RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


If Dean were President, the torture would be continuing(70 posts)

If Dean were President, the torture would be continuingDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 2:51 PM
If Dean were President, Saddam would still be torturing and murdering his own people. Is there any denying that? All Dean supporters should read about the torture and view the video tapes of people being beheaded, shot, and maimed.

Someone asked if the "ends justifies the means?" Maybe so.

**************************

Videotape Shows Saddam's Men Torturing Iraqis

Friday, October 31, 2003

WASHINGTON — A grisly videotape showing acts of torture carried out by Iraqi Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen militiamen has been declassified and obtained by Fox News.

After the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in April, an Iraqi in Baghdad gave the tape to the U.S. Army's 308th Civil Affairs Brigade, V Corps. He told the soldiers he had more videos and was directly involved in their taping, having been ordered to do so by the Republican Guard.

The 23-minute long tape contains several scenes of Saddam Fedayeen (search) fighters carrying out corporal punishment and at least one execution, probably of a Saddam Fedayeen member.

• Video: Saddam's Men Torturing Iraqis

Sources told Fox News that the man who handed over the current tape is cooperating with U.S. troops and will provide more tapes.

The punishments include fingers being chopped or shot off, tips of tongues being cut off, wrists being broken by sharp blows from a wooden rod, lashes by whip or cane, a bound man being tossed off a building, a beheading involving a sword and a knife and a man being humiliated by riding a donkey backwards.

Several scenes show charges being read out, ranging from disobeying an order to desertion, before punishments are inflicted.

"When you have people filming in front of crowds cheering and clapping -- you have people cutting off people's tongues and heads and chopping off their fingers and hands throwing them off three-story buildings -- you learn something about a group of people and how they lived their lives and treated their people and we are so fortunate that they are gone and those 23 million people are liberated," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters during a Pentagon briefing Thursday.

The filming locations appear to be public squares and military installations. In attendance are dozens of black-clad Fedayeen, uniformed Republican Guard (search) members, civilians and children.

The U.S. military thinks the tape was most likely recorded at a military installation near Baghdad sometime between 1998 and the fall of the regime, but could have been made as early as 1995.

Tom Malinowski, a director of Human Rights Watch (search), a New York-based advocacy group, said the tape provided a clear picture of how the former government instilled fear in the Iraqi people.

"It reminds us that Saddam's regime took sadistic pleasure in documenting the horrors it perpetrated on the Iraqi people," Malinowski said. "In fact, they wanted people to know this, because the purpose of this treatment was to terrorize the population so no one would even think of opposing Saddam."

The tape quality is poor; there is no audio in some parts and very faint sound in others.

Military intelligence sources told Fox News they believed the tape was authentic, adding that it was by far the most graphic example of the fallen regime's torture practices.

Similar tapes have been found in Iraqi prisons, military facilities and even the private video collections of Uday and Qusay, Saddam's sons, who were killed by U.S. forces in a dramatic July shootout. Copies of several tapes have become brisk sellers in Baghdad marketplaces.

Pentagon officials have been pushing to get the recovered tapes declassified, a process now starting to happen. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has requested they be released to the public.

Speaking to local television stations around the United States Wednesday, Wolfowitz suggested former regime members had become the "dead-enders" attacking U.S. and coalition troops and cooperating Iraqis since the end of major combat.

"Thousands of vicious sadists who are left over from the old regime ... think that if they terrorize Iraqis and scare away Americans, that they can bring back Saddam Hussein and his evil dictatorship," Wolfowitz said. "Small numbers of a few thousand can make a great deal of trouble until they're cleaned up."

The Saddam Fedayeen militia — the name translates as "Saddam's men of sacrifice" — was created by Uday in 1995 but later turned over to Qusay.

The Fedayeen had a total strength reportedly between 18,000 and 40,000 troops, according to GlobalSecurity.org, and was composed of young soldiers recruited from regions loyal to Saddam.

It reported directly to the Presidential Palace, rather than through the army command, was responsible for patrol and anti-smuggling duties and operated completely above and outside political and legal structures.

Though at times improperly termed an "elite" unit, the Fedayeen was a politically reliable force that could be counted on to support Saddam against domestic opponents, according to GlobalSecurity.org.

It started out as a rag-tag force of some 10,000-15,000 "bullies and country bumpkins" but later helped protect Saddam and Uday and carried out much of the regime's dirty work. A special "death squadron" was created to carry out secret executions.

Fox News' Bret Baier and Ian McCaleb contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,101689,00.html

**************************

And, if you don't trust Fox, here's what the Guardian published even before Bush was President:

Murders and mutilation in Iraq revealed
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Friday November 3, 2000
The Guardian

Barbarous acts perpetrated on Iraqi political prisonersand women persist under Saddam Hussein's regime inspite of a decade of international economic sanctionsengineered by the west to topple him, according torestricted Foreign Office documents obtained by theGuardian.

These state that in the last few weeks PresidentSaddam and members of his inner circle have signedorders for executions and other acts of brutality.

The material in the documents is said to have comedirectly from informants in Baghdad and, indirectly,from exiles. It will help Britain and the US in theirefforts to shore up the sanctions - imposed on Iraq forigniting the Gulf war by invading Kuwait in 1990, butnow under challenge.

They will argue that the world must go on trying toforce such a monstrous regime out. Opponents willargue that the abuses show how ineffective sanctionshave been in weakening the dictatorship.

The Foreign Office papers, classified as restricted,provide details of the extensive prison network inBaghdad and on individual cases that confirm theregime's reputation as one of the cruellest in the world.

Among many incidents, the documents say that:

•More than 50 mental health patients were executed inplace of prisoners with the means to bribe their wayout.

•Eight prisoners were executed in October for defacingmurals of Saddam Hussein.

•Thirty prostitutes were beheaded in a "clean-up"during the last month and their heads were left on thedoorsteps of their homes.

•A man's tongue was cut off in September under a newdecree making slander of President Saddam anamputation crime.

While the international debate has gone on in recentyears about the sanctions imposed on Iraq, and thebomb ing of its capital and missile sites by Britain andUS, the regime's abuses have tended to be overlooked,partly because information is so hard to get.

One of the Foreign Office papers says that the Iraqigovernment is obsessive about cataloguing its abuses."Each execution or torture order is signed by animmediate member of Saddam Hussein's family or hisclosest advisers." It adds: "The orders allow thesignatory to record how they want the victim to betortured or to die." The tor ture and execution ordersare said to be held on the eighth floor of the ministry ofinterior's main building in Baghdad. "None of thenormal lifts in the building stop at the eighth floor. Thisis only accessible by its own special lift."

Among the signatories are President Saddam, his twosons, Uday and Qusay, and various relatives includingthe president's half-brothers. A former minister of theinterior, Watban Ibrahim al-Hassan, is said to have"had every execution videoed. Copies of the videoswere kept in a vault in Hassan's office on the secondfloor of the ministry".

Among the many prisons dotted round Baghdad, theMahjar (Sanctuary), near Palestine Street, holds about600-700 political prisoners, according to thedocuments. To maintain the fear factor, and give animpression to the public of impartiality, the presidenthas imprisoned relatives of his inner circle there toshow that no one is immune.

"These high-level prisoners were held in the cells fordetainees rather than in the prison itself and were onlythere for a number of days," one document says.Among those held was Ziyad Aziz, son of the deputyprime minister, Tariq Aziz. The document de scribesthe layout of the prison in detail. "The execution area,the hadiqa (garden) is located near the women's [partof the] prison. The hadiqua is an open area with asandbank covered by an awning" where prisoners werekilled by machine gun. Between 1993 and 1998 about3,000 prisoners were executed there, it says.

At another Baghdad prison, Abu Gharaib, death-rowinmates are said to have been able to buy theirfreedom from the governor for $5,000: "To meet thequota of people executed, and to avoid this scam beinguncovered, someone would need to be executed. Theprison governor devised a scheme whereby he wouldtake a patient from al-Sha ma'eel mental hospital to beexecuted in place of the released prisoner." About50-60 people died in this way until both the governorand the director of the hospital were transferred in July,it is alleged.

One of the groups carrying out the recent drive againstprostitutes - the Fedayeen Saddam militia set up byUday - is said to have "beheaded about 30 prostitutesin Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. The ...heads were left on the front doorsteps of theprostitutes' homes as a deterrent."

Another paper reveals that last month "the Iraqiauthorities executed eight prisoners on charges offorming an opposition organisation and defacing severalmurals depicting Saddam Hussein.

"Muhammed al-Naji, an engineer from Baghdadprovince, was the first to be charged with leading theorganisation. His body, together with those of three ofhis companions, were handed on to their families onOctober 2."

When in September the authorities began cutting offthe tongue of anyone slandering the president or hisfamily, an early victim is said to have been drivenaround his home suburb, New Baghdad, "with aloudspeaker announcing the crime and thepunishment".

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000

http://www.asyl.net/Magazin/Docs/docs-16/L-27a-27b/L9040irq.htm

*****************************

J. GRANT SWANK, JR.


IRAQ: TORTURE TUTORING PAYS OFF IN TODAY'S MURDERS
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Oct 31, 2003, 00:45 EST
The videotape has surfaced. Anyone can view its horrors via Internet.
Tongues are cut. Fingers are chopped off. Heads are severed from shoulders. Crowds gather around to clap and cheer as if at a circus.
Saddam Hussein taught his thugs how to instill fright into the citizenry. Hussein His Heinous was adept at daily slicing, punching, gouging, toppling, leveling and murdering. He taught his sons how to play the hell game. He mentored his guards through like seminars from the pit.
Saddam Hussein put his nation in a pain grip for thirty years. Anyone who dared contest the regime would have wished himself dead — by natural causes — before Saddam got hold of his physical body for the torture grill. Some political enemies were tossed into shredding machines, cut to the bone by giant blades.
Fox News provides us with the "grisly videotape showing acts of torture carried out by Iraqi Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen militiamen. . ."
All nations presently doing nothing to enhance democracy in New Iraq should be ordered to sit through the video showing. Just perchance that might goad their consciences into doing something to further the present-tense Iraqi freedoms.
All protesting Iraq's liberty advance who live presently in the fresh breezes of the United States should have to do the same. That includes Congresspersons as well as grassroots citizens, particularly the political leftists.
Now simple logic then unfolds why daily murder schemes succeed in plaguing the new democracy. Scores of those who were tutored to maim and kill are still there in Iraq. They have the devil in their bones. They know only one lifestyle — to inflict pain and finally death upon human beings, to cheer such agonizing torture, and instruct the young in how to carry on the "cause."
US administrator Paul Bremer daily confronts those who wake to slaughter. His colleagues are frustrated in planting freedom because of the crouching left-overs from Saddam Hussein.
No wonder then that the Red Cross headquarters is attacked. It represents healing and hope. It must not stay, murderers conclude. Saddam taught them instinctively to snuff out any sign of life and health.
Consequently, the US-led coalition representing service and cordiality must be leveled at the crack of dawn — or in the dead of night. Such parading of liberty's sweet success is anathema to those who clap their hands when a tongue is cut in half.
There's a certain blood thirst that comes over those addicted to squeezing others in suffering's vice. It's a power thing, for certain. It's a demonic hold as well.
This satanic remnant will not leave quickly. It has been taught by Saddam Hussein to persevere; after all, their winnings lasted three decades. Consequently, it will take some time to weed out the rodents. It will take much patience, too.
What would help immensely are more freedom forces on site. That's where France, Germany, Russia and their ilk could bolster their claims to democracy by providing soldiers. That's where Democrats critical of the New Iraq, as well as the sacrifices to maintain its democracy, could filter out their disparaging rhetoric. They then could support enthusiastically Iraq's new, emerging lifestyle.
Will the planet really get the shrill message from this videotape? It could be possible. It might happen. In the meantime, the committed promised Iraqis that no matter the toil, freedom will go forward.
-------
email comments to josephswank@yahoo.com

Copyright© MichNews.com. All Rights Reserved.

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1595.shtml

************************

If Dean had been President, it would still be continuing. Is he really ok with that?

Doug
Reagan and Bush Sr. made that torture possible.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:05 PM
They were plenty okay with it, and so were you when you voted for them (presumably).

Don't try to drag these skeletons out of your closet and dump them on other people's door steps.

And don't try to tell us you give a rat's ass about Iraqi lives, when your heroic administration can't even be bothered to figure out how many recieved the "ultimate liberation" under a hail of US ordinance.
way before ReaganDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:14 PM
Saddam started murdering and torturing way back in the '60's. Can't blame that on Reagan or Bush Sr.

I suppose we can blame Bush Sr. for ignoring the UN and not going after Saddam in the first Gulf War, but then you wouldn't not have approved of that, would you?

So, would you prefer the torture be continuing or not?

Doug
correctionDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:14 PM
I suppose we can blame Bush Sr. for NOT ignoring the UN and not going after Saddam in the first Gulf War, but then you wouldn't not have approved of that, would you?
Reagan embraced and armed Saddam.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:16 PM
You have no credibility on the issue, so I won't waste my time on your strawmen.
so you, too, support the torture; just so we know nmDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:26 PM
I said that? I trust any sane person can see through your lie.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:33 PM
There are people like yourself you excuse torture as long as it serves the "greater good" of your self-interests.

Then there are the rest of us left wih the hard task of divvying up scarce resources among the torturous regimes that people like you have enabled.
Embraced--yes. Armed--no.sn69
Jan 14, 2004 4:48 PM
France and the USSR, to be exact. Consult Janes or FAS for his order of battle from his coup through his demise.
Do you count providing tactical intelligence as arming?czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 4:56 PM
Seems close enough to me. Sure, we didn't give Saddam the chemical weapons. We just allowed their sale to him and told him where to use them.
Actually, I was referring solely to what I thought you weresn69
Jan 14, 2004 6:37 PM
referencing by stating "arming." The fact is that all of his order of battle was procured from France and the USSR. Remember, prior to '80, we were busy arming the Iranians under the Shah/SAVAK (in fact, they are the only other country we ever sold the F-14 to).

If you are currently referring to the Halabjeh attack(s) on Kurdistan, the evidence actually points to a far more sinister set of circumstances, one that only further undermines our administration's claims about SH's chemical stock piles but also tells a much different tale of the gassings. The WHO (UN org, not the band), Amnesty International, the Red Crescent and, ironically, a 1990 Army War College study all point specifically to chemical munitions used specifically by the Iranians rather than SH's stockpiles. His, it seems, were used extensively in the Iran/Iraq war, but not so much in 87-89. The "Kurdish Problem" is one that the regional powers all worry about, and there's a lot of evidence pointing to a series of attacks made on the Kurds by both the Iraqis and the Iranians (not in concert, mind you, but rather around the same time).

If you're looking for a really upsetting bit of evidence against our own meandering, nonsensical foreign policy, I'd respectfully direct your attention to the Kurdish and Shi'i uprisings from 92-94. What we did there was really shameful in terms of the disingenuous, duplicitous nature of Bush Sr and Clinton. We could have solved this problem then--and it's entirely like the that 1.5-3 million he slaughtered afterwards would still be alive.
Let's be done with semantics and just state the obvious.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 6:49 PM
Saddam Hussein was a military ally of the Reagan and GHWB administrations. The United States was aware of his brutality at at the time it opened up diplomatic relations with Hussein. His continued brutality was condoned both implicitly by the rubber stamping of the sale of WMD materials to his regime and explicitly by the sharing of direct tactical assistance in the deployment of these WMD, all during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Whether Clinton could have solved the problem is debatable given the mood of the GOP during his administration. But if Clinton failed to solve the problem, it was not a problem of his making.
Semantics? I merely took a literal view of your statement.sn69
Jan 14, 2004 7:33 PM
Well, Czar, you are one to frequently castigate others for flaws found in the details of their arguments. I honestly wasn't attempting to accuse you of the same, but I was attempting to point out the differences in your statements. Admitedly, however, a LOT can be (is) lost in the personal interpretation one takes when reading another's words via email, an internet forum, etc.

Military ally, however? Nah, I don't personally think so. A political ally of convenience, yes, particuarly to hedge against the Iranian Revolutionary Gov't (another by-product of a horrid regime we supported/created...both the dems and the repubs). An economic ally based upon the presumed ability to reap profit as a result of the oil trade? Without a shadow of a doubt as amply evidenced by that lovely kodak of Rumsie pumping' SH's paw as well as the discreet politico-economic posturing on our part after the fall of Reza Pahlavi. But military? No, even during the misguided days of Praying Mantis, we neither sought nor liaised with the Iraqi military in terms of a military alliance. If anything, we did just the opposite, particuarly with regards to tactical and strategic intelligence provided to strike Osriak. In fact, maybe if we had sought more of an information exchange, we might have known about the frequent use of military transpoders on Iranian aircraft and Flight 655 would have made it and, more importantly, 290 people would still be alive (assuming, also, that CAPT Rodgers wouldn't be such a dunderhead if given the chance over).

Am I reading too much into your claim of military alliance? (That's an honest question, by the way, not sarcasm.) Again, I don't deny one bit that we had a duplicitous relationship with SH, but I think/assume that you're trying to develope a facet of it that didn't exist.

Oh, while I'm on that subject.... What WMDs? I thought (again, an honest, sincere request for amplification) that you were comfortable in your certainty that there were/are no WMDs in Iraq.
Yes, semantics.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 7:59 PM
I said "armed". You seem to argue that this is not a fair characterization since we did not directly provide him with military hardware. I will defer to your judgement on what the correct language is to term the Reagan and Bush Administration's alliance with Saddam -- the semantics don't interest me. What does interest me is that Saddam's attrocities did not inconvenience Reagan and GWHB's duplicitous designs on the region. Nor did they inconvenience Saddam's development and deployment of WMD with materials bought from the US (private sector) with the US Government's approval.

What WMD's? The ones he used (nobody disputes that they existed), the ones destroyed during the first Gulf war and the ones destroyed by the UN during their "failed" inpections program. I don't know what certainty on my part that there were no WMDs in Iraq you could be referring to. I assumed (and continue to assume) that there are still at least some, but I contended (and continue to contend) that they were not a threat to the United States.
Okay, fair enough.sn69
Jan 14, 2004 8:21 PM
Again, I agree about the duplicity of our involvement with him. No doubting that. In fact, it makes me think about Pahlavi, Pinochet, Marcos and a host of others. Yikes. All somebody had to do was politely offer assurances that they were against the Soviet borg, slide some money under the table in the form of trade or oil concessions, and they were right in--and that policy was in-place from WW2 onwards. The failure of foriegn policy has steadfastly transcended political ideology once ensconced within the Beltway--hell, one of Carter's right hands is at the center of the Carlysle Group.... While that's hardly justification for our unholy liaison with Saddam, it makes for an interesting study in long-term/short-term profit realization versus the supposed moral core values of our nation. I'd love to hear the good Doctor's enlightended views on this from a sociological standpoint (he probably doesn't bother reading my drivel, though).

Now, here's some interesting seperate-but-oddly-related tidbits. The private sector sales of possible WMD-support infrastructure paled in comparison to the sales of various Israeli industries (seperate from IAI), which in turn paled in comparison to their sale of "stuff" to the North Koreans. French involvement parallels the Israelis. Duplicity is contageous, methinks, especially when money is concerned.

Finally, regarding your last sentence, I too agree that I still harbor an assumption that he had and was developing a WMD program, but more for his own agenda of regional hegmony. Delivery systems capable of striking the US aren't exactly easy to develop. Likewise, I doubt he would have sold nu-kew-lar material to AQ in spite of his other substantial dealings with them. It takes years to develop weapons-grade material and it doesn't make much sense to sell it off to rogue factions, even those that you covertly support. What is intriguing, in a "car wreck you can't take your eyes from" sorta way, is/are the possibilities of the regional destabilization that might have occurred had he fielded even a small number of tactical devices. I'm not saying that, in and of itself, was justification for this campaign of WW4; rather, I'm merely stating it's one of the many things I consider. That, in a distanced way, represented a threat. How much of one remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, as Len (I think) pointed out, we have a lot of capital sunk into this project while OBL remains at large and, more compellingly, Africa continues is descent into diseased, chaotic hell. Lovely. But, what the sh!t, at least we'll have men bouncing on the moon again.
Kennedy aided Saddam's ascent to power in the first place.HouseMoney
Jan 14, 2004 6:59 PM
That's right, the Golden Boy of the Democrat Party. (And, it was about 20 years prior to that dusty photo from December '83 that you keep trotting out with Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand!) Whatever Doug's motive(s) for making his statement about Dean, the fact is, it's true!

Regretably, GHWB didn't thumb his nose at the UN & allow Schwarzkopf to march into Baghdad and take Saddam out back in '91 (although he would've crawled into a rat hole back then, too). But the Libs surely would've been apoplectic about that!
Incorrect. Saddam was working with the CIA pre-Kennedy.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 7:21 PM
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

Regrettably, GHWB allied himself with Saddam in the first place along with Reagan. Shamefully, he exhorted the Iraqi's to rise up against Saddam post Gulf War I and the left them twisting in the wind while Saddam massacred them. Embarassingly, people like Doug and yourself seem to think that you can fob this repugnant record off on a hypothetical Dean presidency.

And by the way, was Dean even running in 2000? Shouldn't you be desperately trying to wipe your bloody hands on Gore?
I'll agree with you ...HouseMoney
Jan 15, 2004 7:07 AM
GHWB was wrong to leave the Iraqis, particularly the Kurdish region, twisting in the wind. (See, now I've criticized a Republican three times in just this past week!) Just goes to show you, you can't take the word of a despot. Too bad Clinton & Carter were equally as gullible in '94 with North Korea & the Agreed Framework.

I neglected to mention the CIA's role in Saddam's rise to power since the discussion was about Presidents (or would-be presidents). But yes, I was aware of it.

We all know Saddam would still be in power if Gore was successful in stealing the '00 election. Probably ignoring UN Resolutions numbering in the 20's by now. The "hypothesis" was in re Dean.

P.S. Our discussions are becoming much too civil. The ...ahem... "tolerance" from my liberal friends must be rubbing off on me!
Incorrect. Saddam was working with the CIA pre-Kennedy.Duane Gran
Jan 15, 2004 8:51 AM
Shouldn't you be desperately trying to wipe your bloody hands on Gore? [emphasis added]

I think Doug raised a point about the values and motivations of public officials, who have take on the hard responsibility of making life and death decisions. I suggest rather than accusing members of the discussion as being to blame ("your bloody hands"), you might focus on the topic at hand. Nobody in this discussion has made a policy decision regarding Iraq, so lets talk about the politicians.
re: If Dean were President, Americans wouldn't be dying.Len J
Jan 14, 2004 3:12 PM
Interesting read & videotape.

No one has ever argued that Saddam was a bully and a torturer. My question is simply, does this alone justify the invasion and chaos that has resulted. I think not. I'm sure we disagree on this. That's OK.

-Was Saddam's regime bad? Absolutly.

-Was it worse than other regime's that exist? No

-Why then was Iraq the object? Simple, because we could, and some in the administration saw it as a way to extend influence in the region (Look how well that is working!).

Is Cuba any less repressive?, Iran?, North Korea?, Red China?, Saudi Arabia?, Indonesia? Libya?, Any one of a hundred other countries? Are we prepared to invade them all?

No, I don't think the ends justify the means.
No, I don't think the invasion was justified.
Yes, I am sad that so many were tortured.

Let me ask you a question: If we took the same $90,000,000,000 we are spending in Iraq and instead of invading Iraq, we used the money to battle AIDS in Africa, would we lessen more suffering in Africa, or in Iraq? Since we can't so everything, I would suggest that we invest our resources in helping the largest number of people. This administration commits $3,000,000,000 over several years to AIDS, a disease that is laying entire generations to waste, and feels good about it, while Commiting $90,000,000,000 in one year to preventing the torture of a much lower number of people.

It is about priorities. Just don't pretend that this war is about Human rights, the administration has shown itself to be a hypocrite on those terms.

Len
So, you would support the tortureDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:25 PM
No matter what we spent on AIDS, if we did not find a cure, about the only thing left to do in Africa would be to physically keep people from having unprotected sex. I'm sure that would be real popular. I don't know what we could spend to solve that problem.

You seem to be focusing on economics, stating or implying that ending the murder and torture just isn't a great bang for the buck for the US, right? I didn't realize that large scale human rights issues had a cost threshold that we couldn't exceed. Good thing you weren't advising Abe Lincoln...

No, we can't invade all countries that have human rights problems. I don't think anyone has said that we should try. Nor can we end all domestic violent crime, but does that mean we should not stop some of it, set an example, and hope for some deterrence value?

The President absolutely did list human rights violations as a priority reason for this war, among other reasons, of course.

Bottom line. Saddam would be chopping off fingers, cutting out tongues, beheading, raping, and still scaring the crap out of 25 million people if Dean were President, and you're ok with that. That's fine, just cop to it.

Doug
So, you support letting children become crippled and die.dr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 3:43 PM
There are children in your town that need help and you are not helping them. Lack of prenatal care leads to many birth defects and diseases that can be fatal. Children in your town are going to bed hungry. So, by your logic, you are supporting the suffering of children, not in some far off land, but in the very place you live.

Doug supports the starvation of children!

Nice logic you have going on there, Doug.

Oh, check your e-mail. If my crappy hotmail went through to your crappy yahoo, you have something from me.
Well said. nmLen J
Jan 14, 2004 4:00 PM
respondedDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 4:06 PM
I responded about an hour ago

Couple of differences.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the military. Part of the role of the military, and our country, is to ensure our safety and that of others. That is their job, and our responsibility as a world leader. Also, the UN had expressly empowered all member nations to use all available means to enforce it's sanctions and terms of surrender with Iraq, and Iraq had not complied. This isn't mentioned much, but by UN resolutions the US we fully authorized to do exactly what it did. That was it's role, right, and obligation as a member nation. A US President ignoring that obligation would be partly responsible for continued abuses.

Now, how is that the same as me as an individual not solving all problems of those in my town? Not only is that not possible, but more correctly I am contributing my fair share to those problems by paying hefty taxes, not to mention charitable contributions.

Also, I'm not running for anything and claiming others were handling a situation wrongly, when the fact is that if I were in charge as I am requesting, torture, murder, and maiming would be tolerated.

Do you feel we had an obligation to stop the Nazi's? Would Howard Dean have been "anti-war" then?

Doug
Shouldn't UN decide how/whether to enforce *ITS* resolutions? nmshawndoggy
Jan 14, 2004 4:15 PM
it didDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 4:21 PM
It specifically provided for enforcement in the resolutions. I'll repost them, if you want.

Doug
Do that. Just skip the ones that have to do with WMDs.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 4:25 PM
They are apparently irrelevant.
respondeddr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 4:46 PM
"Part of the role of the military, and our country, is to ensure our safety and that of others."

What? The military is to ensure OUR safety sure, but the rest of the world? Where did we get that power?

Now, we generally like to keep the peace, but for our OWN security and interests. That is the charge given the the president, who is president of the united states, not president of the world.

I really don't know how you can claim Dean is "anti war". It would be more accurate to say is was "anti this war at this time in this way". He was FOR intervention in Bosnia. Maybe you should go look at his explaination for the difference.

Ah well, in any case I invoke Godwin's law and thus am victorious!

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Mission accomplished!
Godwin's law -- excellent, should be added to forum rules. n.m.shawndoggy
Jan 14, 2004 4:53 PM
Wow, that IS a gem. It's gonna put a damper on Ed. nmsn69
Jan 14, 2004 7:46 PM
Nah, there's a corollary to Godwin's LawOldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 5:47 AM
called OldEd's Codicil, which exempts ironic Nazi references with the sole humorous intent of provoking hilarity, specifically sputtering outrage in reactionaries.

Humor always trumps, despite what the jackboots hereabouts say.
that's no funDougSloan
Jan 15, 2004 11:34 AM
Can't invoke Hitler and Nazi's? What are we going to do, then?

Let's see, what would be a suitable substitute? Stalin, Mao... they just don't send the same message.

Doug
I'm OK with it.............Len J
Jan 14, 2004 3:59 PM
if we are using the resources to enhance the lives of at least as many or more people, but then again this administration wouldn't have done that. So I guess that this is the best they could have done with the money! Pathetic!

"No matter what we spent on AIDS, if we did not find a cure, about the only thing left to do in Africa would be to physically keep people from having unprotected sex. I'm sure that would be real popular. I don't know what we could spend to solve that problem. "

And No matter what we spend in Iraq, have we really found a cure? Did more people die in the pre invasion and invasion activities than did ynd SH? No. Are more people dieng daily now than were before the invasion? It certainly doesn't appear so. So How exactly have we cured anything?

"You seem to be focusing on economics, stating or implying that ending the murder and torture just isn't a great bang for the buck for the US, right? I didn't realize that large scale human rights issues had a cost threshold that we couldn't exceed. Good thing you weren't advising Abe Lincoln... "

Not entirely true. As you say, we can't do everything, my only point is if we are going to spend this much money on something, let's make sure that there is a substantial benefit. If you can live with spending $90 billion to prevent the torture of probably less than 200,000 Iraqies (While killing a subtantial number of other Iraqies) so be it, I would rather spend the money and have a chance of saving millions with AIDS, or at least extending their lives. What do you think it would really cost to ensure free AIDS cocltails for a generation in Africe. Let's see Magic has lived an extra what, 20 years. HMM... I see what you mean, we couldn't get any benefit spending $90 billion. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

"No, we can't invade all countries that have human rights problems. I don't think anyone has said that we should try. Nor can we end all domestic violent crime, but does that mean we should not stop some of it, set an example, and hope for some deterrence value? "

Yes, I'm sure that our action in Iraq have reduced human rights violation in Korea and Saudi Arabia. Exactly how many people have died of starvation in North Korea since we invaded Iraq?

Your continual grasping at straws to support a morraly bankrupt administration is suprising.

Len
I'm OK with it.............Len J
Jan 14, 2004 4:04 PM
if we are using the resources to enhance the lives of at least as many or more people, but then again this administration wouldn't have done that. So I guess that this is the best they could have done with the money! Pathetic!

"No matter what we spent on AIDS, if we did not find a cure, about the only thing left to do in Africa would be to physically keep people from having unprotected sex. I'm sure that would be real popular. I don't know what we could spend to solve that problem. "

And No matter what we spend in Iraq, have we really found a cure? Did more people die in the pre invasion and invasion activities than did under SH? No. Are more people dieng daily now than were before the invasion? It certainly doesn't appear so. So How exactly have we cured anything?

"You seem to be focusing on economics, stating or implying that ending the murder and torture just isn't a great bang for the buck for the US, right? I didn't realize that large scale human rights issues had a cost threshold that we couldn't exceed. Good thing you weren't advising Abe Lincoln... "

Not entirely true. As you say, we can't do everything, my only point is if we are going to spend this much money on something, let's make sure that there is a substantial benefit. If you can live with spending $90 billion to prevent the torture of probably less than 200,000 Iraqies (While killing a subtantial number of other Iraqies) so be it, I would rather spend the money and have a chance of saving millions with AIDS, or at least extending their lives. What do you think it would really cost to ensure free AIDS cocktails for a generation in Africa. Let's see Magic has lived an extra what, 20 years. HMM... I see what you mean, we couldn't get any benefit spending $90 billion. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

"No, we can't invade all countries that have human rights problems. I don't think anyone has said that we should try. Nor can we end all domestic violent crime, but does that mean we should not stop some of it, set an example, and hope for some deterrence value? "

Yes, I'm sure that our action in Iraq have reduced human rights violation in Korea and Saudi Arabia. Exactly how many people have died of starvation in North Korea since we invaded Iraq?

Your continual grasping at straws to support a morraly bankrupt administration is suprising.

Len
"set an example"?rufus
Jan 14, 2004 4:38 PM
we can set an example as a nation and a government by not supporting all the two bit dictators that we have in the past and continue to support today; dictators who enrich themselves at the expense of their people, brutalize and murder just as eggregiously as saddam ever did. all because they can keep their people in line, and do what the US wants them to.

we're doing it again in all the 'stan' states of the soviet union, and sooner or later, either their people are gonna rise up and overthrow them like the iranians did the shah, causing instability in regions vital to us, or we're gonna have to throw our lot in with those dictators to put such uprisings down in the name of stability. instead of fostering burgeoning democracies in these states, we're doing the same thing that's backfired on us all over the world; aligning ourselves behind powerful strong men. and sooner or later, we'll have to beat a few of them down just like we did with saddam. or make alliances with even more brutal men to keep the existing ones in check.

we never learn. stuff your talk about human rights. this administration couldn't give a crap about human rights. given a choice of american strength or human rights perpetuated throughout a region, and american strength wins every time.
So, Doug, us killing Iraqis is OK, but Saddam can't do it?Cory
Jan 14, 2004 5:30 PM
OK, I'm flaming you, and I agree Saddam ranks right up there with the worst in history. But for the love of God, allow a gray area occasionally. It's possible to disapprove of George Bush and oppose the war without embracing the philosophy of Vlad the Impaler. Many people whose opinions differ from yours have given them just as much thought and hold them just as sincerely as you do.
Maybe so...BUTColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 3:15 PM
There are many places where torture just like this (or worse) continues on a daily basis--namely Africa. Should we invade Africa next? I don't see either party ready to line up behind that.
Maybe so...BUTCARBON110
Jan 14, 2004 3:39 PM
Isn't the point that the administation LIED outright worth anything? He pissed all over half the international comunity and put the country between Iraq and N. Korea at one point after invading Afganistan. What about GW admin. just throwing Iran into their speech because "they needed a third country to fill the axis of Evil" Where are you people or do you have selective memory skills? If Dean had been Pres. I don't think we would have gone to war in Iraq since there was NO evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Despite the fact that George told the Nation they were. Wheres the FUkN news covering that? Where is the new Ken Star calling GW on all the subjects he ahs mislead the country on so far.

The problem I have is you Bush lovers who think that GW is great. Why? Where are your standards? Do I think Dean is our saviour? No. But I think he would be a better President. Bush does what he has to to get elected, he would tell you anything you want to hear. He has no more integrity then Clinton but is less intelligent. The guy SCREAMS disingenuous.

I'm just glad he didn't take more advantage of the country when he could have. After 9/11 he could have asked the people of the USA to do anything and we would have done it. We would have bonded together like the nation hasnt seen since wwII. But instead, he asked us to go shoppong, to go about our lives as if nothing had happened. Very visionary.
And he caused a run on duct tape and polyvinyl sheeting (nm)ColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 3:42 PM
If Doug is ignorant of history, the rest of us needn't be. . .czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:25 PM
    "Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003-- "The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would 'probably' include 'an eventual nuclear weapon capability,' harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people [Halabja attack has since been disputed as Iranian gas]. The U.S. response was to renew [diplomatic and military] ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam [Hussein] (20 December 1983)."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
never denied that,DougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:29 PM
I never denied that Reagan armed Saddam against Iran, etc. I pointed out that Saddam was murdering 20 years before that, though, something YOU seem to ignore.

I want to deal with present day facts and circumstances. Are you saying that since Reagan provided support 20 years ago that we are forever prohibited from stopping Saddam? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Doug
riddle me this...ColnagoFE
Jan 14, 2004 3:39 PM
Can invading foreign countries on questionable evidence,taking down their current government, and installing a puppet US government be tolerated by the world community forever? Does the US have the strength, resources (or even the desire) to always be the world's policeman? How many American lives is it worth? I'm not condoning what Saddam did...just questioning the need for an immediate full-scale invasion of Iraq. The US had to have had some CIA operative that could have taken out Saddam if that was the real goal. Nobody would have needed to know--just one day he ends up assasinated.
As long as Bush is in power.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:44 PM
Doug has examined Bush's testicles1 and deemed them up to the task

1DougSloan "Now who's being disingenuous and misleading?" 1/13/04 9:24am
Of course you want to deal with "present day facts"!czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:41 PM
Yesterdays facts, the facts that coincide with the torture you pretend to abhor, reveal that you were quite sanguine about torture when it really mattered -- i.e. when lives could have been saved.

Similarly, you are quite sanguine about the killing of innocent civilians by indiscriminate military operations right now, when they are happening.

You are forever prohibited from ignoring your own complicance in these acts of torture as they were happening.

And as for the 20 years before Reagan, he would be off the hook if the knowledge of these attrocities had deterred him from allying with the torturer. He overlooked them, and you agree that he should have (again, presumably).
Reagan is red herringDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:49 PM
The Reagan argument is a total red herring, a typical tactic of yours. If you can't refute A, then you talk about Q.

From what I recall, Iran and Iraq were at war. Things were no better in Iran than they were in Iraq, and Iraq had just really pissed us off with that whole hostage thing, but then I don't think you were around for that. We picked sides, a side between two bad sides. I'm not aware that we did anything to assist Saddam with internal torture and murder, but even if we did, that still does not change the need to oust him now. It's not like there is any international waiver or estoppel to not right a wrong.

I would love it if we could end totalitarian genocidal regimes on the entire planet. My be is that you would not support that. You do what you can, where you can, when you can. I've heard you say something to the effect of "just because you can't do everything, that doesn't mean you should do nothing."

Doug
sorry, another correctionDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 3:51 PM
Why do I see these things only after I hit Post?

IraN had just really pissed us off with that whole hostage thing
Not to impeach your alleged moral superiority he's not.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 3:58 PM
If you care about human rights today, welcome to the club, newbie.

If you want to right a wrong, great. But it's a wrong of your making. The fact that others don't agree with your methods of righting it doesn't change that.
sorry, wrongDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 4:08 PM
Sorry, I was defending human rights before you were born. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You keep ignoring, completely ignoring, that Saddam was powerful back in the 1960's and actually took over when Carter was President. How is that MY making?

Doug
I doubt that.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 4:17 PM
Or I doubt that whatever defending of human rights you did makes up for the abuses of human rights you tacitly supported (and continue to support and defend).

I didn't say that you "made" Saddam. I said that you supported Reagan and Bush as they embraced and supported Saddam. That explains the blood on your hands, in case you were wondering.
well, the cia did put the baath party in power. nmrufus
Jan 14, 2004 4:21 PM
during the Kennedy/Johnson era, if I recall nmDougSloan
Jan 14, 2004 4:27 PM
DougSloanThink: Repub always right/Dem always wrong? nmshawndoggy
Jan 14, 2004 4:29 PM
Saddam started working with the CIA in '59.czardonic
Jan 14, 2004 4:36 PM
Try to recall who was president in 1959.
iran pissed us off with that hostage thingrufus
Jan 14, 2004 4:13 PM
because for 30 years the united states kept in power a brutal dictator, who killed and tortured his people, all in the name of political expediency. sound familiar?

if the US hadn't overthrown the democratically elected iranian government and replaced it with the shah, whose secret police killed and terrorized the iranian people just as saddam's did in iraq, then there would have been no "hostage thing". all it would have taken was for the US to support and promulgate free, democratic governments in the region.

but we didn't do it then, and we didn't do it with iraq later. instead, we felt our interests would best be served by iron-fisted demagogues, human rights be damned. but you didn't respond to this yesterday when i posted in response to similar crap from you.

if i may say so mr. moderator, you are full of $hit. your use of the human rights argument is just a convenience. things never had to be this way, but at the time, when caring could have made a difference, where was your outrage then? again, you forsook principle for political expedience.

you have no idea whether saddam would still be in power if dean were president or not. perhaps dean would have set in motion a peaceful means to achieve the same ends. you don't know. you just presume to. i'm sorry, but your whole argument is bullshit.
answer the farking questionDuane Gran
Jan 15, 2004 9:01 AM
You bring up great historical issues that are of course relevant to some other question, however what about Doug's question for this thread? Since you won't answer it, I'll have a go.

If Dean were president, SH would be torturing and killing just as he has done for 30 years. I'll add that I think Dean would do other positive humanitarian things that in the net effect may balance things out, supposing it were possible to equate the value of lives.
conjecture...no way to know--irrelevant question (nm)ColnagoFE
Jan 15, 2004 10:07 AM
cool, let's invade China nextgtx
Jan 14, 2004 3:47 PM
oh, but then we couldn't buy stuff cheap at Wallmart...
Because Bush is President, torture continues in Africa?shawndoggy
Jan 14, 2004 4:04 PM
Bad stuff happens. Even as the most powerful force in the world, America cannot begin to stop all abuses everywhere.

On this, Doug, you and I agree (I think).

If I were president, Saddam would probably be doing his thing in Iraq. Dean too, I bet.

But so what? You can't mean to say that with Bush in office all bad stuff in the world has stopped. Bush has chosen to commit lots of our resources to stop Saddam. Whether that is the most effective use of our resources to stop bad stuff is open to debate, as is whether we should use our resources to stop bad stuff at all. The question is this: "knowing that people are dying under [insert brutal regime here], at what point does invasion of the country by the United States [and the certain loss of american lives] become warranted?" Dean has said that even though Saddam's a bad guy he wouldn't have invaded.

Couldn't Bush be said to have drawn the same conclusion about equatorial Africa? Under your logic isn't it reasonable to "blame" the President for these continued abuses if you can "blame" Dean for not wanting to invade?

<>

I find it quite disingenuous to waive the "human rights" banner to defend our occupation of Iraq. If that's why you are so happy that we are there, are you also urging commitment of our resources to resolve other worldwide human rights issues?

You asked me to "cop to it" and I will. But by the same token, cop to the fact that Iraq **IS NOT** a humanitarian mission and that other equally bad dudes are just slipping on by. Iraq is about [or at least it's turning into being about] establishing an American (not Israeli/not Saudi influenced) permanent presence in the Middle East. Good or bad, that? Too early to tell, but cop to it man, that's what it's really about.
re: If Dean were President, the torture would be continuingSintesi
Jan 14, 2004 5:55 PM
Bush still has to answer for the WMD distortions/borderline lies. Whether of not there is an ultimately good outcome, Iraq does not excuse team GWB from wreaking havoc on our credibility and standing in the world. I fear there will be a time when "credible" intelligence will come along and our call for help or action by our own citizens will fall on deaf ears. And who could blame them? Our boy cried wolf. Where's the wolf?? (and I'm not talking about Saddam) This issue should not be trivialized or discounted, I happen to think it's the paramount question for this upcoming election. The ends don't justify the means especially when Bush couldn't guarantee the outcome, nor can he yet. We don't know what Iraq in 10 years will look like. Bush may also be held accountable from incompetently handling the Iraqi and Afghan reconstruction. We'll see. I can't help feeling this can be handled better for all parties involved.

Frankly I bought into the Iraq invasion argument and I also realize that it was a multifaceted one and not solely hinging on the question of WMDs but that was THE argument that sold the deal with the American public and congress. Fear of immanent threat brought home by the graphic, and essentially unrelated 9/11 tragedy, gave GWB the power to bring the Iraqi invasion off. I argued pro-war. I also strongly disagreed with the unilateral aspect and not giving the inspections more time. I wonder what the rush was? Were they worried that their intel would be discredited by further inspections??? I wonder. I've got a nauseous feeling about this.

I'm increasingly alarmed at the new revelations regarding intel and the early intent of this administration.

Would it bother you if your president essentially lied to you? If Clinton's lie was of a serious impeachable order then how serious should we rate what it looks like GWB did? If he did lie and it becomes demonstrable I would expect all Americans to send GWB home.
Welcome back...and well stated. nmsn69
Jan 14, 2004 7:39 PM
good pointColnagoFE
Jan 15, 2004 8:54 AM
Maybe we should get GWB under oath and see what he cops to knowing. It's at least as important as finding out whether the president got a hummer from his intern.
You're absolutely right.......Lets invade China and North KoreaMR_GRUMPY
Jan 14, 2004 7:27 PM
and Iran and Libia and Syria and Myanmar and Indonesia and Yemen and Somalia (Again) and Uzbekistan and Sudan and Zimbabwe and and and and Oh hell, why not Canada as long as we're at it.
So sorry, Doug, but I think you are being very shortsightedStarliner
Jan 15, 2004 12:06 AM
You've on several occasions voiced your total disgust for Saddam's torturous regime but I'd say you've let your emotions come too far into play with this. For you to insinuate that Dean wouldn't have dealt with this problem is offensive and wrong.

Saddam was not the only murderous thug on this planet. If you think the USA should take responsibility for getting rid of these guys, then figure out a policy that's going to be more expansive than our current one, which has us bogged down militarily and financially in one stinking country.

STOP THINKING THAT OUR RESOURCES ARE INFINITE! COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE LIMITS OF OUR POWER!
Your statement is almost certainly true. So what?OldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 6:05 AM
It's just a lawyer's and politician's trick -- make your opponent admit to something that sounds heinous, then shake your head sadly while the jury/public react in adject horror.

Again I say: So what?

We can go back and forth with equally specious logic. I can say:

With Geoge Bush as president, the torture is continuing in (fill in the blank; there's plenty of rogue states to choose from). Is there any denying that? Hell shyt, there's lots of evil in the world that Bush has not and almost certainly will not attend to, and I could jerk it up by the roots of rhetoric and throw is up there in your formulation. With George Bush as president, 20 million sub-Saharan Africans will starve, when we have plenty of surplus to save millions of them. Is there any denying that? Is he really OK with that?

And so what?

Every president -- I'm including Bush, now; this is no partisan diatribe; I'm including Reagan, Nixon, every damn president that ever served -- picks and chooses the evils he confronts. It HAS to be that way. We cannot solve them all.

There are evils that Dean as president would/will tackle that Bush has no interest in. There are evils that Bush would/will tackle that Dean has no interest in. Same is true of any damn candidate out there, now, then, and for the rest of eternity.

Your little rhetorical ploy works in court and in politics, and we both make a living with it, but in the end it's not a damn thing but ... spin.
OldEd wins with a TKOContinental
Jan 15, 2004 7:36 AM
OldEd, these kind of posts that cut through all of the bullsh!t will be the end of the non-cycling forum if they continue. Now stop it!
I know. I apologize. SometimesOldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 7:51 AM
I just get off my feed and talk straight. Must be getting the flu.
ring with the public?DougSloan
Jan 15, 2004 8:52 AM
I fully expect to see RNC sponsored TV ads on this very issue. Logic and reason rules of engagement do not apply there. Should be fun. Makes a great 15 second ad...

[video of torture and executions in backgroud]

"If Dean were president, the torture and murder would be continuing today. Vote Republican."

I can't wait.

Funny to hear a political advisor badmouth "spin."

Doug
Don't know that I badmouthed it.OldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 9:05 AM
Just called it for what it is. I almost always add some disclaimer like 'just' or 'nothing but' when I say spin, even when I'm the spinner. Spin's a tool. It's usally 'true,' but it's rarely Plato's Truth. It's just up there on the cave wall. You make of it what you will.

Mostly, it seemed like you had a little steamroller going here ('So you would support the torture ... that's fine, just cop to it')and instead of taking the cheese, I wanted to point out the trap.
And I've seen those ads in my head already, yes. nmOldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 9:07 AM
Don't know that I badmouthed it.OldEdScott
Jan 15, 2004 10:59 AM
Just called it for what it is. I almost always add some disclaimer like 'just' or 'nothing but' when I say spin, even when I'm the spinner. Spin's a tool. It's usally 'true,' but it's rarely Plato's Truth. It's just up there on the cave wall. You make of it what you will.

Mostly, it seemed like you had a little steamroller going here ('So you would support the torture ... that's fine, just cop to it')and instead of taking the cheese, I wanted to point out the trap.
OES, you took the words right out of my mindStarliner
Jan 15, 2004 9:44 AM
I couldn't have expressed it any better - I would have called it cheap compassion or something of the sort that would have gotten me banished from the board.

I do want Doug to address how he thinks we should deal with the rest of the world's tyrants and suffering populations - how far does his "concern" go. My use of the " " is due to my skepticism of his stand - how far his humanitarianism stretches beyond Iraq, and the degree of committment he'd have us take to stop ALL the world's suffering.