Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-21-2006, 12:27 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Go back through the thread and read it. Nobody said that. Are you simply looking for an argument with a "leftist"? LOL

"interviewing" has been going on for centuries and it will continue to go on long after we are gone. America is not above it as the naive seem to think. We do it just like everyone else.

As i stated earlier, the geneva convention was created to protect the basic grunts from cruel mistreatment without purpose. As for those with potentially sensitive information, all is fair in love and war.

Anytime I see the words "rights" and San Francisco connected it gives me pause.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-22-2006, 02:05 PM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

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."
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-22-2006, 02:21 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-22-2006, 03:56 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
GR,
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.
I agree with you. That's why I would never vote for Hillary.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-22-2006, 06:12 PM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I agree with you. That's why I would never vote for Hillary.
What do you dislike about her voting record, Rupert? Her vote for the PATRIOT Act? Her vote giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq? I hate both of those, too.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-22-2006, 06:27 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
What do you dislike about her voting record, Rupert? Her vote for the PATRIOT Act? Her vote giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq? I hate both of those, too.

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?
I actually think you're right. I think she has done a decent job as Senator. I was referring more to her character. DTS was saying to never trust "thieves".
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-22-2006, 06:53 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I actually think you're right. I think she has done a decent job as Senator. I was referring more to her character. DTS was saying to never trust "thieves".
Rupert,
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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-22-2006, 09:55 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-23-2006, 11:10 PM
GenuineRisk's Avatar
GenuineRisk GenuineRisk is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmgirvan
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!
Timm, we can disagree; I still like you, too.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-23-2006, 11:58 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-25-2006, 04:49 AM
horseofcourse horseofcourse is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 3,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmgirvan
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!
Olbermann is the only legitimately sane voice on television right now. The immorality of the twits running our government right now so overwhelms the immorality of the twits running the previous administration it is hard to believe this is still the United States of America. It is unfathomable that the congress, so entranced with morality of the last administration to push for impeachment isn't doing the same thing right now. There is a heckuva lot more to morality than what you do with your penis. Morality covers lots of things other than the exact location of your penis. Ahh...that duplicitous Congress...what can we do with them!!!!
__________________
The Main Course...the chosen or frozen entree?!
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-25-2006, 04:04 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

Olbermann sane? Yeah, he's so believable he has 1% of the audience!
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-28-2006, 05:35 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-28-2006, 06:10 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-28-2006, 06:31 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Timm,
There's really no need to continue.
I won't convince you, and you won't me.
Hope your leg is ok.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-28-2006, 06:37 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-28-2006, 06:44 PM
Downthestretch55 Downthestretch55 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stamford, NY
Posts: 4,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timmgirvan
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!
Timm,
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.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-28-2006, 07:14 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-30-2006, 10:17 AM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?
Hey Rupert-

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??????
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-30-2006, 04:16 PM
timmgirvan's Avatar
timmgirvan timmgirvan is offline
Havre de Grace
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Powder Springs Ga
Posts: 5,780
Default

I know it's not this simple but, people voted leaders in-leaders want US in to secure the country. BADA-BING BADA BOOM!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.