READER COMMENTS ON
"The 'Humane' Treatment U.S. Armed Forces Can Look Forward To When Next Captured..."
(32 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 5:13 pm PT...
There is a Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican, from California, not from Wisconsin.
Sensenbrenner is the troublemaker from Wisconsin.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 5:19 pm PT...
from interrogation instructions, "interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music. According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show"
What kind of interrogation technique is this? Why are the Bush people so bizarre?
I suppose the one thing that document would (supposedly) confirm is that the Bush people truly believed that that one fellow, and perhaps others they were holding, were in fact Al Qaeda members. But, the puppet show? Nobody expects the puppet show! (regards to Monty Python)
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 7:10 pm PT...
The thing you must understand first, above all, is that George W. Bush is a pathological narcissist (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), so that he gains pleasure from knowing that he is degrading others. Bow before the Leader or be tortured while he laughs!
What sort of insanity Rumsfeld has, I don't know, although he also is nuts. Maybe he doesn't masturbate to the dream of torturing Iraqis, as his Leader does. But nuts he is.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 8:14 pm PT...
Re-post from other thread.
There's good and bad torture apparently!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 8:17 pm PT...
Yes BWB is a pathological nutcase that can not admit mistakes. But 43% of Americans still support him. They supported him in 2000, and then they supported his "Commander in Chief" bullshit (election fraud) in 2004.
I am fed up with the 43% -including my beloved sister-who answer "you think Clinton is god".
OK I feel better now.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 8:21 pm PT...
O yea, My son is going to Iraq in Sept.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2005 @ 9:53 pm PT...
Well, I'm not being censored today. How nice.
What's with the surprise about the torture & the lies? For a political party who has no qualms about using the IRS to separate working Americans from as much of their loot as possible, you now have grown ethics?
What I find hilarious is that Dems think screeching for higher taxes on working Americans is a grand strategy for recapturing the white house. And if that isn't a great plan, insist on gay marriage!!!! Yeah, bible thumping Americans from sea to shining sea will show up on election day to make sure THAT doesn't happen.
It's like watching a gullible young teenager showing up with a knife at a gunfight. And then stabbing himself. You dems need to take off the green glasses that control your emotions and use your energy to better your OWN lives, and then AFTER you get a grip on your own emotions, come lecture those of us who have been taking care of ourselves and our families for many decades.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 6:56 am PT...
The pathetic buckshot troll thinks that everyone that does not agree with it is a Democrat. What a stupid little troll.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 6/13/2005 @ 7:22 am PT...
Honestly, Buckshot, what do "higher taxes on working Americans" have to do with Iraq? It's a counter-intuitive comment, because the people you say are calling for these higher taxes (I haven't seen a single post to that effect) are those most vehemently opposed to our Iraq policy. Higher taxes would make the occupation more affordable, and thus remove a key argument against it.
Likewise, gay marriage has nothing to do with Iraq.
In fact, one of the few issues Bush and Kerry agreed on was gay marriage! Their similar policy statements were to the effect that states can authorize civil unions between anyone, but that no one can be forced into using the word "marriage" to describe such a union. Sounds O.K. to me.
Colleen's sister must have the disease that I predict will become known as "Bubbaphobiosis." People who suffer from this malady respond to any criticism of Bush, however meritorious, as worthless because it comes from a Clinton voter, never mind that Clinton left office 4-1/2 years ago.
Colleen, please tell your sister that I can't stand Bush, but that I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and for Harry Browne (Libertarian candidate) in 1996. Her political views are childish and ignorant, especially given that Clinton was closer to Bush in his presidential conduct than Gore or Kerry ever would have been, and that Bubba recently made the unprovable and idiotic remark that Bush won the election "fair and square."
To put it another way...if the best defense of Bush is that his enemies once loved Clinton, it's not only incorrect, it's proof of how bankrupt the thinking is.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 8:32 am PT...
I have yet to see an enemy that does not mistreat its POW's no matter what America does or does not do to detainees.
The PROBLEM is that when our enemy thinks it possible they will lose the war: all bets are off and POW's, detainees, civilians become useless burdens to them. At that point the Geneva convention is worthless because the people losing the war know they will be tried as war criminals anyway so they have nothing to lose.
Seriously, you all need to do some real reflection on your thought process. For you to think that a determined enemy is going to treat our military detainees any differently because of a law, agreement, or how we treat detainees in our custody is naive, ignorant and rediculous.
During WW2 German Nazi prisoners were allowed to work on farms in America and be held in light confinement. Did this stop Hitler from executing American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge? Of course not.
Grow up please.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 8:55 am PT...
oh, buckshot --- you are so silly --- you know you've never been "censored" on this blog --- only removed when you refuse to follow the rules of the blog! what is it with you little trolls? just because you refuse to play by the rules, you think you deserve to use the word "censored". is it because you're conservative that you believe you are above the rules, or is it your disrespect for rules that makes you want to be a conservative troll?
hmmm. a "chicken or the egg" question, i guess.
regarding your completely illogical and emotional hissy fit in support of sanctioned torture by the U.S., in defiance of the Geneva Convention, i must say that your screen name is well-chosen.
do you have any family members in the armed forces, who have spent one or more tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan? i do. words cannot describe how proud and respectful i am of my brother and other members of my family in the military, and the sacrifices of their families. if the worst should come to pass and any one of them --- make that any American soldier --- should be taken prisoner by the enemy.... i can only pray that they treat our boys and girls better than we treat theirs. i fear for any soldier captured by a country that chooses to follow our example now.
we are better than that, buckshot. has your moral relativism tilted so far that you have forgotten we were once the example of all that is right, demonstrating to other nations how to reach and stay on the moral high ground? does that loss only have meaning for you when a democrat is in the white house?
busckshot, when you ignore the rules and are sanctioned for it on this little corner of the 'net, you whine and call it censorship. when the U.S. military is ordered to ignore the rules --- rules of the Geneva Convention to which we were a party, agreed and signed --- the lives of brave and deserving American soldiers all over the world are put at even greater risk. it is a logical, and unfortunately true, progression of cause and effect. we can now only hope that other countries choose to listen to what we say, rather than what we do.
but apparently that is the way you think the situation ought to be, buckshot.
this is moral relativism at its finest, folks.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 9:00 am PT...
Sure seems convenient how the troll buckshot confuses "workers" with the wealthy. A simple look at the facts shows how the wealthiest 1% of Americans have benefitted disproportionately (to an icredible degree) from the Bush tax cuts. Those people aren't working to support their families, troll.
It's funny how these trolls show up thinking that they are arguing with democrats, only to get spanked and fade away within a few days when they realize their arguments carry no water.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 9:12 am PT...
oh, right, jimmo --- so you're saying that since other countries are gonna torture our people anyway, why should we bother to do the right thing? do unto them before they do unto us, because you're pretty sure that they are gonna do it anyway?
i remember the POW's Jessica Lynch, Shoshanna Johnson, and the other soldiers who were captured at various stages of the invasion of Baghdad. they were interrogated, but none of them were sexually assaulted or tortured.
but then again, the Abu Ghraib scandal was just a gleam in an interrogator's eye, way back then.
yes, there will be countries who ignore the Conventions. but if i understand you correctly, are you saying that we should be like them, like Hitler?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 9:16 am PT...
The troll Jimmo wrote:
For you to think that a determined enemy is going to treat our military detainees any differently because of a law, agreement, or how we treat detainees in our custody is naive, ignorant and rediculous.
So, Jimmo, what was the point of signing the Geneva conventions to begin with? Or was America just naive ignorant and rediculous (sic) only in the past, and now we are so much wiser, as to disregard all the treaties and pacts we've previously entered?
Maybe you should take your trolly advice and work on growing up. But I bet you've got a few bridges and rocks to hide under and haunt before you can get to that.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 9:18 am PT...
"Well, I'm not being censored today. How nice."
Just so everyone knows. Buckshot has NEVER been "censored". Nobody is ever "censored" here. As far as I know, none of his posts has ever been removed either (for violation of posting under different names).
However, if he continues to out and out LIE about this blog, then I will consider doing exactly that.
Beyond that, you may say what you wish here (no matter how stupid it may be) as long as you do it under a single user name and do not issue personal attacks against other commenters, etc.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 10:31 am PT...
Thanks for the clarification, Brad, as if we needed it, were we to compare your credibility with that of b***t, whatever his name is. You remain the "go to" guy in my playbook!
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 10:34 am PT...
Maybe he meant censured? Just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but when you get down to it, he can be censured here any time it pleases him...
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 1:32 pm PT...
From The Heretik
Greetings from the Gulag
Hell is for Children
GULAG MAY BE TOO GOOD A WORD
Guantanamo Bay, on Cuban Soil yet Sovereign Soil of the United States of America, Is Hells Home for Children.
WASHINGTON, June 12 - Lawyers representing detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, say that there still may be as many as six prisoners who were captured before their 18th birthday and that the military has sought to conceal the precise number of juveniles at the prison camp.
One lawyer said that his client, a Saudi of Chadian descent, was not yet 15 when he was captured and has told him that he was beaten regularly in his early days at Guantánamo, hanged by his wrists for hours at a time and that an interrogator pressed a burning cigarette into his arm.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 6:45 pm PT...
Okay, Brad, I'll again take you at your word. It is strange that I haven't heard any of the others complaining about an inability to post.
And I assure you I have not posted under another name.
To the fella (NJT) who complains that the wealthiest Americans benefited to a greater extent from tax cuts than the poor, what do you expect? The wealthy pay A TON of taxes, and the poor PAY ZERO INCOME TAXES.
Now tell me how you give INCOME tax cuts to people who are ALREADY PAYING ZERO INCOME TAXES?
You may think gay marriage has nothing to do with Iraq. I can assure you, without the gay marriage issue being on the evening news in the weeks before the election (especially those scenes of the freshly married gay men kissing on the courthouse steps in New England) - Bush would not be sitting in the white house today.
The gay marriage issue brought out millions of voters who would have stayed home otherwise. If you don't understand that simple point, then you may not understand why the continuous demands of democrats for increased tax rates matters, either.
The fact that you personally have not seen any Democrat calls for higher taxes - is irrelevant. To quote an old man who chastised me 30 years ago for a similar comment....."There's a lot of things you ain't seen, son". If you spend a few hours reading this and other "progressive" blogs, you will see hundreds, no, thousands of demands that the rich are getting all the tax cuts. Yet, the poor pay zero. These people think the poor people pay income taxes!!!!
So, yes, Robert, these subjects do definitely have something to do with the war in Iraq. An uninformed public elects the best politician, and we go from there. Right now we have Bush, who was elected by millions of anti-gay marriage, anti high tax, anti stem cell research bible thumpers.
And the Dems ship has, at the helm, a screaming man named Dean, who criticizes and ridicules the very people he needs to be persuading. Yes, Dean is the best thing the GOP has going for them right now.
Now let's see if this posts or disappears into cyberspace.....
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 6:49 pm PT...
testing testing testing.....
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 7:19 pm PT...
Buckshot - I'm not talking about the poor - I'm talking about the middle class - those of us making less than $100K per year - are shouldering the burden of the Bush tax cuts, while folks you are defending as "supporting their families" are banking millions, literally millions more per year.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2005 @ 11:04 pm PT...
Your comments are pretty vague. I'm not going to speculate as to what you might mean. If you are interested in making a point, may I suggest you speak bluntly and be specific?
As far as your namecalling, heck, that was fun about 40 years ago when I was on the playground, but now I prefer speaking as an adult, to adults.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 8:51 am PT...
buckshot - allow me to point out that you started with the vagueness, talking about "Dems think screeching for higher taxes on working Americans"
Just what the hell are you talking about?
My point, once again, is that the top 1% should pay more taxes. But you can't seem to see that there is more to this country than "poor people who pay no taxes" and "working americans supporting their families"
As for calling a troll a troll, well, it's what you are, is it not? In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who makes inflammatory or hostile comments (see "screeching" comment above).
So please understand that identifying you as what you are, a "troll" it is not an ad hominem attack, but an accurate label of what you are doing here. I hope I've helped to enlighten you, if not on the fallacy of your "working americans: victims of democrats" argument, at least on the definition of troll.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 9:29 am PT...
The argument twisting troll buckshot wrote:
"To the fella (NJT) who complains that the wealthiest Americans benefited to a greater extent from tax cuts than the poor, what do you expect? The wealthy pay A TON of taxes, and the poor PAY ZERO INCOME TAXES."
I never said the wealthy benefitted greater than the poor - if you read my post, i never even used the word "poor" - so you are putting words in my mouth. They benefitted to a greater extent than (nay at the expense of) the middle class.
But now that I've called you on your lie, I'm sure you will find some other words to attribute to me in an attempt to salvage your already long lost credibility. Maybe you should have stayed on the playground calling names, instead of trying to talk like an adult to adults.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 9:42 am PT...
I'm just wondering how soon the followers of Zarqawi will come forth with another video that shows a captured American being given "Orange Glazed Chicken" and rice pilaf, complete with a menu in front of them and then have his head hacked off before he's able to finish swallowing. They then will say that they are humane to their prisoners too! I wonder how then Duncan Hunter will explain that in context!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 9:53 am PT...
OK, I know I'm being a troll too now - baited into it & way off topic - is there any way i can delete my post #24 (and this one too)?
good post #25!!
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 4:45 pm PT...
I don't blame you for wanting to delete your posts. First you complain that the rich are getting to big of a tax cut, so I point out that HEY, HOW CAN YOU GIVE ANYONE ELSE A TAX CUT?
Everyone who PAYS TAXES got a tax cut. Yes, the rich got a bigger cut, because THEY PAY A LOT OF TAXES.
Then you come back and say you weren't talking about the poor, but were talking about the middle class (who you define as middle class.
LISTEN CAREFULLY, NJT.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA WHO PAYS INCOME TAX, GOT A TAX CUT.
You dig? If you didn't get one, you didn't PAY ANY INCOME TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If that is your story, then perhaps you would be better served out trying to better your cash flow, and after you get yourself up into the level where you PAY INCOME TAXES, then you can get a tax cut.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 5:08 pm PT...
I got a $300 tax cut. But my expenses actually went up by more than that due to a loss in services.
The top 1% got a million $ tax cut. And I know they could feed their family without that extra million, so don't tell me they are supporting their family.
You are not presenting any information I don't already know. You are a waste of time.
good day, see you under the bridge.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2005 @ 5:13 pm PT...
You are a loud mouth troll that doesn't even bother to read, don't even know what you're shooting at, just shooting that buckshot from the hip.
middle class - i already told you above - earn less than $100K per year. Those are the folks who are actually spending more now thanks to your glorious tax cuts. How's that extra 82 cents a day treating you?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 6/15/2005 @ 8:31 am PT...
I respectfully suggest that the fairness argument in re tax cuts has beclouded the simple fact that WE CANNOT AFFORD THE TAX CUTS, AS PROVEN BY THE OUT-OF-CONTROL DEFICITS WHICH HAVE RESULTED...WITHOUT COUNTING THE COST OF THE IRAQ OCCUPATION!
I agree with those who say the super-rich received a disproportionate benefit. But that's less important than the fact that Bush thinks we can grow our way out of the deficit that has resulted, which is far worse than the current numbers reflect. Bush is wrong...and if he wants a friend to tell him so, he should give Alan Greenspan a call.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 6/18/2005 @ 1:51 pm PT...
The rich got more $$ back from their tax cut because they HAD PAID A LOT MORE IN.
The middle class got a significant tax cut, as well.
The poor got no tax cut. You can't cut zero.
Your other rhetoric is far from Libertarian. It's just your typical socialist agenda. Tax the rich, give to the poor.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/4/2006 @ 10:45 pm PT...
OK, I know I'm being a troll too now - baited into it & way off topic - is there any way i can delete my post #24 (and this one too)?