight...all of them would surrender tomorrow and give this country up to the islamos or anyone else that says BOO! The founding fathers would be disgusted at what purports to be their successors in Congress today.

Does Town Hall just stick a pretty face
On the same old rehashed stories??? What the f does any of this have to do with Hypocrisy??

Obama drives a Chrysler 300? You're busting him for buying an AMERICAN made car that the Average American can actually afford??? What's Mitt's $250M worth of wealth have him driving?

You want hypocrisy. W chides us to stop consuming so much Oil. Yet his 2001 tax cuts made it possible to purchase a $100,000 Hummer and write that $100K off on your taxes within the first 2 years of ownership. However, buy a hybrid and you got a $2,000 credit.

You conveniently point out Edwards got $55K for speaking to Cal Davis...Yet, why not point out at the same time Rudi Guliani accepted $100K + $45K for use of a private jet to speak at Oklahoma State University?

It's hypocrisy because Code Pink works with the Police to get arrested at Hillary's office for publicity? These groups are wanting to be arrested for the publicity, what hypocritical thing is Hillary doing to prevent them?

Read up on throwing stones while living in a glass house...

popyocolla
I think your brother is over there because he volunteered. Am I right? Would there be any conflict that your brother would volunteer for, and miss his child's birthday for, that you could support?

koolaid- the finer points of hypocrisy
So, Obama cajoling us to buy a hybrid while he drives a hemi is not hypocrisy, but George Bush giving us a tax cut with which we might choose to buy a hummer IS hypocrisy. Wow, that's quite a leap.
Sure there's hypocrisy on both sides... but if that's the best example you can come up with, well my friend...you lose.
I think your attempt to deflect the point about Edwards' speaking fees by comparing Guiliani's falls apart because Guiliani isn't there to speak about poverty. So ya kinda missed that point I guess
I do agree that the code pink demonstrations really aren't hypocrisy, just a kind of justice with a sweet irony about them.


SEAWOLF: your post was excellent. The thought of any of the democrat candidates as as CinC gives me the willies.

redstateskoolaidboy
While I'm never one to get in the way of a libdolt showing how low their IQ is, here are a few facts on hybrids.

1. NEW EPA tests show that the Prius only gets an average of 45 mpg, which isn't much higher than the Chevy Aveo, a car that costs less than half as much.

2. The nickel used in the Prius battery is mined and smelted at a site so ecologically ruined that NASA has used the dead zone around it to test moon rovers. Nicknamed the Superstack, the plant spreads sulfur dioxide all across northern Ontario, causing acid rain. There is no life around it for miles.

3. The smelted nickel is then shipped to Europe, then China, then Japan, then the USA during the long process of becoming the battery in a Prius.

But best of all is that the HUMMER requires FIFTY PERCENT LESS to produce and drive than the libby's Prius! Indeed, over the 100,000-mile expected lifespan of a Prius, it will cost an average $3.25 per mile. A Hummer lasts three times as long, and only costs $1.95 per mile, and is expected to last 300,000 miles.

Nothing like facts and logic to drive away the moonbats.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/b95d4c3f-dc25-4e86-ae31-39fcf95aa2fd?comments=true

So, the Dems are hypocrits?

As my bosses' teenaged daughter would say -- DUH!

P.S.

SEAWOLF--BRAVO BRAVISSIMO! And THANK YOU for your 20 years service in "Uncle Sam's canoe club." (I just watched the "Victory at Sea" marithon on one of the local PBS stations. I wonder, indeed I very much doubt, if such a series -- or ANY such program lauding the US military -- would be made by ANY of the major networks today.)

None of this matters
All of this focus on the trivialities will help Republicans not one whit in 2008.

The problem is that the GOP has now developed the same problem Democrats have had for years. They are being pulled away from the majority of American voters in the primaries on the central issue of the day and will have little hope of recapturing the center for the general election.

The "base," those will decide the nomination in Republican primaries, still overwhelmingly supports the Iraq war, which apparently will remain the central issue into next year. Because they are appealing to the base, GOP presidential candidates are lining up like sheep at the slaughterhouse, each trying to sound tougher and more bellicose than the next.

Whoever gets the nomination will have a very difficult time persuading the 70% of Americans who now oppose the war that they should be trusted on this issue. It will be especially difficult as many Republican congressmen and senators, who have already telegraphed that they plan to start jumping ship this fall, begin trying to distance themselves from the war in an effort at self-preservation.

In that environment, even Mike Gravel could be elected president running as a Democrat.


and some hypocricy from the right
i especially like the one where serial killer ted bundy was hired by the gop!

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

ko....
he decided to go against family wishes, but he's a grown man. I support him in everything he does but he shouldn't even have the opportunity to be in Iraq. For all you blind Bush supporters, I assume you already went to the recruiting office to sign up for service. And p.s. to LoLo, like i said before, Media Matters provides proof to their accusations. Where's your proof that W walks on water. Because that's how you guys come off like he cant do no harm. This weekend was the first time i visited MediaMatters; because i heard the pundits on Fox News (yes, i watch fox news EVERYDAY so im getting my info from both sides of the plane, left wing and right). I was amazed at how they point out inconsistancies and double standards from the right. All i ask is that you provide me wit some evidence, some web page or transcript that i can refer to to verify your claims. Im not a blind follower of Democrats. But all Ive seen in the 6 years of this administration, is tha rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Tax cuts my a**. I really got a lot of miles outta that 200 check i got for the tax cuts. Too bad its gone on gas money, food that costs twice as much as it did 5 years ago etc etc. Please wake up people. Bush hasnt done anything but help tho "swift boat vet" types and oil tycoons that got him into office. Those who disagree let me know and ill look on the net for the local recruiting office in your area so you can give YOUR life for such a "Noble" cause as to give democracy to the Iraqis. LOL hell they cant even agree to stop killing eachother. *Shakin head* remember, blind loyalty is a fool's route

mishaz
i especially like the one where serial female abuser bill clinton reached the pinnacle of power in the dem party...!

Re: Hillary and Obama fibs
There is nothing new about leftists stretching the truth on the campaign trail.

Barack and Hillary making up these stories about themselves is just part and parcel of the typical democrat campaign.

Look at some of the fantasy drivel that Kerry and Algore produced during their campaigns.

The really stupidity of this sort of thing is that it is so easy for somebody to find out the truth about them. But the MSM is squarely behind them, so they don't get called on it.

Hillary
Huffington Post is not a site that most here would normally visit.

In my earlier comments, I mentioned that I would not vote for Hillary because of the issue of the Iraq War.

At HuffingtonPost.com today, Arianna Huffington has a column about Hillary and her support for the war and her hypocrisy on the issue.

Some of you might find the column interesting.

Look at all the candidatates and
you will find one that stands head and shoulders above the rest. In the polls, after the two debates, he left the others in the dust. The media gives him no coverage. Better ask yourself, why? Without question, the most honest and qualified individual running, check him out folks, Rep. Ron Paul!

says you gabby
i didnt know that until i read the link. maybe you should click the link and remove the blinders. see both sides...

magnificus...
pulling out the clinton card! you get a cookie!

Inevitable conclusion
>once one comes to the inevitable conclusion that these leftists really hate America and want to see it destroyed in its present form, then all the rest falls in place<

What leftists are you talking about? The bombastic conclusion that your political rivals hate America and want it destroyed is the product of a thought process so immature and limited that it can only hurt whatever position you're attempting to promote. One might even come to the inevitable conclusion that generic labeling like this can only be advanced by someone who hates America and wants it destroyed, in its present form.

For dogjudge
Chrysler actually PROMOTES the 300C as a model of fuel-efficiency?

When I actually see a Chrysler that fits that description, I'll let you know: I've had Chryslers forced on me more than once by rental agancies (Acclaim, Stratus, Cirrus, Sebring, Neon) and have never found any that could make a trip from Memphis to Atlanta ("shorter" route through Birmingham, about 370 miles/600 km) even down to fumes; by contrast a 1997 Park Avenue got me from Atlanta to Lexington, KY--about 395 mi/637 km WITHOUT going below 1/4). Basically, I put it this way: its flagship nameplate is "Dodge"--enough said!

Gravitas
Remember when Bush was runnimg for president all the msm were saying he lacked grvitas.Will someone point out to me where is Obama's gravitas,and why isn't the msm asking this?

My Chrysler Sebring
Could make it easily from Salt Lake to Las Vegas, just over 400 miles, plus, that includes several mountainous areas and the twisting Virgin River Canyon between St George and Mesquite.

Magnificus
I think Velcro-Fly bubba prefers being referred to as a Serial Rapist vice Abuser.

union dude
BAM!

My 11 y.o. son has more gravitas than Oblamea does. He's had more foreign policy experience in 7 different countries as well.

Cal
My favorite is Hitlary talking in a southern drawl. I wonder if they taught her that at Wellesley when she was writing about her hero, Saul Aulinsky.

Hypocrisy
Americans know that "POLITICIAN" are hypocrites.The real "CHOICE" is to find the least "HYPOCRITICAL".Most sports events have two teams or players,so I would hope to get your score for the "REPUBLICANS",soon.Balanced reporting leads to respect and readership.However,less than that, leads to speculation of purpose and affiliation!Whose on "FIRST"?

WE GET a lot of help FROM THEM, right?
but, mr. and mrs. candidate, I really can't live in USA without paying my health and car insurance, schooling, doctors, ER, taxes.....
Their answer, translated:
"f u!!! Amnesty is what we need" :---I

Politicians and hypocracy
I liked the retort John Kerry had when he was running for president regarding the SUV that he was driving. He was criticized for driving a SUV while telling others not to do so. He stated that the SUV belonged to his wife and therefore it was OK. Also, remember he voted for the war before he voted against it. He also stated that he would have done the same thing that Bush did after 9/11 but he would have done it with more sensitivity.

GunnyG
The hypocrissy of the candidates is one problem, but for the MSM to totally embrace leftist hypocrissy without so much as a raised eyebrow is just too much.

We need a truely "fair and balanced media" that would, indeed, call all politicians, regardless of their stripe, on their foibles.

Hypocrites
Is there one politician out there who can't be criticized on a variety of issues as a hypocrite?

It just depends on your view and whether the candidate is your candidate or an opposing candidate.

Beyond that how many of you vote on one issue? There might be something that would make one candidate or another unacceptable, but beyond that doesn't it usually come down to a decision made on a variety of issues?

Hypocrisy on one issue? Let's talk about hypocrisy on a dozen issues.

This is Unfair to Obama
We shouldn't pick on Obama for driving a car that gets nowhere near the gas mileage he prescribes for the rest of us. Being a good liberal has always been about getting other people to pay for one's mistakes. The man is simply living up to his ideals.

I do wonder about the habit liberal politicians have for lying about their youth, though. First Al Gore told us his mother sang him the union song in his crib, 20 years before it was written, and now Obama wants us to believe his parents conceived him in response to an event that happened 4 years after he was born?

Then again, maybe this was code for when Obama thinks life begins.

Red Koolaid
Red posted, "tax cuts made it possible to purchase a $100,000 Hummer and write that $100K off on your taxes within the first 2 years of ownership."


What are you talking about?

Since when can you "write off" car loans on your taxes?

This is more of your inane BS hypocrisy, isn't it, Koolaid? I'm flagging you as "offensive" for chronic BS and hypocrisy.

Cal
You complain about the MSM and your perspective of their coverage.

I find this objection fascinating.

For the most part, isn't the media the ultimate in the market reflecting consumer's interests?

If you don't like a source, don't listen to it, or watch it. There are certain conservative, Republican sources that I like to read or watch. There are others that I wouldn't bother even looking at their headline.

I assume that you do the same with certain liberal, Democratic sources.

There is a group of conservatives who are now complaining about potential changes to the FCC rules because they feel that it would force conservative radio stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints.

It appears to me that some of these folks want it both ways. They want liberal outlets to be more conservative in their presentations, but do not want conservative outlets to be more liberal in their presentations.

Bring the children home and discharge
The slogan is, bring our children home, but no mention of the next step. Bring them home and discharge. Think of the money that would save. If these children still have a desire to serve, go to college and march in the streets, or wait until you reach age 21 and join the police force.
Of course, many of those people don't consider themselves children except to their parents, but what do they know.
My two sons have medical discharges, but they were drafted and got early discharges, and the BBA is a drain still on the taxpayers who took him at age 18, so if we got rid of the armed forces entirely, or kept just a few for ceremonial reasons but did not put them in harms way, think of the money that could be saved, as the veterans disappear with time. VA hospitals gone, care homes for disabled, even could get rid of the draft organization still in existence, with a payroll. Mati

DogJudge
You claim to have served in the USAF, but you "know" that we can't get "useful" intell by using torture.

How many people did you torture in order to make that assessment?

mishaz
how many cartons of cookies do I get for using ONE of my Phat-Teddy cards?

Let's talk about the hypocrisy of The Cape Wind Farm proposal... 75% of the Cape & Islands electric power would be supplied from WIND... but Teddy does't want to see the turbines while YACHTING in Nantucket Sound...or under perfect conditions from the Kennedy Compound...

Add that voice of Lefty righteousness, Walter Cronkite and a lot of other "summer people" to the list and you get the drift, but not the wind power.

(to be fair, some of the summer folk are Repubs as well, but the #'s are heavily tilted to the party that lives to be hypocrites.)

Fireplug
John "Gigolo" Kerry actually had one removed from in front of his Beacon Hill Mansion to a neighbors Beacon Hill Mansion in a "Do you know who I am..." moment of hypocrisy.

Cal
"We need a truely "fair and balanced media" that would, indeed, call all politicians, regardless of their stripe, on their foibles."

Yes, that would be great, however, we no longer have an independent media. Our media is controlled now by just a handful of corporations. Take, Rupert Murdoch for example, have you looked at the control he wields over the news we see in both print and video? It is astounding.

Here Murdoch even admits he attempted to shape public opinion on Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g&eurl=

I know I'm picking on Murdoch and no, none of the others are any better. I'm just trying to give an example.

How much clearer can she get?
You guys just have to read this! Clinton is all but openly advocating socialism.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1

To Gabby, Phil Canyon, CC, Chromedome,
and everyone else who is worried about their choice in 2008, I suggest you consider this fact. These two elite parties have engineered the election process so that they remain in power. The MSM is complicit because they have a hand in the say so as long as they play along with the Dems/GOP.

If you seriously want an opportunity to do something different in this election, if you are serious about breaking the hold these individuals have on this nation and the future we are passing along to our children, then you need to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG

I am the only candidate with no ties to the political machines, the PACs, and the money lobbyists! I have no political career to defend, no one to be loyal to but the American people, who are the rightful owners and inheritors of this great nation. I am the only one who has openly published on my website a Campaign Platform that shows exactly how we can restore the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people as the principles by which we govern ourselves as a free people!

Why are we going to trust the same old individuals to undo the mess they have created? Why should we believe the myth that there is no other choice, nowhere else to go? Why should we continue to imagine that only these elites are wise enough, smart enough, experienced enough? Exactly why, because they say so? Are they so much smarter than you or I? Are we such sheep to think, well, we need them to govern, we aren't capable of governing ourselves, we need the elites to do it?

If we elect another Democrat OR Republican in this upcoming election, we will guarantee the final sellout of our birthright to them, a future of more big government and declining personal freedom as they pursue their internationalist agenda. Do not believe their propaganda and do not trust their promises any longer! Let's have some faith in our own abilities and show some guts! Let's avoid the lesser of two evils and think beyond the myths that they perpetuate. Visit my website, e-mail me your comments, pro or con, but let's break the power hold they have. Think about it, do we play along with them again or do we act in the best interests of the country?? Thanks, Joe

DavidMac
I've formed my opinion on "useful" information from torture from a variety of sources.

Various experts in the field. (If you have experts who you feel contradict that view, please tell me.) Time and time again you get the response that you'll get information that is HIGHLY suspect.

More to the point, I have continued to state that John McCain, General Petraeus and various other military leaders have all come out against using torture. (You want to point me in the direction of a couple that say that they want torture?)

Getting "useful" information is not my be all end all in this argument.

War is NOT a testosterone fantasy that is like watching 24. You're talking about inflicting punishment against another human being. We have brains. We are supposed to use them.

Morals. As I keep repeating. There is not ONE credible religious leader who hasn't condemned torture. Sure you might find a Fred Phelps, but I'm talking mainstream here. Similar to those who oppose abortion on moral grounds, I oppose torture on moral grounds.

Why do you think the military ruled the way they did in the Abu Graib, and other cases that they've had before them?

As bad as things are now, by this administration setting a very low standard for these issues, they have jeopardized the safety of our soldiers in future altercations. Whoever that future combatant is can use our same arguments against us.

msm news
All the msm news programs are losing money,mainly because the are overtly liberal.cbs action in making Katie a prime time spewer of their liberal view of the news.To get off to a big start Katie had on Rush.

Liberty
"It Takes A Village" = "Socialism"

How much LONGER was she going to have to repeat herself is the real question...

Joe Oliva
How many percentage points ahead of Ron Paul are you today?

When you show me those stats, and half of Congressman Pauls experience, maybe then you can try again.... till then, find another passtime will ya'.

union dude
I LLAMF when that blithering idiot Kouric wore black in 2000/2004 after Bush was elected/reelected.

Not to mention I nearly had a stroke seeing that picture of the perky one getting crapped on bt that pigeon she let go. If anyone wants, I'll post it on my blog. Laugh O' the day so to speak.

Of course it was quickly edited by the Ministry of Propaganda at NBC but NOT FAST ENOUGH!

dogjudge
I don't know about you but I'd peel the skin off of a terrorist if I even suspected that he had information that could save Americans.

Your stance will look great in an after action report, say, after a nuke gets popped.

"Well, we were pretty sure he/she knew where the nuke was and what time it was gonna go off but they refused to answer us even after we asked them 'pretty please' and 'with sugar on top,' Mister Senator."

dogjudge, re Huffpo
I actually would have been on Huffpo pretty regularly -- until I discovered that they delete any post from a conservative, no questions asked.

Leftists just, plain don't believe in a free exchange of ideas.

dogjudge - on "torture"
The very first post responding to your comment about "torture" questioned your definition of the word; and you've now posted half a dozen times, but never responded to the objection. You refuse to acknowledge it, because you know perfectly well that you can't answer it.

Religious "experts", terrorism "experts", military leaders -- all smokescreen for the simple fact that the entire issue is dishonest language by leftists. What you're objecting to is not torture, it's routine, hardball interrogation of prisoners. It's a NEW objection; there has never been a war or conflict in which such interrogation has ever been questioned.

As to the various religious "experts", the only ones you'd consider credible are hard leftists in religious garb, and naturally, they're jumping on whatever "bash the US" bandwagon is rolling down the street this week, because that's what leftists do.

inkling_revival
They go a step further on Dummycrats Underground. They wipe the post AND ban the user. No wonder libs come here to argue, TH only bans them when they start spitting moonbat venom.

DOGJUDGE There you go again
Hey Dogjudge, there you go again, making assumptions and not actually reading what somebody writes.

You say:

"You complain about the MSM and your perspective of their coverage.I find this objection fascinating."

There have been many independent studies that have shown a distinct liberal,(read left leaning) bias in the main stream media. This is an actual real fact of life.

You ask:
"For the most part, isn't the media the ultimate in the market reflecting consumer's interests?"

No, as a matter of fact this is not the case. See my answer above.

You state:
"If you don't like a source, don't listen to it, or watch it. "

I don't have a problem with this, but that does not change the fact that except for Fox newes and talk radio stations, the mainstream media operates with a left leaning approach.

The fact that close to half of all americans who vote in the last dozen years have voted for conservative candidates, indicates that at least half of Americans have conservative views. If you listen to a majority of the mainstream media, you would assume that 95 percent of Americans were flaming liberal retards.

You bring up the so called "fairness doctrine".
"There is a group of conservatives who are now complaining about potential changes to the FCC rules because they feel that it would force conservative radio stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints."

There is actually nothing "FAIR" about the so called "Fairness Doctrine", and it is actually being persued by the major MSM corporations because they are getting their butts kicked by the few stations that do provide fair and balanced views. Air America couldn't get enough sponsors to keep their workers supplied with toilet paper, let alone purchase air time.

You summ up with:
"It appears to me that some of these folks want it both ways. They want liberal outlets to be more conservative in their presentations, but do not want conservative outlets to be more liberal in their presentations."

You see, this is where you fail to comprehend anything.

I would like to see "journalists" and news programs report the news from a fair and balanced point of view.

You can't seem to separate "reporting with a balance" from "reporting with a bias"

GunnyG
re. your remarks about skinning a terrorist.

And in most civilized countries you'd either go to jail, or be condemned to death.

Your option.

By your comments, you have also demonstrated that you are no better that the "terrorists", whoever they are. You willing to do what they do, so are you any better?

Liberty,
Hillary has been a flaming socialist since her college days.

If she winds up with the Democrat nomination, the media will play her up as a middle of the road moderate and try to cover up most of the stuff that she has said over the years that show her to be the communist/socialist that she really is.

This woman is Hugo Chavez in a skirt.

dogjudge -- on media bias
You wrote: "There is a group of conservatives who are now complaining about potential changes to the FCC rules because they feel that it would force conservative radio stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints.

It appears to me that some of these folks want it both ways. They want liberal outlets to be more conservative in their presentations, but do not want conservative outlets to be more liberal in their presentations."

This is just the usual, liberal refusal to acknowledge the difference between opinion journalism and news reporting.

So, for the 4,794,135,094th time:

We object to liberal talking points being presented as OBJECTIVE NEWS. This is what is going on daily on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, TBS, MSNBC, and in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the St. Louis Dispatch, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, etc ad nauseum.

We have NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to liberal opinion journalists presenting liberal viewpoints. When we hear those, we rebut the viewpoints. If liberals can get a 100%-of-the-time liberal talk radio station on the air and making money, you have our blessing, and yes, we'll turn it off.

This stands in stark contradistinction to the political left, which applauds their own propagandists reciting their talking points as "news", but attempts to silence any opposing viewpoint, however honestly expressed.

Hey dogjudge
You say:

"By your comments, you have also demonstrated that you are no better that the "terrorists", whoever they are. You willing to do what they do, so are you any better?"

So, by your logic, in a situation where a policeman who comes upon a scenario where a thug is in the process of shooting innocent people, and the policeman shoots the thug, then he is no better than the thug.

That is your (faulty Logic)

enlisting in the Army or Marines
I posted a comment saying that all of you that TRULY believe that we are doing the right thing in Iraq should send me a post so i could locate the nearest recruiting office in your area. NO ONE responded so I assume its safe to say that the War in Iraq is a good thing.....as long as YOU dont have to put YOUR life on the line to bring democracy to Iraq. Lemme ask an honest question to everyone who reads this.....Honestly answer please.....Do you think tha money put into this 5 year war could've been better spent right here in the USA??? Democracy for Iraq, and cut the funds to college students. *shaking head* How do you justify that?? That's like me paying my mistress' rent and not paying my wife and kids' rent. If you cant take care of home, how you gonna take care of someone outside of it?? Blind loyalty is a fool's route

dogjudge
Typical reply. So you'd let a few thousand Americans get turned into french fries to protect a terrorist? Again, typical. Sometimes nasty things have to be done to prevent uglier things from being done to innocent people.

I wonder, if you and the other libs out there would have been against assassinating Hitler in 1936 or so when he started to become an annoyance.

In the defense of Americans and the homeland, NOTHING is too extreme and that is what separates us from you and the other surrendercrats.

inkling_revival
Huffington - I only mentioned the article because I thought that it would be of interest to many here. It demonstrates that even a hardcore group, such as Arianna, don't trust Hillary when it comes to Iraq. I didn't expect you to agree with the rest of the site.

Torture - If you go back to my early post, I cited the Geneva Convention as a source for the definition of torture. There are various other treaties that also define this concept, but the Geneva Convention is the one that most reasonable folk use. If you want a definition go there.

Credible religious leaders - If you want to have that discussion. Fine. Let's do it. Please don't assume that you know what I'd ONLY accept as credible. For Catholics that's easy, the Pope is a single leader. For other religions, it's not quite as easy because they don't have that same system. I keep leaving it open. CITE YOUR SOURCE. My only stipulation has been that it can't be someone with a flock of 250 people. Not can it be some far out religion that no one has heard of. If the situation was reversed, wouldn't you ask for the same?


Inkling Revival
Inkling,

Good points, but Dogjudge doesn't have an Inkling of a clue with regards to fair and balanced news reporting.


Cal
Faulty logic?

Ever try taking a logic course?

Your example doesn't work.

In the case of torturing someone, the torturer is the one initiating the action. They are making the decision what action to take, or to take no action at all.

The policeman scenario you cite is of someone defending an action that is already occurring.

Defending people is not at all the same as taking action against someone proactively.

inkling_revival
Since when you hear "liberal" viewpoints, it's your job to rebutt them, lemme ask you a question....How do you explain that Bush's own intelligence agencies told him that not only would we have extreme violence in post-Saddam Iraq, but the lack of stability would dramatically increase Al-Qaeda's ability to recruit? Let Shotgun Dick tell it, we were gonna walk in on streets covered with roses. Now rebutt that....And it's absolutly true that he was informed about the consequences of no post Saddam plan for Iraq just like he was informed that "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US" Hey, where is Bin Laden anyway??? This Sept 11 it will be 6 years. Can ANYONE tell me if we're ever gonna find him?? The truth is....Bush has absolutely NO idea where he is or he would have went after him. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but because his approval ratings are TERRIBLE.

GunnyG
By your remarks, you've essentially showcased the reason why there are military courts to handle these types of situations.

You have a code of conduct that you have to abide by.

It isn't your decision individually to decide what's right and what's wrong.

To everyone that's gangin up on DonJudge
Please lemme know where you from so i can find the local Marine recruiting office in your area so you can sign up to give YOUR life so some Iraqi can vote for who he or she wants. Go give your life for that. Or even better, take your 18 year old son or daughter down to give their lives. It's easy to defend a position when you dont have ANY stake in the outcome

Hey there, popyocolla
You whine:

".....Do you think tha money put into this 5 year war could've been better spent right here in the USA??? Democracy for Iraq, and cut the funds to college students. *shaking head* How do you justify that?? That's like me paying my mistress' rent and not paying my wife and kids' rent. If you cant take care of home, how you gonna take care of someone outside of it?? Blind loyalty is a fool's route"

I suspect that you would have made these same comments about Mr. Lincoln's war to free the slaves, and preserve the Union if you were alive then.

Likewise, you would have found a lot of justification to say that we should not be fighting facism and nazism during ww2. Not to mention,

I'll bet that you could have found a lot of reasons that we should not have been opposing Soviet communist expansion during the cold war.

Folks like you can't seem to see anything larger than yourself.

As for your drivel about enlisting to fight in Iraq, If I was young enough, I probably would. I spent 4 years in the service, 65 to 69, so folks like you, who don't have a clue, can live in your, "It's all about me, and what the government can do for me" world.

Media bias
How about we agree to this.

ALL media sources have their biases.

ALL readers have their biases.

To think otherwise is extremely naive.

If you don't like their news. Don't watch, or read.

Don't expect a pig to smell like a rose.

Cal
All the GOP has to do is make her masters thesis (probably ghostwritten) on Saul Aulinsky, notable commie and radical, available for all to read. Then go after her and Bubba's trip to the USSR in 1970. LOTS of unanswered questions there.

BTW, nice use of dogjudge's circular logic.

dogjudge
Have you even READ the Geneva Convention?

And can you give even the smallest reason why it should apply in this instance, when we're fighting, not a regular army in uniform (which is pretty much what the GC was written to govern, though it does attempt to acknowldge other scenarios), but a non-national entity?

You, and the political Left, adopted the Geneva in this instance the way you adopt ALL moral imperitives -- you grab the nearest one that suits your case for the moment, and if it doesn't exactly fit, you either bend it to make it fit, or invent a new one. You guys don't give a tinker's damn for the actual moral imperatives -- you just need something that sounds authoritative so you can maintain your posture of moral superiority. The evidence of this is the ease with which you put on and take off moral imperatives, like yesterday's underwear.

In truth, if you want international law governing the sort of asymmetrical warfare created by the War on Terror, you need to look at international definitions of Piracy. Here's a quote from Wikipedia's article regarding piracy, from the section on International Law:

"Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity)."

If we were upholding the Geneva Convention wrt the WOT, we'd be completely justified in shooting every terrorist we capture, as the nearest definition in the GC identifies them as "spies" -- and there isn't a single signatory to the GC that would object to our strenuously interrogating those "spies" before we summarily execute them.

As I said, what you're objecting to is not "torture," but strenuous interrogation, and it's a NEW OBJECTION... something that's never been objected to before, and is only being objected to now because it's a convenient bludgeon with which neo-Marxists can bash the hated, Capitalist West.

PopYoColla
I did 21 years in the Corps, probably while you were crapping in three-cornered skivvies.

At this point in time, I volunteered to go BACK on active-duty and I'm also standing by to take a private contractor job in Iraq to support the mission. Just waiting for the RFP to go through.

What are YOU doing besides whining and burning flags?

What have YOU contributed to the safety and security of America?

Lastly, BOTH of my kids are going into the service, making in four straight generations that have hit four wars, WW1, WW2, Korea, and the Gulf. How many in YOUR family have served?

PopYo
The necessity of finishing the war in Iraq and the monetary decisions for the war made post approval (by Congress) are two different questions. You have grouped them into one (poss. inadvertently).

If you look at things from a pure monetary standpoint, then an economist would most likely say its cheaper to have a US city blown up on occasion than it is to fight a war such as we are waging in the middle east. Do you think a President could sell this point in a State of the Union speech?? Would it make sense all things considered?

Then you lump war spending with unconstitutional federal spending on education. Education spending is a Tenth Amendment item. But I do get your point.

I would therefore like to answer your question with several other questions.

Is it beneficial for the USA to be a member of the UN when its sole purpose in that body is to be their military arm (I.E. UN Res. 687) even when the UN never intends to back their own resolution language?

Do we let negative public opinion about a war cause us to make poor monetary decisions through guilt than we should?

Should our ELECTED officials be allowed to act like children when we are AT WAR with the lives of our fighting men and women put at more risk by irresponsible comments and legislation designed to circumvent the CIC's responsibilities during that war?

Again I know that the answers to each of these questions is thousands of more questions.

PoppyCocacola
"How do you explain that Bush's own intelligence agencies told him that not only would we have extreme violence in post-Saddam Iraq, but the lack of stability would dramatically increase Al-Qaeda's ability to recruit?"

I explain it the way Bush explained it when he heard that silliness last week:

"I read lots of reports claiming lots of things."

In other words, it's pretty freakin' easy for arm-chair Presidents like you to cherry-pick a memo four years after the fact and say "Why didn't you pay attention to THIS one...", but the REAL President lives in a blizzard of conflicting information and has to make decisions based on the best information available.

By the way, if that's what the memo claimed, it was wrong; al Qaeda's recruiting has not been helped all that much by the fact that roughly half their number has been killed since rousing America's attention. In fact, they've had some success recruiting raw candidates, but cannot replace the experience of the thousands we've killed. You need to read some more reliable sources regarding how we're doing in the WOT, yours seem to be misleading you.

Now, why don't you stop with the mindless talking point recitation, and get back to the topic at hand?

inkling_revival
Definition of torture

You didn't ask me WHO the Geneva Convention applies to. You asked me for a definition of torture. I gave you one.

The torture portion of the Geneva Convention was developed in 1949. But, I'm sure you knew that. They didn't come up with it in a day, or two, it took them a while to negotiate the agreement.

The discussion, up to this point, has been about the use of torture, or not. There was nothing about what has been happening, or not happening with the detainees. It's been a discussion of whether you would use torture or not. I phrased things in that way to keep them simple.

You've got my definition.

Now please tell me any high ranking military personnel who have said that using torture is acceptable. (I'd like more than one.)

Please tell me ONE recognized religious leader who says that torture is acceptable.

What YOU think about the issue, I am already aware of.

Hey popyocolla
Like I told Dogjudge. I spent my time in the service. I have a brother who did two tours in Iraq and an niece who spent 18 months there.

I suspect that there is nothing that you would put your life in jeopardy for, nothing of a higher calling.

Like Dogjudge, you would have complained about Mr.Lincoln's war to abolish slavery and preserve the union, and mr roosevelts war against nazism and facism.


dogjudge
as inkling_revival so aptly pointed out, the terrorists are NOT covered under the GC. Neither are they covered under the Law of Land Warfare. What they RATE is a summary trial, in the field, and then an execution. Of course, it would send you liberal moonbats into the stratosphere but that just raises my schadenfruede level!

Cal
Great reply.

Want to see a libsquirt do the "deer in the headlights" look?

Just read em this.

This story shall the good man teach his son; and Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, We Band of Brothers, For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhood's cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. "

William Shakespeare's, King Henry V
Act IV, Scene III

The Bard knew the deal that liberals will scratch their gourds over until doomsday.

Cal
Why is it that you feel you have to extend your arguments into other areas?

Civil War, WW II, etc.

You're wrong and you know it.

Simple pejorative bullying. Wonderful tactic. Don't discuss the issues where you might learn something, or persuade someone to your point of view. Just call them a traitor and go from there.

Two can play that game.

"You can keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, or you can open it up and take away all doubt."

Dogpoop
I extend my argument into other areas because it allows me to make a point.

There is a saying, those who ignore the lessons of the past are forced to repeat them.

These are some lessons from the past that you choose to ignore.

During our civil war, there were Americans in the north who were called Copper Heads. These people had the same attitude about Mr. Lincoln's war to abolish slavery and preserve the union that you have expressed re. Iraq, and democracy in the middle east.

During ww2 there were people in this country who said that we had no business interfering with what the nazi's and facists were doing around the world. This is a fact, and is similar to your complaints about our involvement in dealing with radical islamic terrorists.

You would do well to study some history. You can learn more by going to your public library and checking out some books on the following subjects:

The American Civil War.

WW2

Nazi's

The Japanese atrocities at Nanking

I think that your basic problem is that you have a basic lack of knowlege of history.

Doggie judge
Oh man,

You need to take a coffee break. You say:

"You can keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, or you can open it up and take away all doubt."

ok, i'll answer that with:

"physician, heal thy self"

Know whut I mean, Vern?


What a hoot

I think that we were on the subject of
Hypocrissy.

Political Hypocrissy.

We all remember the story about the "Emperor's New Clothes"

The problem comes into play when the media fails to point out when politicians of any stripe are naked.

Cal
No lie there. The Lame Stream Media is STILL running interference for Carter as well as Clintoon. Not to mention covering Hitlary like a blanket. It's very apparent when they dodge the debates with Fox and only go to the places where they'll get softball questions like: do you like doggies? What's your stance on putting basil into tomato sauce before the salt? etc.

dogjudge, I believe the
point of the article was exposing the blatant hypocrisy of these Dems.

Um,the Geneva Convention thing doesen't seem to be working too well for us, our soldiers were tortured by the NVA and most assuredly will be tortured and beheaded by the current savages that we are at war with. This would occur in spite of liberals attempts to love and understand them, probably more so-



Cal
Dang itchy trigger finger.

Meant to add look how the Lame Stream Media is covering for Red Nanny and her inability to not only live up to her promises to have a "new" Congress, but also covering for William Jefferson and his 90K, Dianne Feinstein and her actions on MILCON, as well as Red Nanny's hiring of illegal aliens for her winery in Napa.

Only ONE station picked that up nationwide! (It's on my blog at: http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/e04358bd-1ec6-4d5f-bab5-42dde0cca818?comments=true)

Goddie4LT
A shipmate of my father's was severely tortured by the Japanese in WW2. They tore his fingernails out with pliers to try to get him to talk about the Torpedo Data Computer, etc.

In fact, what ignorant liberals fail to realize is that a whopping 33% of our POW's died in Jap POW camps vice 3% in German! The NorK's in the Korean War were even worse as were the NVA/VC!

So much for the GC.

Remember when?
Hitlary said that SHE was named after Sir Edmund Hillary and THAT was proved as wrong as the below statement by Osama YoMama.

When he went there on the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” he made up a sham of a story about his birth. There, he said his parents fell in love and conceived him as a result of “what happened in Selma.” He said, "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

The problem? Bloody Sunday took place on March 7, 1965. Obama was born on August 4, 1961.

WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE IDIOTS? Even worse, where do they find the IDIOTS to VOTE FOR THEM!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Geneva Convention
Goodie4lt

Hey Goody. Good poing about the Geneva Convention.

I don't recall ever hearing Jane Fonda or John Kerry "back in the day" complaining about how the VC and NVA were treating the American POW's.

I do remember Hanoi Jane sitting in the Ak Ak gun and playing kissey face with the VC and NVA. And I know that John Kerry has a place of special honor and mention in the Hanoi War Museaum where he is honored for his part in defeating democracy in the republic of South VietNam.

GunnyG
"The problem? Bloody Sunday took place on March 7, 1965. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. "

GunnyG,

Maybe what he meant was that he was born in 1961, but his parents weren't married until 1965.

Of course today's liberal would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that"

Goddie4LT
Agreed about the focus of the article.

This got started when discussing why you would, or would not, vote for certain politicians.

I mentioned that I could see voting for Hagel. That I would never vote for Hllary. That I wouldn't vote for John McCain because of his stance on the Iraq war.

At that point, I mentioned that I discounted most of the other Republican candidates because of their recent support for torture and how it was a hot button issue for me.

Now back to your comment.

From my perspective, torture first and foremost is a moral issue. You don't torture because you believe in certain moral absolutes. I'm sure you could come up with a variety of examples. An example off the top of my head. Someone stealing food. Does it make any difference if the person has not eaten in a week, or not? It's still stealing. You might mitigate the consequences because of the circumstances, but the act remains the same.

With that in mind, would I change my stance on this issue because I was fighting one enemy or another? No.

War is one of the most ugly occurrences that happens. One of the reasons that the United States has a Uniform Code of Military Conduct is to enumerate what types of behavior is acceptable, or unacceptable during wartime.

The Geneva Convention has worked for nearly sixty years. The ideas, and the philosophies behind concepts such as torture haven't changed. Why is it all of sudden that this administration has decided that these techniques are all of a sudden acceptable? According to them the end justifies the means (ticking time bomb scenarios). The opposition doesn't fit into a specifically named box (or is it because of OUR definition). The opposition is heathens.

The opposition is always heathens. There's always been a ticking bomb scenario the only difference is the magnitude. The nazis could have been planning on setting off a bomb in New York. Did you hear of America talking about the acceptability of torturing them?

Cal
You really have to wonder how many more Americans paid with their lives after Hanoi John and Jane buoyed up the sagging spirits of the commies. I have an aunt who protested in VN and she is never welcomed to family events though she shows up to eat free food, etc. Typical liberal.

cal
you have the gaul to equate the war in Iraq with the war against slavery or the war against Nazism??? that shows how much of a blind follower you are. and to Gunny....what ive contributed is my HARD EARNED tax dollars to fund a war that cant be won militarily. Just because you were a Marine for 21 years doesnt justify your blind loyalty to this war. The Civil War, WW 2, those were noble wars worth the blood of those who perished. This war isnt even in tha same universe as those. And yea there's a cause i'd die for, for the lives of my wife and kids. Bringing democracy to Iraq is not gonna make my family that much safer because guess what.....Osama's still out there and hell he could direct a terror attack here from a basement in Alaska. So dont throw your military service in my face like it makes you better than me. Im 27 years old. If i was old enough to be in tha marines for 21 years, guess what, I would have been drafted too. And unlike your precious Administration, who used every excuse under the sun not to serve, i wouldnt have had a choice. So, if you feel so strongly about it, re-enlist. I'll play the taps at your funeral. You wanna be safe, get out of Iraq and make our borders secure. The richest country in the world cant even keep illegal immigrants from Mexico from coming here. What's to say Al-Qaeda wont do the same? I do appreciate your service to your country because im not gonna serve. Not for this. But in the mean time, we'll just make idle threats to Iran, who pose WAAAAAAAY more of a threat to our security than Saddam ever did. Since you were in the service, do your duty. Tell the command that American blood should only be shed for Noble causes. Not to protect Oil interests. Blind loyalty is a fools route.

On the subject of torture
Another blatent hypocrissy is how the media and the typicall liberal hippie cannot seem to see the difference between, as somebody mentioned earlier, the difference between putting a pair of panties on somebody's head and cutting off somebody's head.

Cal
And YOU complain about logical arguments.

You're missing a big point.

The media and liberal hippies can see the difference. That's why the army made the decision to put their own in jail for violating the code of conduct.

It's folks such as yourself who apparently don't understand the REAL difference.

revival
I read i lot of reports claiming a lot of things.....its funny how Bush reads a lot of reports, *post-Saddam violence, Osama determine to strike inside US etc etc* but doesnt pay attention to them. I mean, why even have an intelligence agency if your only gonna pay attention to the ones that benefit his agenda. Lemme ask you something, if I put a note on your door, *your home door* saying imma gonnna kill everyone in the house on Friday, would you look at it like just some dumb note? Or would you call the police taking me serious at my word?? It's his job to read the reports and make the correct desisions. But because he only pays attention to some of the memos he gets everyday, 3000 people died in the WTC and 3000 more died trying to avenge their deaths. But Bin Laden is alive and breathing. Only one more death should have occured after Sept 11. But that life is still here to mock us with video tapes and audio tapes saying that we *Al-Qaeda* are still gonna attack the infidels *Us, americans* I mean, have you NO outrage that Bin Laden is still alive??? Or have you bought into Bush's BS that Iraq is the central front to the war on terror? It wasnt the central front until we made it so. Now they dont even have to cross the Atlantic to kill Americans. They can simply cross over from Iran and continue their war against Americans. In the words of Jesus, dont worry about tommorow. Let today's troubles be enough. So before we fix things in someone else's country, lets fix our problems here. I hope all you old men who say "ive served for this many years, Ive served for that many years", I hope you got money saved for retirement. Because if you dont, you'll truly see how much Bush cares about you. Truly you cant live off your military pension alone. Hell, now that I think about it, Bush opposed giving the troops pay raises and raising the amount of the death benifit to families. Go ask a mother with 2 kids who has to make ends meet now that her husband is dead, if she thinks his life was worth it.

PopYoColla
20/20 hindsight {yawn}

Sir, I would not be in a hurry to call anybody "fool" until you learn how to 1) punctuate a sentence; 2) write cohesive paragraphs; 3) structure an argument in coherent points; 4) insert apostrophes when appropriate.

And yes, here on TH, we DO take English composition skills as an indicator of the writer's general intellectual capacity, and we DO notice that you're writing at a level appropriate for a 7th grader.


inkling_revival
all the things i said and the ONLY thing you can come back with is how i type??? I know how how to write, sir. But this isnt my college English course. So, im pretty sure that despite the typo's or lack of punctuation, you understood my point and the fact that your only response was to critizie my typing when I never intented to be correct with grammer, shows that you have absolutely NO response to the point at hand. 20/20 hindsight my a$$. As the most powerful man in the world, it's his job to make the right decisions. He gets the credit when things go good and he gets the blame when things go bad. So please stop trying to be the grammer police and respond to my post.

revival
that's one big problem with our country. People like you think that they are so superior to those who dont share your view. I mean you posted that last post like you NEVER have made a mistake in your life. And by the way, amongst the "blizzard" of memos that Bush got, you would think one that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" would have raised a red flag in his mind. But then again, this president takes more vacation time than any other president in history. When he got that memo, did he haul tail to Washington to confront the problem? NO, he stayed on vacations for another month. *shaking head* Now are you gonna search my post for typos, or are you gonna respond to why he didnt do ANYTHING when he got that memo except keep hunting and fishing on his ranch like he never even got it?

pop yo colla
You need to loosen up a little there, my friend.

It sounds like you have been getting your news from bill mahr, rosie o'donnell, and jon stewart, so let me give you some background on what has been going on while you were at at the cindy sheehan rally.

This is a sampling of Radical islamic terrorist groups from around the world who are working for a common ultimate goal, the establishment of an world wide Islamic state.
---
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) a.k.a. Fatah; Iraq

Abu Sayyaf Group; Philippines, Malaysia

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel

Ansar al-Islam (AI); Iraqi Kurds and Arabs

Armed Islamic Group (GIA); Algeria

Asbat al-Ansar; Lebanon

Aum Shinrikyo (Aum); Japan, Russia

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA); Spain, France

Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group); Egypt

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement); West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel

Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM); Pakistan

Hezbollah (Party of God); Lebanon, worldwide cells

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU); South Asia, Tajikistan, Iran

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed);
Pakistan

Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI); cells span Southeast Asia

Al-Jihad (AJ); Cairo, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, UK

Kahane Chai (Kach); Israel, West Bank

Kongra-Gel (KGK), a.k.a. Kurdistan Workers'

Party (PKK); Turkey, Middle East

Lashkar-e- Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous); Pakistan

Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ); Pakistan, Afghanistan

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE); Sri Lanka

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG); Libya,

United Kingdom, other countries

Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK); Iraq

Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ); Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF); Iraq

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Syria, Lebanon, Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–

General Command (PFLP-GC); Syria

Al-Qaeda; Afghanistan until 2001, Southeast Asia, Middle East, worldwide cells

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) a.k.a. Al-Zarqawi Network and Al-Qaeda in Iraq; Iraq

--------------

While it is true that all of these organizations do not report through a unified command structure reporting up through a chain of command, ultimately reporting to one man or one committee who coordinates and directs terrorist activities around the world, they all share a common interest and that is to replace all existing governments with an islamic state, all under the rule of the Sharia law.

Just Hitler aimed at world domination by his master race, these groups are looking at world domination by an Islamic state.

Remember, that Hitler started out as a loser who failed at everything he tried until that meeting at the Munich beer hall.

Just as the Taliban aided and abbetted Bin Laden, all of these terror groups all have the same ultimate goal and cooperate with each other at various levels to achieve their goals.

WW2 could have gone quite badly for us if Hitler had gotten his hands on Nukes before we did. In 1941, there were Americans who wanted us to negotiate with the Japanese after pearl Harbor rather than fighting them. Same with the Germans. They could not see that there was any percentage of sending our boys off to fight the Germans of Japanese.

Today, we have people who want to put blinders on and refuse to see what these Islamic terrorists are saying and doing.




Popyocolla
I haven't posted in quite a while as that horrid thing known as work interferes with my time on the boards. However, I've gotta say that your "go down and volunteer" speech is somewhat poppycock, in my humble opinion. See the funny thing is, you claim to be twenty seven. The draft has been over since the end of Viet Nam. So now we call it an "all volunteer military." What has stopped you from doing just that? The love of money? I get that from your comment "and to Gunny....what ive contributed is my HARD EARNED tax dollars"

Many people, myself included, chose to serve our country by joining the service. I've now retired as well, and you know, the funny thing is while in the service, I was paying taxes too. Does that mean I've done twice as much as you?

What you fail to understand is people choose to join the service because we feel a love for our country and our way of life, and want to give back something to the country that gives us the chance to succeed. Call it a debt of gratitude, if you like. And to answer your question, were my son 18 (he's 4 right now), I'd go to the recruiting office with him if he chose to go. I also will tell him there is nothing more noble in life than serving your country (not paying your HARD EARNED tax dollars.)

Finally, because you are not the POTUS, you cannot understand the complexity of the job. I don't know what you do, but I can assure you, on your worst, most stressful day, you do not face the decisions he must make. I am a criminal defense lawyer and regularly represent people who are actually innocent of what they are charged with (and even more who are guilty). Every time I go to trial, I worry about whether my decisions on the trial are the right ones and whether my client will pay for my decisions when the jury is given the case. That has caused many sleepless nights and a lifetime presription to ulcer medication. And that is only dealing with one life or even on family's life.

Think about that the next time you choose, from the comfort of your own local Starbucks, to play arm-chair quarterback with the POTUS.

dogjudge, on "torture"
A) You refuse to abandon your dishonest language. That does not surprise me, because I've already taken your measure as a debater, and you're simply adhering to type.

B) If the GC doesn't apply, then its definition of "torture" is moot -- unless you want to posit that the GC constitutes the definitive statement on these matters. I'm sure you DO want to posit that -- today. I'm just as sure that if it ever becomes inconvenient for you, then you'll dismiss it for some creative reason. Short version -- I'm not accepting your definition because I don't believe you're sincere in your support of the GC.


C) You won't find any clerics defending "torture" because the issue is purely an issue of the political and philosophical left, and therefor any clerics who are NOT completely owned by the Left are not talking about it.

D) I've read plenty of military types arguing the need for effective interrogation, and so have you. You won't find any defending "torture", again, because "torture" is an issue of the political and philosophical Left, and those who are not owned by that group are not talking about it.

E) The claim that "torture" is unacceptable, as I've mentioned several times already and you've ignored, is something that is new to the current debate, and seems to apply only to America. The claim that "we've lost a great deal of respect" over this is just too silly for words; we're the only nation on the planet that's even WORRIED about proper treatment of prisoners, and provide better treatment than any other nation. The criticism only arises from those political elements who routinely find fault with the West, and only in response to what the US does; I doubt, for example, that the French prison cells for ordinary thieves would meet the standard you're attempting to paste on the US, but for some reason, you expect us to meet an insane standard nobody else even contemplates.

Sorry, fella, not buying. It's just another round of the interminable "We're going to call the Christian West evil because we're Marxists, and won't settle until True Marxism rules the world."

Gunny, yeah, and yet
dogjudge persists in stating how "Geneva has worked well for 60 years".

dogjudge-Nazis were a bit before my time, however I think I can state with relative certainty that our official policy then was to swiftly execute any of them captured on our soil with diabolical intentions.

The problem with liberals
is a lack of discernment. You want to be outraged? Try watching a BEHEADING of one of your countrymen while these slimes invoke "prayers" to allah,then tell me if you are still so doggone concerned about their "civil rights" and "torture".

popacola, I know that you are quite young and cannot remember, but WE DID NOT start this war with Islamic lunatics.

poppycockola
"that's one big problem with our country. People like you think that they are so superior to those who dont share your view."

No, grasshopper, I don't think I'm superior to those who don't share my view. I do, however, think I'm justified in ignoring the arguments of those who can't even form a proper English sentence, or construct a coherent thought, and I believe just about every reasonable educator in the world would agree.

Also, I don't think most reasonable analysts would consider our nation's problem to be an EXCESS of education... and I think it's pretty obvious which of us exhibits a problem our nation suffers, and which of us does not.

Have a great day, and do come back once you've graduated high school.

Popyocolla
"Hell, now that I think about it, Bush opposed giving the troops pay raises..."

That is typical of a liberal spin on a statement. Here is the fact: The administration wanted a 3% payraise for the military in 2008, which is in line with the private sector increase over the past year. The democrats in congress insisted on the raise being 3.5%, which would cost another $265 million dollars. The defense budget is already around $600 million or so. This brings the budget for the military to nearly $1Billion.

So the facts are not that Bush didn't want a pay raise for the military. Nice try though. See, it's sort of like this: my son wants to go to Chuck E. Cheese's for dinner. I don't have the money in the budget for this month. I say we can't go now but I'll take you next month. He then says I won't let him go to Chuck E. Cheese's, and I'm a mean daddy. But it's actually a matter of fiscal responsibility, which I assume you understand as you claim to have a family.

There are some neat little ironies in this whole thing, if I may point them out to you. Having served under a republican administration and a democratic administration, I find it hugely humorous to hear democrats calling for pay raises for the military. I can't begin to tell you how hollow that rings, coming from the mouth of a democrat.

Of course the flip side of this would be him agreeing to the raises and having to cut something else out of the military budget, like "body armor for the troops" as the democratic party likes to trumpet, and then watch them castigate him for not caring about the troops.

Either way, it's a no-win situation. As a personal note, I'd love to see the full raises, but I also understand the idea of living in a budget and would like my government to try it sometime.


Good point there Inkling
Our useful idiots on the left have traditionally suppotted such marxist humanitarians as Stalin, Mao, Castro, pol pot, Ortega, and Che.

These folks have the blood of millions on their hands, and folks lilke dogjudge and pop yo colla lick at their boots.

The number of Democrat politicians and celebreties who have gone done and kissed Castro's angus in the last few years is amazing.

Castro has killed and or imprisoned tens of thousands of innocent folks in horrible conditions for decades.

poppycockaloosa
Oh, one more thing:

Did you ever see that scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where Arthur lops off the Black Knight's arms, and the BK says "It's just a flesh wound?"

Calling defects in your posts "typos" is like that.

inkling_revival
Well, it's apparent that this is a agree to disagree moment.

I'm more than a little confused about the comments that you attribute to me about the Geneva Convention. I thought that I was clear with you that I accept the definition of torture that they have.

The definition wasn't the issue that I objected to. It was when you started talking about detainees and those issues that I didn't want to go down than road. I wanted to keep it more generalized so that we didn't get into the specifics of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, etc.

As for clerics and military people who denounce torture I've given specific references, except for clerics. For that we have the Pope, Bush's own pastor and many others. For both groups you simply state well there's lots out there. Funny try using various search engines and input advocates of torture and see what you get. Funny, I couldn't find anybody in either of those groups. If you've got any, I'd like to see them.

By the way, and this isn't sarcastic. There is one person who is an advocate for torture outside of the typical conservative group. Alan Dershowitz. About seven years ago he wrote a book, "Just Revenge". You might find it interesting to read. Go to Amazon.com and look for synopsis of the book.

Except
> I've read plenty of military types arguing the need for effective interrogation, and so have you. You won't find any defending "torture", again, because "torture" is an issue of the political and philosophical Left, and those who are not owned by that group are not talking about it.<

Except, say, John McCain. Oh, that's right. Anyone not in lockstep with inkling is owned by the Left.


More MSM hypocrissy
Strange, isn't it, how such leftist organizations as Reuters News can't see how they can condemn how the Islamic radicals treat their prisoners(mutiliation, decapitation, etc.), but have an absolute "out of body panty wad" experience over seeing panties on a terrorists head.

Their favorite line is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". They don't mention that these guys are fighting for the freedom to make you all live under Sharia.

Pop yo Colla,
with the shaking head, the "memo" that you keep referring to in your posts did not contain any specific threats or urgent flashes. What it was, was considered basically "old news", stuff from the CLINTON Administration, nothing relevant to what was going to happen.
Remember, Condoleeza Rice cleared that up quite a few years ago on the Hill........

utahnotmormon
You've also forgotten that especially flaming liberals General Petraeus, Lieutenant General John Kimmons, the U.S. Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

Quoting Gen. Kimmons “I am absolutely convinced [that] no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that,” said the general. “Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can’t afford to go there.”

And these flaming liberals - Lindsay Graham, and John Warner. Both of whom served in the military. Both of whom are fervent supporters of this administration.


Left is Hypocrisy Definition
The "has been" party of democrats are now, walking,and talking,hypocrisy. Denied being so, by the bluebloods,while embraced by the newbloods,and controlled bloodsuckers.The bluebloods are of the past democratic party. A group unwilling to abandon the party, as they hopelessly attempt to restore its roots. The newbloods are the infant bloodline.A result of the bloodsuckers application. Attached to the body, these bloodsuckers promised to remove the poison. Speculating that by removing portions of the bodies blood the cause of the illness will be removed. The newbloods are a result of the bodies ability to recuperate the bloods loss.This newblood is,now flowing, in a bodies system, minus established nutrients that strengthen the body. The newblood is unable to become fully strengthed in blood stripped of its original nutrients. So for them there is no hypocrisy. It's natural! The engorge bloodsucker carries out its duties,and the body keeps producing blood. A thin, watered down,hypocrisy of its original.

Fake GunnyG.
Beat it

Utahnotamormon
I have a great respect for John McCain's service to this country and his men during the Viet nam war, but ... Um.... John Mccain doesn't know any more from day to day if he is a liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, unitarian, or likes pizza hut better than Bubba's BBQ.

His McCain Feigngold campaign reform bill was one of the most poorely thought out pieces of anti democratic legislation we have ever had foisted on us.

After further review
>Their favorite line is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". They don't mention that these guys are fighting for the freedom to make you all live under Sharia.<

Way too broad. The Baath Party, from which lots of those who you describe as terrorists and others freedom fighters, at least in Iraq, are adamantly opposed to Sharia Law. In Syria, where the Baath Party still holds court, the Muslim Brotherhood, a proponenet of Sharia, is outlawed.
So, how would it be possible for "these guys" make us all live under Shariawhen they can't even accomplish that feat in nations that are 99% Muslim?

dogjudge,
A really good book by Alan Dershowitz(I have a signed copy!) is "The Case for Israel".

Agreed
>His McCain Feigngold campaign reform bill was one of the most poorely thought out pieces of anti democratic legislation we have ever had foisted on us.<

However, his attempt to forge a compromise bi-partisan campaign reform bill doesn't make him a leftist, any more than John Edwards voting for the Iraq War makes him right wing.

Revival and twodog
Its funny how we have all the money in the world for the war in Iraq, but cutting funds for college students. Since we have a budget, lets spend on priorities first..Namely American citizens. I dont want to serve in the military because im not gonna give my life for Iraq to have freedom. Taking nothing away from the troops who serve. They did and do what they think is right I have no grip with that. And you name me ONE person who doesnt like to have money in their pocket. So, I was answering Gunny's question as to what I've contributed. Now im sure Prez Bush has probably the most demanding job in the world. But, that doesnt NOT excuse him from ignoring that memo. To revival, i see that your not gonna respond to my posts but instead insult me by basically saying i dont know anything because im not trying to give an English lesson here. So since your not gonna respond to the point instead of focusing on something totally irrelevant to the subject such as my typing, there's no need to have a discussion with you. Obviously, you have no response to why he didnt act on the memo. I mean it's pretty childish of you to call me popyocockaloosa. I never insulted you, just wanted to share in the discussion. But i forgive you anyway. That must be how you were raised by your parents. I mean the fact that im 27 and on TH participating in the disscusion should show at least SOME level of intelligence. That's that superiority thing i was talking about. We cant even have a discussion without you resorting to insults. Very petty sir. And p.s. I graduated high school in '97. *a year early by the way, I just turned 17 when i graduated* Now stop the insults and respond to the post in just.

Gunny G.
It's pretty pathetic to have to use another's name, with the exception of the punctuation, to get yourself noticed.

Come on Man! Be your own person! You can do it!

utahmormon
"Way too broad. The Baath Party, from which lots of those who you describe as terrorists and others freedom fighters, at least in Iraq, are adamantly opposed to Sharia Law. In Syria, where the Baath Party still holds court, the Muslim Brotherhood, a proponenet of Sharia, is outlawed.
So, how would it be possible for "these guys" make us all live under Shariawhen they can't even accomplish that feat in nations that are 99% Muslim?"

The point is that Reuters even refused to call the folks who flew planes into the WTC terrorists.

As for the Baath Party, and the Muslilm brotherhood, the only Freedom either of them is working is for the freedom to dominate the other, and don't mind targeting civilians to achieve their ends.

All major movements have different factions that at some points will have differing goals. It happened with Marx, lenin, and stalin, with Hitler's fledgling Nazis, and does also with radical islam.

Don't take internal differences within the worldwide radical islamic movement for safety on your end of town. Once the work out their differences, they will lick the red of your candy.

dogjudge
Yes, we disagree. But I want to say this: your conduct on this question has been much more reasoanble, and your manner much more civil, than I've ever seen from you here on Townhall, and I think it's a vast improvement. Thank you for engaging thoughtfully and politely.

utahnotmormon
No, John McCain is not a leftist, he's just a dupe. The Left always manages to suck in a few non-leftists when it paints the illusion of that Deeply Evil West.


mormonnotfromutah
You said that :

"However, his attempt to forge a compromise bi-partisan campaign reform bill doesn't make him a leftist, any more than John Edwards voting for the Iraq War makes him right wing."

John McCain is left of center on more things than the campaign finance reform.

My opinion of John Edwards is that he is neither right wing or left wing, but more the southern part of a northbound bird.

popyocolla
Answer this question:

Since 9/11/01 how many terrorist attacks have taken place in or against American targets?

..................[Jeopardy theme plays].........

The answer is 0.

During the Clinton administration, how many attacks were against America/American targets?

Answer: 6

World Trade Center 1993
Khobar Towers 1996
US Embassies (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Nairobi 1998)
USS Cole 2000

Since 9/11/01 how many attacks have there been against other countries?

Answer: 8 major, and thousands of others listed by various agencies.
Israel 2002
Bali 2002
Moscow 2002
Cassablanca 2003
Istanbul 2003
Riyadh 2003
Madrid 2004
Beslan 2004

So, despite your absolute disdain for the POTUS and policies, you and your family are immensely safer than you would be anywhere else in the world and much more so than under previous administrations.

Just thought you ought to know

PopYoColla
If you follow the following, simple rules, I will write a reply to your thoughts:

1) Create paragraphs containing a topic sentence, and include in each paragraph ONLY material pertaining to the topic named in that topic sentence.

2) Make sure the paragraphs all adhere to a common argument, which is stated at the beginning of your post.

Example: "Subject: Pres Bush is incompetent"

Paragraph One, topic sentence: "President Bush doesn't care about his job" Supporting material discusses his excessive vacations.

Paragraph Two, topic sentence: "Even when he's on the job, he's not paying attention". Supporting material cites two, important memos (Bin Laden planning to strike inside the US, Iraq invasion will aid al Qaeda) that Bush apparently ignored.

See how it works? Each of the two paragraphs makes a simple, concise point, and both points combine to support the premise of the post.

The ability to think clearly is VERY TIGHTLY BOUND to the ability to construct an argument. It's a skill that you clearly did not acquire during your schooling. If you're ever going to acquire it -- and develop the ability to think clearly in the process -- then you're going to have to discipline yourself to construct clear, concise arguments.

Follow my instructions, above. It will help. And if you manage it, I will answer you.

Fake Gunnyg.
"GunnyG is just a shill. You will except a FRAUD just because it strokes your minority opinions?
You people are sad"

1. Except - but for; accept - to okay or agree to use.

Fraud - fake, not real (e.g. GunnyG. as compared to GunnyG); so, no I don't ACCEPT you.

Your sentence should be "you will ACCEPT...".

2. Last time I checked, even in MSM polls, 70% or thereabouts of America claimed to be "Conservative". Unless we are operating under the assumption that 141% is a whole, I am NOT a minority in opinion.

3. What is sad is someone who can't get attention without stealing another's identity to garner attention to their pathetic existence.

4. Your posting on a public board makes it public business and therefore I have no need to "mind my own business."

Pop yo Colla,
I adressed the issue that you raised (the memo), and didn't insult you.

Fake GunnyG.- I am a girl
Sounds like you are too!

Cal,
LOL on the Edward's description!

Fake Gunny, Us people are generally pretty happy!
Um, we're not the ones trolling under a fake id looking for a fight..........

popyocolla
Just so we understand, I am not a huge Bush fan. I voted for him in the elections but do not agree with him on many things. However, I also understand, unlike many in the republican party, that life is not black and white. You can never get the perfect candidate that will fit everyone of your positions. The smart ones choose not to run. So you are left with compromise. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

The best way to tell if a country is doing well is to look at the numbers of people wanting in compared to the numbers of people leaving. When it's all said and done, more people are coming here from all over the world than leaving here to go elsewhere. The most interesting part is many of them come from very oppressed nations and speak better of this country than those born and raised here. Probably because they have a little more perspective.

dogjudge,i'm late to this discussion
why should we abide by the geneva convention? I believe that is an agreement between signature "countries". which "country" is saying the scum in gitmo represents them on the battle field?
the geneva convention also talks about uniform(clothing) requirements of combatants and what happens to those out of uniform(spies are shot)

inkling_revival
Thanks for the compliment.

I come here for two reasons.

One to intentionally get at opposite point of view. It helps me reinforce or change my view about issues and to question my own beliefs.

Two. For those folks that I can have a rational discussion of issues with, I hope to get an insight into WHY the feel the way that they do. I'll go along in a discussion with someone until I feel that they simply are part of the lunatic fringe (both sides of any issue).

When I get to a point where I feel that someone has been reasonable, and we still disagree, I appreciate that honesty. Hey there are a lot of things that we can agree to disagree about. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks again.

thunderbolt
Sorry, but I've got to go.

Maybe some other time.

Geneva Convention.

I intentionally tried to stay away from the detainees and keep the discussion directed toward the idea of torture as an accepted practice.

As far as the detainees are concerned. I've made some comments earlier. At 3:09 I tried to address the issue of detainees, a bit.

The detainees, and whether you classify as "enemy combatants", soldiers, spies, or whatever is an entirely different issue.

As I've said, I've got to go. However, here's something for you to think about.

Assume that an enemy attacked the United States. Assume that they attacked us in Fayetteville, NC. That's the home of a variety of Army and Air Force Groups. 82nd Airborne, Green Berets, 43rd Air Wing.

If the attack was a surprise attack, I would expect all of our troops to start defending their country right away. So if you got troops who weren't able to put their uniforms on, or if you had locals who weren't in the military.

Would those folks be terrorists?

dogjudge
they wouldn't be terrorists to me, but they wouldn't be protected by the geneva convention either.

dogjudge - terrorism
"Would those folks be terrorists."

Depends on what they do. Terrorism is not defined by profession, nor by uniform, but by the nature of the act.

Here's the American Heritage definition of terrorism:

"ter·ror·ism (ter'?-riz'?m) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Elements of the definition: 1) Unlawful. 2) Violent. 3) For the purpose of intimidation or coercion. 4) Ideological or political reasons.

It's not the best definition, imho, because it's too broad. I think it needs to add 5) Covert, and 6) Directed against public locations, with an eye toward creating fear in the general populace.

Anybody who does the above is a terrorist, regardless of what uniform they wear or what unit they've joined.

revival and goodie4lt
well i guess there's no more need to discuss anything with you since your so perfect an English professor to be able to pass judgement on the next. I guess that means that you're not gonna respond to the post. Maybe because you just dont have an answer. There's no shame in admitting that. P.S. I suggest you check your own posts for typos and errors. I could sit here and point out every single one, but what would that change??? Nothing. So, once again, im not gonna resort to your petty game of Im better than you or your better than me. Anyone that wants to have a serious debate about this Administration's policies lemme know.....To goodie4LT, that post wasnt for you it was for Revival. I asked him how he or she felt about some memos amomgst other things and all he or she could talk about is how I type *shaking head* Lemme ask Revival a question and lets see if i use proper grammer......How does President Bush's boots taste??? Because they aren't the ONLY thing on him that you're licking....

Popolopodopagator
Dude, you just don't get it.

The ability to express yourself is linked to the ability to THINK. If you can't express yourself cleary, you can't THINK clearly. If you can't think, what's the friggin' point in trying to engage you?

The problem with your writing, son, is not typographical errors. Typos happen. I make them myself, and no, I don't think I'm perfect. Your problem is run-on sentences, no paragraphs, improper grammar, mangled punctuation, and -- this is the most important part -- GARBLED THINKING. Rebutting it would be like untangling the gordian knot; how do you explain errors in calculus to a guy who isn't even forming the number "2" correctly?

What I was trying to do in my previous post was to help you take the first, baby steps out of shoddy intellect. I even did you the favor of reformatting one of your own arguments, without criticism. It was a sincere offer, from someone who was able to write a great deal better than you at the age of FIFTEEN for god's sake, and who's been at it for twice your lifetime. Anybody with an education can read your posts, and then read mine, and know that you really need to listen.

But that would require humility from you, and humility is not the long suit of the poor boobs educated in America these days. No, you've been taught to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how smart you are, without having to lift a finger to earn that praise. It's tragic, but worse than that, it's frightening. You're completely captive to the vicious fools who taught you, completely incapable of thinking your way out of what they've taught you to think... and your vote counts for just as much as mine. The American Republic is doomed. I'm not kidding.

So, no, I'm not going to answer you, and all the vain taunting in the world isn't going to change my mind. What would change my mind is the smallest indication that you realize that your ability to express yourself is defective, and that you could use a little help. But I'm not holding my breath.

God bless America, and may God produce liberty elsewhere while it dies out here.

Revival
Hell, you dont have to. I really dont give crap if you reply or not. Anyone reading my posts understands my positions regardless of "run-on sentences" or anything else you can point to as your basis for thinking I dont know what im talking about. But thanks for the English lesson. So, dont reply. Keep correcting peoples grammer and kissing Bush's you know what. Its pointless to argue with a blind follower. And p.s., I dont need your approval to know whether or not I know how to properly form sentences and paragraphs. You don't graduate high school early for nothin'. So, tell the truth. You are a bitter old man who HATES to be told he's wrong. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, sir, but Bush got you fooled. I can't believe we've been posting back and forth all day and the ONLY thing you can point out is your "superior" ability to make a sentence. Well, when TownHall starts giving essays, I'll start spell and grammer checking

anyone wanna real discussion?
Does anyone wanna real discussion that's not mired in petty b.s.??? All I want, just like dogjudge, is to have an honest,open,discussion with out being judgemental. Hell, you might be able to teach me something I didnt know or show me a view that I didnt see before. That's all. You can insult me all day, Revival. Hell, I've been called a whole lot worse. It doesnt take away from the fact that George Bush will take Jimmy Carter's place as the worst president in history and you and a whole bunch of people just like you voted for him.....twice!!!! So thanks for the 3.50 a gallon gasoline.

OK Pop, I'll try this just once...sigh..
The only accusation you haven't specifically made about warriors is that they are stupid, so I'll give you credit for that.
Still, alot of your posts are begun in a "chickenhawk" mode that has been worn out here.
By the way- ever seen what a chickenhawk actually looks like? Ever seen what one does to a chicken?
The point being stressed over and over again by the selfless protectors of the American way of life is that pulling our troops behind our borders and pointing all the guns outwards doesn't work. It has never worked in recorded history, and in a world that has as many nuclear players in it as this one does, the walled fortress idea won't play anymore, ever.
For your personal edification, I did serve in the military-1986 (after the Beirut barracks bombing) to 1996.
To my immense displeasure and dismay, the Army during this period was far more interested in: Equality for women in combat roles, downsizing after the cold war, peeing in a jar, and homosexuals in uniform. By this time I was so disgusted with the military's "mission", I had to pass on re-enlistment.
After 911 I went back to my old unit to see if they wanted to re-sign an E-4 promotable, but was politely informed that they no longer wanted smokers. This has slackened somewhat since then, but the military doesn't have a recruitment problem right now. They have met or exceeded recruitment goals every year since 1998, but I'm on file, and will ship out the moment they let me back in. You see, there are things in this world that matter to me more than my skin, like yours, for instance. It's far more important to me that we have a society free enough for dissenters like you to exist, than the amount of money in my wallet or the number of working limbs I have, and that is the difference between us.
I will lay down my life even for the cowardly and the stupid, because I love America, and what she originally stood for. Liberty and freedom do not mean the same thing, and I wish more people like you could understand that.
Maybe your hide would get a little thicker, and your heart a little less self-involved.
Maybe not, but you don't need my respect anyhow, (as your posts clearly illustrate) just my protection in the face of your pacifistic\isolationist attitude which, in it's willfully ignorant way is possibly more dangerous than that of our enemies.
At least they're being sincere in their selfishness.

Airgun
Great post. Much respect to you and thank you for your service first of all. The tone of your post makes me feel as if you think I have a problem with military service. And I also agree with you that the wait to be attacked mode doesn't work anymore. But the truth is, Saddam had NO ties to Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. So when Bush sent our warriors to Iraq instead of focusing on Afganistan and Pakistan as he originally did, he let Bin Laden off the hook and destroyed our credibility in the world. The ENTIRE world. But Bush dropped the ball and shifted the focus of the war from Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to bringing democracy to Iraqis. That's were my problem lies. Ask him today, where Osama is, the best he can do is somewhere in the remote regions of Pakistan. I thought we were close enough with Pakistanis that there should be NO problem goin' in there and getting him. But we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq with absolutely NO plan to get out. Isnt this country rich enough to secure our borders? I mean between focusing on that and the two great big oceans that separate us from the rest of the world, we should be able to have some since of security. I appreciate you stepping to the conversation with class. Unlike some, who don't have the intellect to debate you head on but instead just question your patriotism. Answer me this sir, How does Bush, Cheney or anyone else in this administration explain the lack of planning for post-Saddam Iraq. Even his own intelligence agencies told him of the consequences of toppling Saddamn. Let Cheney tell it, we were to be greeted as liberators. I brought that to the attention of one of the Bush loyalist earlier. All he could say is that the Prez gets a "blizzard" of memos and couldn't possibly read or act on them all. My reply was it's his job to do so as the most powerful man on the Earth. Only after his blind loyalty was exposed, did he start to "try" to insult me. Seriously, are we ever gonna get our standing back as the class of this world, a model for developing nations? Hell, even Miss USA got booed today. *shaking head* Tell me there's nothing wrong with any of that.

Geneva Convention Protection
inkling_revival and thunderbolt.

I have not read any of the Geneva Convention that covers who is considered "soldiers" versus "citizens". If you have, and know the difference that they've established, please let me know.

In the scenario that I described, I should not have ended with "Would these folks be terrorists." The question I really wanted to ask was whether you thought both, one or the other, or neither would be covered by the Geneva Convention.

Perhaps the Geneva Convention does make it that black and white that if you're in uniform you're covered, and if you're not in uniform you're not.

To me that doesn't make sense from this perspective. What you are then saying is if a country is attacked, all citizens would have to simply surrender to their attackers and would not be able to resist. As I said, that doesn't make sense to me.

I could understand that logic if the attackers were without uniforms, but it would seem that you would take the defenders as they come.

hypocrisy
Naturally we can't talk about George Bush and hypocrisy because if we did, all these other candidates would start looking mighty saintly by comparison.

Barack Obama "packs" his wife
That just sounds so awful. This writer claims that Obama "packs his wife and kids" into whatever kind of car it is that they have. That's actually pretty funny. Can you imagine him shuttling his family around, dropping his wife off at the hairdresser's because she doesn't have a driver's license, then dropping his kids off at the park while he goes and looks at lawnmowers to kill time. Somehow, I don't think Obama "packs" anyone anywhere.

Obama-nation
Obama-nation has arrived again with extra Teflon.

Obama’s newest motto: “Hypocrisy We Can Believe In”

When Obama was in Detroit, Michigan he chastised the American Auto worker for not producing as many hybrid vehicles as the Japanese. Obama shocked the audience when he criticized “were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars” while “foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology.”
The Detroit Free Press’s Mark Phelan reported that the Obama family auto isn’t a hybrid, though. Obama packs his wife and two daughters into a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C that gets about 25 miles per gallon. “Obama’s choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars,” Phelan wrote.

Perhaps Obama’s next stop can be at the Children’s Obesity Camp where he can criticize children for being fat, dumb, and lazy for not learning how to speak Spanish.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.