Let's impeach the president.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This past weekend, I spoke to a former captain who was responsible for the prison system in Baghdad after the Abu Gharaib fiasco. He said that, after AG, the Americans basically cleaned up their act and that his main job was protecting Iraqi prisoners from their Iraqi keepers. The Iraqi had hidden jails, (essentially unventilated, unsanitary warehouses - nothing like what we would consider a prison) in which Iraqis tortured and killed their detainees. The biggest problem he had with his men was that they consistently intervened between the Iraqi "lawful authority" and the detainees in order to save the detainees lives.

My point is that the Iraqi's and us have completely different ideas on what constitutes the rule of law. Human rights apply only to those of your sect b/c only they are human.

While on its face the statement seems hypocritical, in fact, it is not given the vast differences between Iraqi "justice" and American justice.

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The whole AG thing was/is ugly. Heads are still rolling over that, and many are still calling for Gonzales to step down over this.

In the end, I just hope that we can somehow be restored back to the international community when comes to matters of foreign policy.

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)

NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)

NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by angryssg

70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.

I disagree. No money no war. The troops would have to come home. No President could leave soldiers in the field without food. The Pentagon would revolt.

The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.

And if she does win you can count on her keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for most of her first term. Anyone who thinks she will pull out hasn't been paying attention. She would love the idea of flying into Bagdhad to visit the troops. Great photo-op. Florence of Arabia. I pity the anti-war types. They have given the Democrats power and the Democrats have thanked them by taking a great big dump on their front porch. Oh that stinks.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.

What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?

[Daseal]

JoeRedskin, don't you find it relatively sad that it takes the media breaking a story about Americans torturing people for the armed forces to clean up their act. There shouldn't have been any torture for a story to break about, in my opinion.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What do you think of the rumored Bloomberg/Hagel ticket?

I'm not sure I have a good feel for who they would take votes from. They are both anti-war, so in a Hillary/Rudy race, for example, you would think that it would hurt Hillary. The question is would an anti-war activist, who hates the Republican Party and hates corporations and who normally would revile Bloomberg, vote for him in spite of all that because of Iraq? I don't have a good feel for that. It's hard for me to figure out if these people really hate the war or Bush. Is Iraq merely a device that gives expression to a feeling that would still be just as strong without the war? Bush was plenty hated in those circles before March of 2003. If it's not really about the war, but about hating Bush, then Bloomberg can save his money. They will hold their nose and vote Democratic.

Bloomberg and Hagel have no traction among Republicans. I can't see them stealing a lot of votes there. Support for the President continues to be strong among his base. There is no anti-war constituency among conservatives.

Immigration is another matter. I think what Hillary would like to see is a viable 3rd party candidate like Tom Tancredo who is a hardliner on immigration. This could appeal to enough of the good old boys in a state like my own to (amazingly) throw Virginia to the Democrats for the forst time since LBJ in 1964. She wins here and it's a skate. A revolt over the illegals would be a disater for the GOP up and down the ticket.

In short, I'm not sure I see a rationale for Bloomberg/Hagel beyond the hard core, single issue anti-war folks.

But, politics rarely proceeds down a straight line that is in any way predictable. That's why there is an inherent danger in the Democratic strategy of stall-ball. That's what it is. It's the four corners. The zeitgest could shift against them and they'll be left out there hanging with their dicks in the wind. The do-nothing Dems. It's not likely to happen because the NYT etc has their backs, but major events can alter history and perceptions, as we know from 9/11. The Republicans need a turnover and they need one bad.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

FCK IRAN! THIS IS THE DUMBEST THREAD I'VE EVER POSTED ON! I'm sure if you don't like what the PRESIDENT is doing with those TARDS in iran, they've got plenty of room for you.

well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by dmek25

well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.

Well since it's only you making the comment.

Just shows you don't know shit about what your talking about. Sounds like you need to grow up alot. Maybe you need to comprehend what your reading.....couldn't be much simpler than that!

[Daseal]

Here's what skinsfan_nn was trying to type:

Well since it's only you making the comment.

Just shows you don't know shit about what your talking about. Sounds like you need to grow up alot. Maybe you need to comprehend what your reading.....couldn't be much simpler than that!

Actually. I'm too lazy to go through it all. Your first sentence isn't even a sentence. Learn the difference between your and you're, I can loan you a grammar book if necessary. A lot is two words, just to keep you from looking like a bumbling idiot. Otherwise, just a mess of a post.

When the United States stops acting like we're special and being the only country not required to sign certain treaties, etc. We put people who we suspect just MIGHT be guilty and hold them for years without any sort of evidence to bring charges in this little place called Guantanamo Bay. Just explain to me why it's perfectly okay for us to hold prisoners with no evidence on suspicion, but other countries can't.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What did Gonzales have to do with AG?

Have you actually seen his testimony in front of the Senate? The entire hearing? The fact that the man said "I don't recall", or the equivalent, 74 times should have his credibility and competency concern you as a citizen. Also, per Gonzales own testimony he made the decision to fire the AGs though his testimony was inconsistent with what he said when he was making the rounds on the weekend news programs prior to the hearing.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.

Dmek you and I are on polar ends politically it seems, but I'm with you 100% on this.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by dmek25

well, well, well. if you don't agree with this administration, you must be a terrorist, or not a Christian, or a traitor. grow up alittle, and put some thought behind your posts.

Yea almost good spell check deas, for a second I thought it was quake.

so is a little

[saden1]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

Well since it's only you making the comment.

I'm with him too, it's just that it's hard to discuss anything with someone of your caliber and esteem. You're intellectually far too superior.