Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

His activity was reported timely. The only thing the "left" is upset at is that the Corpus Cristie Times got the scoop and not the NY Times.

Now to your question. I have a better memory than some and the images of 9/11 are still crystal clear in my mind as are scenes of beheadings, mass graves, and innocent people blown up with car bombs. I am also a product of the WWII generation and my parents ran the commissary of a POW camp here in New Mexico. All the prisoners there were German and some were there for most of four years. They got no trial, they were treated well--my Mom wrote to two of them for years after they were released--but they were not going to be turned loose before the war was won and an unconditional surrender was signed.

I look at those people at GITMO in much of the same way. Just like all those German boys were not Nazis and not evil and some probably never even shot at us, they were still part of the German Army and they were the enemy. You don't turn them loose for their commanders to refit into fighting machines and let them come at us again. Once victory is won, they can go home on our nickle just as those German prisoners were sent home on our nickle.

Until somebody has conclusive proof that this is not the case with the detainees at GITMO, I will believe our government is doing the right thing. And I don't trust the anti-Bush, anti-American media with portraying things as they actually are there.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now to your question. I have a better memory than some and the images of 9/11 are still crystal clear in my mind as are scenes of beheadings, mass graves, and innocent people blown up with car bombs. I am also a product of the WWII generation and my parents ran the commissary of a POW camp here in New Mexico. All the prisoners there were German and some were there for most of four years. They got no trial, they were treated well--my Mom wrote to two of them for years after they were released--but they were not going to be turned loose before the war was won and an unconditional surrender was signed.

I look at those people at GITMO in much of the same way. Just like all those German boys were not Nazis and not evil and some probably never even shot at us, they were still part of the German Army and they were the enemy. You don't turn them loose for their commanders to refit into fighting machines and let them come at us again. Once victory is won, they can go home on our nickle just as those German prisoners were sent home on our nickle.

Until somebody has conclusive proof that this is not the case with the detainees at GITMO, I will believe our government is doing the right thing. And I don't trust the anti-Bush, anti-American media with portraying things as they actually are there.

Sure, but the United States, back then, were fighting a regular army. The POWs had, uhm, POW status - something the detainees in Gitmo don't have. And as you said, their were sent home once victory was won.

That's the problem. If the detainees are prisoners in the "War on Terror", when do you think victory will be won? When Iraq has been transmogrified into a peaceful, freedom-loving, western oriented democracy? When the last US soldier returns home from Iraq? Or when "minor" battle operations in Iraq are over?

But, no, that would just be the War on Iraq, not the War on Terror, right? And terrorists have existed since thousands of years. Yep. So, would that be the timeframe for the Gitmo inmates?

woijo writes

Quote:

His activity was reported timely. The only thing the "left" is upset at is that the Corpus Cristie Times got the scoop and not the NY Times.

Yes, and they're really ticked off that he gave the subsequent interview to Britt Hume who he knew would be thorough and would not excerpt parts of it.

Foxfyre wrote:

woijo writes

Quote:

His activity was reported timely. The only thing the "left" is upset at is that the Corpus Cristie Times got the scoop and not the NY Times.

Yes, and they're really ticked off that he gave the subsequent interview to Britt Hume who he knew would be thorough and would not excerpt parts of it.

Well, there is that little matter of Fox editing out the beer drinking thing before broadcast.

If anyone's interested, I provided copies of the Sheriff's report ... HERE.

I'm struck by the explanation for why the Sheriff's department did not investigate on Saturday: The Sheriff apparently understood it was an accident, and did not see the need to question anyone on Saturday. Can someone explain why the anti-Bush/Cheney folks believe the Secret Service refused to let law enforcement interview Cheney for 14 hours?

On Sunday, Salinas told The New York Times that a deputy talked to Cheney on Saturday night. But CBS said the sheriff's office complained a deputy had been turned away that evening.

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

woijo writes

Quote:

His activity was reported timely. The only thing the "left" is upset at is that the Corpus Cristie Times got the scoop and not the NY Times.

Yes, and they're really ticked off that he gave the subsequent interview to Britt Hume who he knew would be thorough and would not excerpt parts of it.

Well, there is that little matter of Fox editing out the beer drinking thing before broadcast.

What are you referring to, blatham?

Prisoners of war are entitled to neither counsel nor trial. They are not charged with any crime but are simply held until peace is secured.

It would be nice if we could put a time limit on war, but to the best of my knowledge there is no technology available to do that yet.

So what would be your timeline to release detainees that you are pretty sure would be enlisted to go to war against you?

I just downloading the video and watched it, and it matches up completely with the transcript on the foxnews website. Can you provide a link to the transcript that contains the "beer at lunch" question and answer? I know Hume paraphrased the question/answer immediately following the broadcast of the interview ... is that what you're referring to?

Ticomaya wrote:

I just downloading the video and watched it, and it matches up completely with the transcript on the foxnews website. Can you provide a link to the transcript that contains the "beer at lunch" question and answer? I know Hume paraphrased the question/answer immediately following the broadcast of the interview ... is that what you're referring to?

Is this directed to me? I don't remember it being mentioned in the interview but then I got two phone calls during the interview and missed some of it. Where I heard it was I think on a newscast or maybe Fox & Friends. TV watching has been limited the last few days so I am not positive just when.

In the interview, Hume asked about drinking beer. Cheney said he'd had one at lunch. That question and answer were edited out of the broadcast but can be found in the Fox transcript.

Q Was anybody drinking in this party?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No. You don't hunt with people who drink. That's not a good idea. We had --

Q So he wasn't, and you weren't?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. We'd taken a break at lunch -- go down under an old -- ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hour-long tour of ranch, with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn't go back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00 p.m.

The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.

Q Now, what thought did you give, then, to how -- you must have known that this was -- whether it was a matter of state, or not, was news. What thought did you give that evening to how this news should be transmitted?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him. That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

<psst> Can't you bash Cyclops, at least? Just a wee little bit?

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

woijo writes

Quote:

His activity was reported timely. The only thing the "left" is upset at is that the Corpus Cristie Times got the scoop and not the NY Times.

Yes, and they're really ticked off that he gave the subsequent interview to Britt Hume who he knew would be thorough and would not excerpt parts of it.

Well, there is that little matter of Fox editing out the beer drinking thing before broadcast.

What are you referring to, blatham?

In the interview, Hume asked about drinking beer. Cheney said he'd had one at lunch. That question and answer were edited out of the broadcast but can be found in the Fox transcript.

blatham wrote:

pssssst....

When George Will (George Will! for goodness sakes) tells you that the administration is heading into dictator-land, it might well be prudent to make some reassessments...

ooOOooh... dictator-land...

That's pretty scary stuff.

(Is this it?)

I just downloading the video and watched it, and it matches up completely with the transcript on the foxnews website. Can you provide a link to the transcript that contains the "beer at lunch" question and answer? I know Hume paraphrased the question/answer immediately following the broadcast of the interview ... is that what you're referring to?