The Democrats Gloat Thread

Foxfyre wrote:

As far as terrorist attacks on the United States and elsewhere in the world, it is primarily militant Islamic extremists who are committing them. Muslim is not a race either--it is a follower of Islam.

McG did not indict all Muslims. He indicted Islamic extremists. The intellectually honest acknowledge that he is correct to do so.

I think there's still a major difference between a religious "extremist" and a "terrorist". No?

Do you condemn Abu Ghraib, while we are casting moral nasturtiums, Fox?

Do you condemn your government's use of torture?

What about sending folk to be tortured in other countries that are expert at it?

Please do not send me to somewhere else which is worse...the fund of evil in the world seems inexhaustible...please give me a clear statement about your attitude to your own country's misbehaviour, if you consider it such.

I have condemned the practices of a few rogue soldiers at Abu Graib. I have not accepted that these practices are widespread or the work of more than a few bad eggs. I supported the people committing the crimes being prosecuted, and so far all have been guilty and sentenced that have been tried. Is that not sufficient for you?

I do not accept that it is a policy of my government to torture anybody.

I do not accept that it is a policy of my government to send people to other countries to be tortured.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have condemned the practices of a few rogue soldiers at Abu Graib. I have not accepted that these practices are widespread or the work of more than a few bad eggs. I supported the people committing the crimes being prosecuted, and so far all have been guilty and sentenced that have been tried. Is that not sufficient for you?

I do not accept that it is a policy of my government to torture anybody.

I do not accept that it is a policy of my government to send people to other countries to be tortured.

By "I do not accept", do you mean you are speaking out and protesting against, for example, the policy of your government to send people to other countries to be tortured, or do you mean you don't think such a policy exists?

(bloody English language)

OE, if I am convinced that my government is torturing people using MY definition of torture, yes I will condemn it. I do not believe they are doing that unless it is being done without authority and I believe such cases of that to be miniscule and would have extremely severe consequences should the guilty be caught.

In late 2002, two Afghans were detained at Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan.

The detainees were a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar and a 30-year-old named Mullah Habibullah. They were chained to the ceiling in standing positions.

Over a five-day period, these two men were repeatedly beaten and died slow, excruciating deaths. An autopsy performed on Dilawar showed that his legs were destroyed and that amputation would have been necessary. Habibullah died of a pulmonary embolism caused by blood clots formed in the legs from the beatings.

Of the 28 U.S. soldiers facing possible charges for the two murders, only four were punished.

One soldier has been sentenced to two months in prison, another to three months. A third was demoted and given a letter of reprimand and a fine. A fourth was given a reduction in rank and pay.

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, if I am convinced that my government is torturing people using MY definition of torture, yes I will condemn it. I do not believe they are doing that unless it is being done without authority and I believe such cases of that to be miniscule and would have extremely severe consequences should the guilty be caught.

Back to the issue at hand. I don't know if "the government is torturing people". I believe they made it easy for torture to 'happen'. They bent the rules. They undermined the Geneva Conventions. They signed "irregular renditions" into law.

And, to be even more specific on what you said, my statement is: soldiers who torture don't face "extremely severe consequences should the guilty be caught".

This is really something I don't understand. We had a thread about that with lots of information and sources on this topic. I'll post a bit here:

Quote:

In late 2002, two Afghans were detained at Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan.

The detainees were a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar and a 30-year-old named Mullah Habibullah. They were chained to the ceiling in standing positions.

Over a five-day period, these two men were repeatedly beaten and died slow, excruciating deaths. An autopsy performed on Dilawar showed that his legs were destroyed and that amputation would have been necessary. Habibullah died of a pulmonary embolism caused by blood clots formed in the legs from the beatings.

Of the 28 U.S. soldiers facing possible charges for the two murders, only four were punished.

One soldier has been sentenced to two months in prison, another to three months. A third was demoted and given a letter of reprimand and a fine. A fourth was given a reduction in rank and pay.

I might add that the soldiers at Bagram believed at least one of their prisoners - the taxi driver - to be a completely innocent civilian.

Poll: Libby Indictment Hits Major Nerve


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recent indictment of Vice President Cheney's top aide has struck a nerve with the American public. Four in five, 79 percent, said the indictment of former Cheney aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby on perjury and other charges is important to the nation, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Pew noted that in September 1998, 65 percent said President Clinton's lies under oath were important. Clinton was impeached over his handling of an affair with Monica Lewinsky, but was acquitted by the Senate on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Libby was charged with lying to investigators and a grand jury during an investigation of his role in revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, wife of an outspoken critic of the war against Iraq.

Most Americans, six in 10, say they do not think the news about Libby's indictment has gotten too much coverage.

The concerns about Libby's case come at a time that a growing number of people, 43 percent, now say U.S. and British leaders were mostly lying when they claimed before the Iraq war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while an equal number said they were misinformed by bad intelligence.

That's up from 31 percent who felt in February 2004 that the leaders were lying, while 49 percent said they got bad intelligence.

Two-thirds of Democrats say U.S. and British political leaders were lying about weapons of mass destruction and half of independents feel that way. Only one in 10 Republicans said that was the case.

The telephone poll of 1,201 adults was taken Nov. 3-6 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

From Chris Mathews "Hard Ball" tonight
Dick Cheney approval rating 19%

dyslexia wrote:

From Chris Mathews "Hard Ball" tonight
Dick Cheney approval rating 19%

Yikes. That's lower than the percentage of Texans who would allow his daughter to marry another man's daughter.

dlowan wrote:

Lol! I had my post calling you what I think you are when you argue like this removed, Tico.

Really? It must've been yanked before I had the pleasure. I note your "What a heap of **** you talk, Tico," post remains.

dlowan wrote:

Suffice it to say that I believe your arguments on this matter to be waste material.

Yes, I know.

dlowan wrote:

Your "Dlowan believes it ok to lie under oath" is typical of the intellectually bankrupt arguments you and other far right people here often employ.

Well, since you have not yet gotten around to explaining what you meant to say when you said, "Oddly, I would defend even Bush for lying about such a matter," you allow the reasonable conclusion to be reached based upon your prior comments that you do indeed believe it to be "okay to lie under oath."

dlowan wrote:

You know, one criticizes the lies over which Iraq was invaded...this equals "You are a traitor"

One dares to point out the abuses being perpetrated by US troops on prisoners: "You dishonour the troops!" "Why do you hate America!" Terrorist!"

You really need to focus Deb, cause you're all over the map.

dlowan wrote:

You are especially bankrupt in this stuff, Tico, I do not believe I have ever heard you comment reasonably on these things, insted you attempt to derail threads discussing these serious matters with your "I hate Clinton" games.

Really, Ms. "What a heap of **** you talk, Tico"? You've never heard me comment reasonably? I've been commenting reasonably with anyone who wishes to discuss the issues. Even you, on the rare occasion you're able to focus your thoughts and form a cogent argument, rather than merely expressing your tedious Aussie indignation at the "odd" system the Americans have.

dlowan wrote:

We KNOW you hate Clinton. Try singing a new song, eh?

We know you hate Bush. YOU sing a different song.

dlowan wrote:

Thus, one disagrees with Tico, therefore one is morally bankrupt, supports lying under oath, farts in lifts, kicks canes out from blind people and steals candy from babies.

There you go losing focus again.

dlowan wrote:

I do not have the time to reproduce the post, nor do I much feel like bothering with you.

I don't care.

dlowan wrote:

As Blathan said, if you consider lying about consensual sex as less concerning than promoting torture (as Cheney is doing from his bunker as we speak), lying about reasons to invade another country, and running secret facilities in defiance of moral and US laws....so be it. I am a little stunned at your moral priorities...but there you go.

Although you now claim to not condone lying under oath, the question of what you meant earlier ("Oddly, I would defend even Bush for lying about such a matter") has yet to be answered. I still don't know if you think Clinton's sexual behavior was "wrong," or his lying under oath, or both. You said what he did was wrong, but you've yet to clarify.

Can you present a scintilla of evidence to support the preposterous claim you share with the rest of your anti-war, anti-Bush friends that Bush lied to get the US into the war with Iraq? No ... you can't prove it, you have no evidence other than your wild fantasies to support it, but that won't deter you from making the bold claim, will it?

dlowan wrote:

Since you asked, I do not approve of people lying under oath.

Then why did you say you would defend Bush if he lied under oath, under those same circumstances?

dlowan wrote:

Not that I expect truth to stop your comments, but nemmind.

You are given to say things which have no basis. This is a fine example.

Quote:

By the same token, I do take into account circumstances of the offence.

Okay. That is a mitigating explanation, not a justification.

dlowan wrote:

Hey, I even defended your nasty governator on threads when similar charges of sexual harassment came up about him when he was running for governator.

I don't live -- thank God -- in California. He's not my Governator.

dlowan wrote:

Clinton appeared in court re the accusations against him. Preesumably it was open for the judge/prosecutors to act re that matter when the lie came out...I gather they have not done so.


Clinton paid reasonably dearly for that lie.

He was found in contempt for the lie, he paid a hefty fine, he lost his license to practice law for a while. Clinton is an admitted liar. You get quite upset when I point this out. I suppose you will just have to deal with it.

dlowan wrote:

I know you have hit upon a reason why Clinton was asked about a sexual matter when there had been NO hint of sexual coercion, I still do not see it as appropriate to raise consensual adult sex in a trial about harassment. The thing stinks of political witch hunt.

You will disagree. So be it.

It isn't a simple matter of me disagreeing. The US Federal Judge disagreed with you. I can't help that you can't see around your belief that the questioning was a "political witch hunt" to discover the questions were perfectly legal, relevant, and required in order for the plaintiff to have full civil discovery of her justiciable claims.

dlowan wrote:

I disagree with your moral code, too.

And I disagree with yours ... does that bother you?

Which governorships?

How good an indicator are the...er...gubernatorials,,,to political sentiment generally?

You say the governator is not yours, yet you wear his image....your equivocations are wearisome, but perhaps are your job?

When I say I am prepared to defend the actions of those who lie when being improperly questioned, you decide defend means approve.

VERY odd for a lawyer, I would have thought.

As for Bush's crimes.......yes, I do think he and his cronies lied about the intelligence. It will be interesting to see whether this gets to the point of criminal investigation or not. My hunch would be not, as others are likely to take the fall, if there is one. The "wild claims" made re there being no WMD, re frequent abuse in US prison facilities, re who was behind the Plame outing are not looking so very wild right now, are they? Yet I, and others, have been systematucally attacked by the right for daring to say anything about any of these things over the past couple of years. I am willing to trust my judgment on these things better than I will trust the right's.