|
|
 |
|
#101
09-21-2006, 12:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anytime I see the words "rights" and San Francisco connected it gives me pause. 
|
|
#102
09-22-2006, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
From Keith Olberman's show-- transcript of last night, I think it was:
"The President of the United States owes this country an apology. It will not be offered, of course. He does not realize its necessity. There are now none around him who would tell him or could. The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential. An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people. Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell. In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom." Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom. The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase. "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?" "If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison." And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees. What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right. All of us agree about that. Except, it seems, this President. With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right. And then there was that one, most awful phrase. In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark. "It's unacceptable to think," he said. It is never unacceptable to think. And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries. That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think. Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth. It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights. This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President. If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague? "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government." Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson. He put them in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that anti-thetical to the status quo just now? Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them? Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees. Or what will next be done to them. On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured. Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them. That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush's fury. That, at this point, is speculative. But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country. For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable. There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders -- Republicans or otherwise -- who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the reality of the situation you have created. There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States. And more than one. But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one. We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you. The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence. Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now. "Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too." Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President. Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable."
|
|
#103
09-22-2006, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GR,
Thanks for putting up this view. Seems to me that events are unfolding a bit quickly. McCain cut a deal and came out in a "supportive" manner. Looks like he wants the repubs to consider him for '08. What's the famous line about politicians and whores? And what's the difference? I knew how Warner would shake out, Graham also showed his hand. Powell still holds his cards, and I don't think he has any intention to fold 'em. We'll see. Right now...lots of kissy, smooch, smooch. I'm so surprised that many don't even see it. Bets are coming down very soon. My advice, don't bet on fools, clowns, whores or thieves. They're losers. Look at what we've gotten from the last hand that was dealt.
|
|
#104
09-22-2006, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#105
09-22-2006, 06:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Or is it the amendment she tried to put on the port security bill to provide $2 billion to sick 9/11 responders? But then, for right-wingers, people are on their own, so it's just tough that they're getting ill now after working down there in air the gov't told them was safe, right? Well, that's how the Republicans see it; they shot down the amendment. Or is it that the two major NYC Firefighters' unions announced their support for her re-election in April (before the primaries, even)? They didn't endorse her in 2000, but she's worked very hard for them since 9/11. The president of the Uniformed FIrefighters said, "Firefighters are skeptical of everybody," he said. "In general, politicians have to win our support, and she has done that." I'm curious as to how familiar you are with her voting record-- she's quite hawkish on defense, which I think is something that usually appeals to you, yes? Is your dislike based on her record or based on what you hear about her? Because in the end, how they vote is the only thing that really affects us. I don't buy the "carpetbagger," "riding on her husband's coattails," blah blah blah stuff as justification because in the end, if she's doing a good job, which I think she is, that's what matters to me. Bloomberg more or less bought the mayorship of NYC, and you know what? He's doing a pretty darn good job. So what is it about her voting record that you don't like, Rupert?
|
|
#106
09-22-2006, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#107
09-22-2006, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So nice to see that you and I agree again. Hillary has to do some 'splainin' ( as Little Richard would sing...Wooo!). On a side note, I really don't trust any of 'em. They're pretty obvious. Not pretty. Just obvious.
|
|
#108
09-22-2006, 09:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Keith is the biggest twit on any stage! If he had the formula for gold...I wouldn't trust him or believe him! Total Whack-job! I still like you,GR!
|
|
#109
09-23-2006, 11:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 But this torture thing is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's never okay. Never. Didn't work in the Spanish Inquisition, didn't work in Salem in 1692 and isn't going to work now. It's wrong. I find it verrrrry interesting this "compromise" BS on torture goes through the Friday before the Monday in which the released prisoners will finally tell their stories to the Red Cross. Methinks the Bush cabal is trying to avoid getting indicted by changing the law before the prisoners get to tell their stories. But we'll see on Monday. And it once again shows me McCain is a total political animal and will do anything to be the candidate in '08. I'm quite disappointed, but not surprised.
|
|
#110
09-23-2006, 11:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am against torture for tortures' sake? Where's JACK BAUER when you need him? I'm OK with truth serums....not necessarily the psychosis-inducing ones tho!
|
|
#111
09-25-2006, 04:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?!
|
|
#112
09-25-2006, 04:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Olbermann sane? Yeah, he's so believable he has 1% of the audience!
|
|
#113
09-28-2006, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm
Sorry Timm, I couldn't resist. Molly's got it right. Read it first, crap your pants later.
|
|
#114
09-28-2006, 06:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DTS: I read the link but I'm not sure what you wanted me to see. I've stated in a previous thread that I'm against torture,and that I don't consider truth serum to be torture. I'll wait for a reponse from you before I comment further.
Last edited by timmgirvan : 09-28-2006 at 06:34 PM.
|
|
#115
09-28-2006, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Timm,
There's really no need to continue. I won't convince you, and you won't me. Hope your leg is ok.
|
|
#116
09-28-2006, 06:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DTS: Are you saying(by the article) that the agreement is flawed or that it has been changed after the fact?? I'm not trying to argue,honest! Thanks for the wishes...the leg will continue to be ongoing,but I'm keeping a stiff upper lip,er,something!
|
|
#117
09-28-2006, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is only my opinion. If habeus corpus is being changed, does it seem a little suspicious that it's being done now? Have we been invaded? Is there a rebellion? Those are the only conditions whereby it can be suspended. So, is this being done to cover something else before "charges" are lodged? hmmmmmm... Good to hear about your leg, and lip.
|
|
#118
09-28-2006, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you,DTS! I want to say that this isn't about what happened, but what might happen. I don't think this a time where we can NOT be ready, so we must be diligent in our efforts to effectively get info(I still don't like torture). I would like to think that it's better to protect from A great calamity, than to miss "by that much". The harm done to our country has been a slow slide(all parties at fault) but if we can prevail against terrorism and its' agents, then we stand a good chance.
|
|
#119
09-30-2006, 10:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am watching Mclaughlin group right now and there were two new polls done amongst the Iraqi people. Poll 1: Do you see attacks on American soldiers as justified? 61% said YES Poll 2: Do you see the US military as a stablizing force? 78% said NO Now, do you still think they want us there??????
|
|
#120
09-30-2006, 04:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I know it's not this simple but, people voted leaders in-leaders want US in to secure the country. BADA-BING BADA BOOM!
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
