Good Thursday Morning Everyone!

Bring our troops home.
Elections are getting closer - help your local candidates and get ready for 2008.
Keep Impeachment in mind.

John Edwards for 2008!

dk2, did you see the Edwards on Oprah yesterday? A class group.

Interesting take on the races.

"New Hope for Democrats in Bid for Senate"

"Six weeks before Election Day, the Democrats suddenly face a map with unexpected opportunities in their battle for control of the Senate."

"In Virginia, a state that few expected to be seriously competitive, Senator George Allen looks newly vulnerable after a series of controversies over charges of racial insensitivity, strategists in both parties say. In Tennessee, another Southern state long considered safely red, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., a Democrat, has run a strong campaign that has kept that state in contention.""Elsewhere, Democratic challengers are either ahead or close in races in five states held by the Republicans: Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, according to political strategists in both parties and the latest polls."

"All of these races could shift direction in a matter of days, let alone six weeks, and Republicans are counting on their superior finances and large blocks of television advertising to hold the line. Democrats also have their own vulnerabilities, particularly in New Jersey, where Senator Robert Menendez is in a tight race with his Republican challenger, State Senator Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to recent polls."

article here

i voted for Edwards in the primaries and i still think he was the better candidate for the Dems

Good morning everyone.

Repost from last night's thread...

Tax Increases: Thank the GOP

If they can't get tax breaks for America's wealthiest families, Republicans in Congress are prepared to raise taxes on millions of America's middle-class families.

FTM - yes I did, Elizabeth Edwards is a woman full of grace, and in my Opinion would be a great First Lady. I think she would be a working Frist Lady and not just a face.

Then Drudge has a different opinion of the forcast so far. We have to keep working. Don't give up.

"WARNING: November Races May Not Be As Close As They Appear"

Very Short, but interesting point of view here

Did anyone catch FrontLine's show on Cheney called The Darkside? I only was able to catch a bit of it last night as the guide was incorrect, but what I caught was really interesting.

If you didn't catch it you can watch the entire program online here.

Kristen

i caught part of the program and i went to sleep lastnight saying that there is a special place and hell for cheney

Afghanistan and Pakistan!

I think Bush is looking for Osama before especially the 2008 election, and it has finally dawned on him that he needs their help. (a little late - where has condi been, didn't she know or did it just dawn on her too?) These two have not been working together. Have they just now figured it out. I would guess that most of our troops on the group could tell them that, as they get IED, and ambushed on a daily basis.

I watched CNN's Anderson Cooper's report and video of their time with troops from a couple of weeks ago. The troops leaders say that they (the young ones) have to hold the line, that they don't have enough troops on the ground to win.

That is exactly what happened in Viet Nam - no real committment by the ADMIN to win - just hold the line and loose expendable personel every day.

Bring the Troops home!

I bet at the dinner, Bush Cheney and Rice, gave them the old rah rah speech that if we don't get osama, the republicans will loose the Senate and House now, and then the Presidency in 2008 and then all help to them would be cut off. I can just here Cheney joining in with "you can hear for yourself everyday in the news how the Democrats want to CUT and RUN!"

Posted by Kristen on September 28, 2006 at 09:57 AM

and of course my 'here' was really not here. So I'll try the link again

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Kristen - I missed it, I would like to see it though if you find it online somewhere.

Posted by bushfailed on September 28, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Well given the theory that Bush is the Devil, my guess is Cheney's special place in hell will be Vice Devil.

Fifty former Senators, Congressmen and Clinton Administration veterans have launched "Dems for Joe" to support Senator Lieberman's campaign The group is not taking any issue positions, and its support does not translate into an endorsement of Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq War or any other specific issue, organizers and the Lieberman camp stressed.

It seems we don't hear as much from Lamonts group and Lieverman seems to be gaining in the polls, - I don't hear or see hardly anything on Lamont or am I just missing it all?

Another step in Wal-marts "we have to controll everything plan"!

"A report by The Cornucopia Institute, the nation's most aggressive organic farming watchdog, accuses Wal-Mart of cheapening the value of the organic label by sourcing products from giant factory-farms and Third World countries, such as China."

"We have received scores of inquiries over the past few months asking if Wal-Mart's organic expansion was 'good news or bad news,'" stated Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst for the Wisconsin-based Farm Policy Research Group. "My stock answer has been: If Wal-Mart lends their logistical prowess to organic food both farmers and consumers will be big winners by virtue of a more competitive marketplace. However, if Wal-Mart applies their standard business model, and in essence Wal-Marts organics, then everyone loses."

"The Institute's white paper, "Wal-Mart Rolls Out Organic Products - Market Expansion or Market Delusion?," concludes that Wal-Mart is poised to drive down the price of organic food by inventing a "new" organic - food from corporate agribusiness, factory farms, and cheap imports of questionable quality."

short item here

An off topic story for our Wine drinkers here on the blog and it might even make a few of our tough immigration critics smile.

Weed-clearing crew works through lunch

LOMPOC, Calif. — Grape grower Steve Pepe has a new crew of weed whackers who lack Social Security numbers, couldn't care less about health insurance and will never ask for a raise.

The entire "Dems for Joe" campaign just goes to show how far the status quo will go to stay in office. They support each other even when they disagree. Even when the voter wants change. That is why they stay in office and we do not have a government that is responsive and responsible to the voter.

New Hope for Democrats in Bid for Senate

Elsewhere, Democratic challengers are either ahead or close in races in five states held by the Republicans: Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, according to political strategists in both parties and the latest polls.

People who are concerned about what they are eating have realized that "organic" may or may not be organic. What we need to do is enforce the labeling of products to state the country of origin. Saying "USA or Mexico" isn't satisfactory. I think if a grocery store wanted to get more business, they would do well to have a produce section, a meat section, and a frozen food section that said "locally grown". I think a better label would be one that said "made in the USA by US citizens".

Wow, I was just looking at the NY Times Interactive map and Washington state went from dark blue (solid Democrat) to Yellow (undecided)

We are definitely in a bit of trouble here as Cantwell's campaign is coming across as 'too little too late'. When I caught her ad the other night, and thought 'that is the most she has said to those of us here in the state since was elected'

Folks don't like McGavick much either but Cantwell needs to personality make over, she just isn't coming across sincere.

morning Kathy, I wrote a LTE to Roll Call about those Dems who have come out for Joe, as well as faxing a letter about it thru to Hillary to have Bill read also. Time for Bill to come to our state and support Ned Lamont! In person !

WHY these people think they can butt their noses into who the residents of CT want to represent them, makes me sick! This is none of their business. If we do not want this man (and I use the term lightly, with all the whinning and sniveling he has done), then it is not up to them to try and shove him down our throats!

And thanks for the Imus tip. I did indeed contact him, and tell him if he keeps his nose out of CT business, we will keep our's out of his State and the legitimacy of his little Ranch business where they sell their phoney made up gruel to crippled children!

Just another Republican failure ! Oh, yeah, but they are stronger on Defense than the Dems!
NOT!

Heralded Iraq Police Academy a "Disaster"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092806Z.shtml

I find it amazing that the majority of Iraqi citizens think they would be better off if we just left. Just goes to show you how well we are protecting their citizens that they think they could fend for themselves better.

Ann, I'm not amazed that Iraqis want us to go away...we not only made us less safe here but we made them far less safe than they were 4 years ago.

Bush claims to be spreading democracy but it is clear his claim to fame will be his policy of spreading fear, hate and violence around the world.

PamB

Bush's war in Iraq reminds me of the downfall of Russia in Afghanistan

everyone should look up the Russia-Afghanistan war and see how it effected the beginning of the end of Russia's power

Democrats really need to start speaking out about bush's fiasco in iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/ussr.html

...if bush had read and studied once in a while he could have avoided his fiasco in iraq

bush is simply a failure

And he is a complete joke to think that he can boost Corker's ratings in Memphis.

if bush keeps pounding his chest and ranting about starting a war in Iran, that should be the last straw, the congress whether lead by Dems or Republicans need to start impeachment proceedings

Who knows what Iran, Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and yes even China might do now that we have squandered trillions of dollars and have obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq that we are having difficulty meeting.

C-Span to has Senate debate on Habeas corpus.

That's C-span 2. That's what I get for trying to post from work. ;-)

Pamb,,Don't worry about Imus.....That fake cowboy will get back on crack and not even know what you are talking about. Someone is going to be riding down the road next to his ranch, look out thier car window and see him eating grass and grazing with the cows. Maybe a bull will spot him and he will get what he deserves.

After Wednesday's mostly party-line vote in the Republican-run House, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement that Democrats who voted against the measure "voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists."

He added, "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

In response, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats feared the House-passed measure could endanger U.S. soldiers by encouraging other countries to limit the rights of captured American troops, and be vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Speaker Hastert's false and inflammatory rhetoric is yet another desperate attempt to mislead the American people and provoke fear," she said, adding that Democrats "have an unshakable commitment to catching, convicting and punishing terrorists who attack Americans."

Pelosi and other Democrats said the bill would give the president too much power to decide whether interrogation standards go too far.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said, "This bill is everything we don't believe in."

Overall in the House, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted for the legislation, while 160 Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent voted against it.

I want to know the names of the 34 traitorous Democrats that voted to give Bush Immunity from War Crimes. People either captured or sold to the American Military and given to the cia have been murdered by torture that Bush approved. That is what this bill is really about and it's an outrage.

If I knew the names of the republicans who voted against this I will write them a letter thanking them for their courage in upholding individual rights and true American values. The rest of them including the assh...s in the Democratic Party should all lose their jobs and since it may soon be legal waterboard the jerks and hide them away with no rights at all...that would be justice! I'm not serious about my last statement but if anyone truly needs to be tortured it's the people who sanction torture in the first place.

I'm extremely upset and all Americans should stand up to this criminal Administration and demand that all the illegal activities stop immediately and impeach the President!

The Senate is voting now. This makes me sick.

Predictions, please, on how many Democratic Senators who are members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) will vote to endorse US-sponsored torture?

I say a minimum of five.

George W. Bush has NEVER been held responsible for anything he has done. The Air National Guard revoked his pilot's liscense for refusing a direct order to take a physical examination Bush knew he couldn't pass. Then he went AWOL but his Daddy made that disappear and Bush actually got an honorable discharge through political connections. Bush has been convicted of a DUI charge and as far as I know is the only President elected with a criminal record. Bush's oil company Harkin Energy couldn't find any oil in Waco Texas, at the time there was more oil there than is in Saudi Arabia. Bush would be hard pressed to find a can of 10W-40 in a gas station without someone holding his hand to show him where it's at. His Daddy's Saudi buddies bailed him out of Harkin before he had to declare bankruptcy. Bush so screwed up the Texas Rangers baseball team another of his Daddy's buddies bought out his shares at a greatly enhanced price making Bush a multi-millionaire just to be rid of him.

This is the man and his "accomplishments" the United States Congress is attempting to excuse and protect from War Crimes. It's time Bush not only accept responsibility for his actions but be punished for them as well.

dk2 -

Try to catch up on your reading regarding the polling in Connecticut. Lieberman peaked immediately after the primary when all likely voters began to be polled, but has dropped to the point where the most recent Rasmussen and Zogby polls have the race as a statistical dead heat.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/19/ct_sen_new_poll_lieberman_lamont_race_a_dead_heat

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/September%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Baron, news coming out today is that Lieberman has pulled ahead.

House roll call on allowing our military to be tortured:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml

BlueinIdaho

Thank you for the list I'm printing it out, now I'll just get the pictures of the traitorous Democrats and use them on my dartboard!

I'm sending letters to all of the fools, using torture for political gain is disguisting, immoral and Un American.

I don't Know why the leadership of the Democratic party,is so afraid to Question the Basic idea of the war on Terror. we know it isn't working.We can nagotiate a withdraw of our troops,and also have all the Arab countries,make peace With Israel.Syria and Iran have asked For direct negotiations,with the US Government. the Democats in both houses should,be incurrageing the Bush administration,to persue this Course. we need to show that Democrat's have a plan

I wonder if it is "torture" under King George's interpretation.

(AP) - BAGHDAD, Iraq-The bodies of 40 men, more apparent victims of sectarian death squads, have been found in Baghdad over the past 24 hours, police said Thursday.

All of the victims showed signs of torture, had been shot, and had their hands and feet bound, police Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/09-28-2006/d3910003c4114226.html

Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Bio

09.28.2006
Is this how the President expects to make us safer?

It has been more than five years since Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Five long years. And what do we have to show for it? Not a single one of the planners has been brought to trial.

We have a wiretapping program of questionable constitutionality targeting Americans without any kind of oversight.

We have detention centers where people are held for years without charges being brought against them. We have Iraq, which has become a training ground for international terrorists, on the brink of civil war. And we have a Military Commissions bill that brings dishonor to our values and to our Constitution.

But we do not have Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda has not been destroyed and is still a threat.

Our moral authority has been tarnished. Our civil liberties have been compromised. Our sons and daughters are fighting and dying in a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Is this how the President expects to make us safer?

Bravo Ms. Pelosi!

51-48 vote on Spector's amendment. All dems but Nelson (NE) + Jeffords voted aye
also, one person didn't vote (don't know who yet)

Kerry on now. I strongly urge all of your to go here
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

to read about this. It is very, very important.

The islamic wing of the theocratic movement has joined the chorus to suddenly try to link 911 to clinton by releasing a new tape asking for the release of the blind cleric from nj.And frist took credit for lower gas prices on cnn this morning.Last night's cartel meeting at the wh proved that karzai and musharoff are really best of friends just playing up to the cameras with their supposed feud.The tricks are coming fast and furious but getting more transparent every day.

Hi all, new to the blog here. Just wanted to drop a line from CT. The party us here is going through some interesting times as you all know. With the Lieberman/Lamont issues the party is divided. I was at a Dem function the other week in Hartford and noticed that several people walked in wearing Vote Joe pins. While I'm not using this post to blast Joe (he's been good to labor in CT) I merely want to emphasize how badly we need unity right now. The only way to dislodge the Republican death grip on Washington, and restore some sense of reality to our nation, is to stand together.

On a side note, I'm reading The Truth (with jokes) by Al Franken right now.... its to darn funny. A great read!

Thanks
JoeLabor
www.forumamerica.wordpress.com

Sen.Domenici just said live on the Senate floor that "any American who opposes this bill is STUPID" I'm not making this up.

This piece of feces just insulted the majority of this nation.

Colorado Police: Shooter Sexually Assaulted Students

http://www.nbc11.com/news/9954600/detail.html

be sure to keep these children and families in your prayers, they will surely have years of stress trying to deal with this trauma

DeWine says report not groundbreaking Stable Iraq will counter jihadists, he says
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Stephen Koff
Plain Dealer Bureau Chief
Washington - Amid public debate over an intelligence report that says the Iraq war is breedingpotential new terrorists, Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio says he sees little that's "groundbreaking" in that assessment.

"This was not considered any kind of seminal or groundbreaking National Intelligence Estimate," DeWine said in an interview Wednesday. And he said success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq will counter the jihadist resentment.

DeWine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he read the intelligence document when it became a flash point this week, but he was briefed on it in late April.

This is one of the geniuses who is going to vote for torture and Presidential Immunity. Why bother reading some silly document Daddy Bush says everything's cool. DeWine is on the Intelligence Committee but doesn't even read the most recent and relevant source of information? What's wrong with picture?

The GOP whines about the do-nothing Congress label but don't even read their own reports.

Posted by wldj on September 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM

He sounded pretty stupid himself. He was obviously reading a prepared (by Rove?) statement and had a pretty hard time doing that. Jerk.

Remember "The Ugly American"?

Well, Bush has ushered us into a new NEOCON ERA of ANTI-AMERICANISM.

Thank you, UnPresident Bush. You are the UGLIEST AMERICAN, Dubya.

Kristen -

I'll believe Lamont is in trouble when Zogs says he's in trouble. No other polling service comes close to them in accuracy.

never suggested trouble, just pointed out what the News was saying today since you suggested DK2 catch up on her reading.

Baron, I hope that comment about Zogby is tongue in cheek.

Regarding the the pro-torture bill now before us:

"The democrats could take dramatic action, as Reid has done in the past, if they were motivated to do so. But they will not, because they fear such a move would paint them as "soft on security" in the upcoming elections. I would also note that a number of democrats have voted FOR this bill, to their shame....In my opinion this is a strategic mistake, and it is also a hypocritical failure that the democrats have not made a forceful move on this issue," blogged casual_observer at another 'site today.

I think casual_observer is on to something.

What will it take to get these Dems thinking in the real world instead of in the ridiculous headgame world of Bush-like "strateegerie" and bumbling tactics?

The Dems' gamble to merely look "tough" as an electioneering tool, is really a sick gambling away of our justice and freedom. If they believe the Supreme Court will reverse this pro-torture/anti-justice legislation, then they are still gambling. What if Bush gets to appoint just one more ultra radical rightwinger who agrees with Roberts and Alito on the ultimate power of the "Unitary Executive"?

Are Dems out of their minds allowing something to get into law that absolves Bush & Company of their crimes against the Constitution? How can there ever be impeachment if this passes? I'll give the answer: There can't ever be impeachment and justice if this passes.

No Filibuster = Shirking of checks and balances function we elected Congress to fulfill

And you think BushCo will draw the line somewhere and show any restraint? You're fools if you do.
Because combine this pro-torture legislation with THE PATRIOT ACT, and Bush and Negroponte will be carting away progressives all over this country with impunity; anyone who dissents or criticizes will be classified as assisting "terrorists". Only a nation of loyalists is acceptable to the likes of Bush and crew.

Are Dems confusing mere 'civility' with 'civilized behavior'. To think it is somehow "good form" to wait it out until Dems have the majority in Congress again is untenable. It is uncivilized to allow torture to become the law of the land in the United States of America!!! It is truly a travesty.

Given his propensity to imagine himself as a bouncer, I hope that GregG takes this warning to heart.

QUESTION FOR ALL:

Is this bill everyone is discussing, for which someone was so helpful as to post the rollcall vote, that some have called "the pro-torture bill" the same bill that gives Bush the sole right to determine what torture is?

Judge Taylor defies the Leader again

As Congress prepares to enact one of the most tyrannical and un-American laws in our nation's history, at least there is a Federal Judge who recognizes that we are not supposed to live under executive tyranny and that the obsequious submission to the President which characterizes Congressional Republicans is a destructive and repugnant trait.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor today refused the Bush administration's request to issue a "stay" of her Order in the ACLU v. NSA case. When Judge Taylor ruled previously that the President's warrantless eavesdropping violated both the criminal law and the U.S. Constitution, she issued an Order enjoining the Bush administration from continuing its warrantless eavesdropping program.

The parties agreed to "stay" that Order until Judge Taylor could rule on the administration's request that the Order be stayed until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on its appeal. Today, Judge Taylor refused the administration's request and instead gave them only seven days to comply with her Order.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060928/NEWS99/60928032

Grain, the bill is about the the legalization of torture and permanent detention.

Question: Democrats whine and complain about getting out of Iraq, about how Bush and team had no plan and are failing...but where the hell is thier plan?

It's got to be something more than just "get out off Iraq". Democrats are stuck in "attack Bush + Republicans at all costs" mode. They do this at the expense of actually offering a viable alternative. it seems to be they have a strategy of tearing down the Republicans to the point where Americans will give up and vote for them.

The American people are on to it and are growing very weary of it. I wish the Democrats would grow some balls tackle the issues. Then people might support them. This is something Bush has learned, and he's got it down pat. Regardless of what the poles say, Americans (and the World) know where they stand with him. he sticks to his guns (no pun intended, lol), and he has defined himself. Like it or not, this portrays strength to the average American who is concerned about protection. They know that Bush is going to do something, and how he's going to try to do it.

The Democratic "matrix" that excludes strong people like Paul Hackett needs to be retired. Americans are tired of the watered-down, wishy-washy, canned ambiguous bullcrap.

Now should be the time for the Democratic party to step up to the plate, stop the BS and show America they aren't a bunch of whiney losers. But, alas- IMHO...they are blowing it. They've been so busy attacking and complaining and fighting that they don't seem to have the time to decide who they are going to have run for President.

The writing is on the wall. With no strong candidate for president and more importantly, no plans and no vision; Democrats will claim a minority standing once again.

What would strong Democratics of the past (like FDR, Kennedy) think if they could see all of this?

Posted by Cyn_NY on September 28, 2006 at 02:32 PM

So this is not the same bill as the one that gives discretion to determine what is or is not torture to Bush?

Grain, yes it is.

Let's hear the Democrats plan to deal with detainees and get the intelligence we need out of them.

winback, are you one of those reverse trolls or whatever they call them?

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 02:39 PM

It's called interrogation in compliance with the Geneva Conventions which have been in place through so many conflicts and wars now. Experts will tell you that interrogation with torture does not result in reliable information. We need no "new" plan, the Geneva Conventions protections still work and are the sole reason John McCain could, years later, sell out the American people.

Posted by Cyn_NY on September 28, 2006 at 02:38 PM

Okay, thanks Cyn, I thought it was (the same as the bill that gives Bush the discretion to define torture).

Submitted for everyone's consideration, it seems to me that THAT fact about this bill is the most important thing and that we should not obscure it by refering to the fact that it "legalizes torture." Yes, it does legalize torure, and yes, it does mean that our soldiers are not safe because other nations will consider it fair game to treat them like we treat citizens of their countries who we capture. I think, however, that what is important from the standpoint of our party is that even after people, of both parties frankly, should have seen that it was wrong to give away Congressional power to this one man as they did when they gave him the right to use force against Iraq, that they have done it again. I think we obviously have some Democrats in office who don't know what being a Democrat is.

These are the Democrats who think Bush, yes, George W. Bush, of all people, should have the right to decide what torture is:

The Democrats who voted “yes” to give exclusive power to Bush to decide what torture is (because they’re slow learners. I think, for the most part, where they are from is predictable.:

Andrews, Robert, New Jersey
Barrow, John, Georgia
Bean, Melissa, Illinois
Bishop, Jr. Sanford, Georgia
Boren, Dan, Oklahoma
Boswell, Leonard, Iowa
Boyd, Allen, Florida
Brown, Sherrod, Ohio
Chandler, Ben, Kentucky
Cramer, Robert E. “Bud”, Alabama
Cuellar, Henry, Texas
Davis, Artur, Alabama
David, Lincoln, Tennessee
Edwards, Chet, Texas
Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina
Ford, Harold, Tennessee
Gordon, Bart, Tennessee
Herseth, Stephanie, South Dakota
Higgins, Brian, New York
Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania
Marshall, Jim, Georgia
Matheson, Jim, Utah
McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina
Melancon, Charlie, Louisiana
Michaud, Michael, Maine (Okay, this one surprises me, but I don’t know Maine intimately. He’s in the 2nd district)
Moore, Dennis, Kansas
Peterson, Collin, Minnesota
Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota
Ross, Mike, Arkansas
Salazar, John, Colorado
Scott, David, Georgia
Spratt, John, South Carolina
Tanner, John, Tennessee

Interesting

http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/

"LIKELY VOTERS’ SUPPORT OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMS CLIMBS 13 POINTS IN ONE MONTH"

yes, i am a satanic reverse troll...can you smell the sulphur?

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 02:32 PM

While I cannot speak for the Democratic Party I can offer this simple plan.

1. Notify the Iraqis that we are leaving at an undisclosed date in the near future, next year namely. Recent polling of the Iraqis strongly suggest that they don't wnat us there.

2. Increase troop strength to the level that Gen. Shinsheki (sp?) and other notable generals wanted in the beginning in an effort to make a massive sweep across the country one last time to rid it of foregin fighters. Insurgents are the problem of the Iraqi people. Let them know that. Once we've cleared an area, turn complete control over to the Iraqis. We've done that in only two provinces, thus far, if memory serves. Two provinces out of sixteen or eighteen is pretty poor track record for four years of effort.

3. Leave a sizable force, about the size of the force we have in Afghanistan, to protect the Kurds and our embassy in the Green Zone. That force will be there until the end of the decade.

In regards to your question about what FDR or JFK what think I'll say this. They would be proud to know that we are fighting for basic human rights for all people, not just the white, upper-middle class, or higher, Christians like the RNC does.

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 02:39 PM

Again, not speaking for the DNC, I would like to think that we'll use whatever methods authorized by the Geneva Conventions. As a party, I cannot see us lowering our standards to those of terrorists by legalizing torture. We are smarter and better than any terrorist because of our believe in freedom and democracy. We need to show the world that as well otherwise, we become the world bully that the Soviet Union tried to become in the middle part of the twentieth century, the French Empire in the begininng of the nineteenth century, or the Nazis. We will not sit idly by and let the RNC take us down the same road as Hitler did with Germany in the 1930's.

I have a very personal interest in this torture bill for reasons that are not relevant to this forum so i won't go into them here.I can tell you that i am watching the congress like a hawk and every person who votes for the bill has earned my personal hatred and has lost my vote and/or support.This bill hangs our service people out to dry,it has only one purpose and that is to give cover to bush and his cohorts.Please,write your congressman and express your displeasure.

HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.

The race has tightened slightly since an Aug. 17 poll that showed Lieberman leading 53 percent to 41 percent.

"Ned Lamont has lost momentum," said poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "He's gained only two points in six weeks. He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or ... Lieberman stays in for another six years."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDQTLG0.html

To my good friends on the far left I say this. This is what happens when you "preach to the choir". Mr. Lamont is making the same mistake that the far right types do by just playing to their base. Sure, that'll get you into the thirtieth percentile real quick but, where do you go from there? I do not like Sen. Lieberman's unwavering support for President Bush anymore than the rest of you do however, Mr. Lamont had better change tactics quick. If a self-described far-left liberal can't win in CT, then where can he or she win? Get your message correct Mr. Lamont or you will lose.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 03:11 PM

I know you mean well, but if the man has to change his message to appeal to more people, isn't he compromising his integrity and his own beliefs? Ok, ok, I realize that he may lose b/c he doesn't appeal to people that have not grasped the failed direction this invasion is going, but I will respect a candidate that sticks to his beliefs and ideals, despite the direction the wind is blowing.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 03:11 PM

Don;t believe everything you read.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on September 28, 2006 at 02:44 PM

Don't you think the Geneva Convention may be outdated, and may not even apply here? The terrorists are not another country-state, they are individuals who operate outside the of any laws.

There was a time when countries agreed to agree on rules for fighting. The Geneva convention was borne of that era. Terorism as we face today wasn't even around back then.

Terrorists are criminals...not soldiers.

Listen, if you were a victim of home invasion would you ask them to stop so you could lay down rules of engagement and ask them not to do certain things (like rape)? Do you think they'd sit down with you and agree to terms? Hell no, you'd fight tooth and nail to the last breath (I hope) to defend yourself and your family.

To quote Malcolm X-

"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment".

I have a daughter who has a law practice in Ct.(New London)she has worked her butt off for Lamont and is now really despondent.She tells me that the party has not given enough support to his campaign and that some of the old pols are working to keep holy joe in office.I trust her judgement and she is hopeful but fearful.

Also, I hear that the "detainees" in Gitmo are being treated better than criminals.

If the argument is that unless we interpret the Geneva Convention as providing maximal protections to terrorists, our enemies will mistreat U.S. soldiers in their captivity, then you need to wake up!!!

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002540.html

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 03:17 PM

One, you obviously are not familiar with the Geneva Conventions, it applies also when it is not a country that we are fighting.

Two, WE did the invading. Think back and read what you stated "if you were a victim of home invasion would you ask them to stop so you could lay down rules of engagement and ask them not to do certain things (like rape)? Do you think they'd sit down with you and agree to terms? Hell no, you'd fight tooth and nail to the last breath (I hope) to defend yourself and your family."

So, when the so-called insurgents define torture AS THEY SEE IT, don't be surprised if they decide the removal of our invading soldiers TEETH and NAILS doesn't fit the definition.

Also, I hear that the "detainees" in Gitmo are being treated better than criminals.

I would suggest changing the channel from F-news. Also, should "detainees", that have never been convicted of a crime, let alone been able to hear what they are accused of, be treated worse than criminals?

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 03:17 PM

I see what you're saying, but I think this situation is different from Malcolm's statement (with which I agree). How we treat other nation's captives is not about a desire to have a positive relationship with terrorists. I think most of us know that isn't going to happen. Esoterically, it's about karma, and practically, it's about needing to deserve the high moral ground if we're going to proclaim having it, which we do. It's not about the opinions the terrorists will have of us, and thinking we can "win them over" by being nice. It's about the opinions of the rest of the world, and whether or not we're seen sympathetically or we're seen as villains. If other nations deem us to be perpetrating torture, they will be much less likely to back us in a conflict.

It works similarly to this example. Let's say, if you are the recipient of insulting comments on a message board, you have a choice whether to tell the person off and put him or her in his or her place, or to pass. If you've ever had that happen before, you know that if you're at all potent with your words when you're angry, it doesn't take long before you're being treated like the villain by everyone else on the board, and you can't imagine why, because you were attacked first. Not sure if that analogy works for you, but it seems apt to me.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on September 28, 2006 at 03:15 PM

In that repsect, I'm with you, Blue. I don't want a candidate who compromises principles either. However, Mr. Lamont, and all liberals for that matter, need to find a better way to package themselves for the "sheeple". A liberal label should not have the unfair negative connotation that it does now. We, as a party, need to fix that first. We needed to fix it in 2002, we didn't, we lost. The same in 2004. I do not want to repeat history in that respect.

I have to address thist from "win back america"Did it ever occur to you that this "terriost" thing is all about a bunch of turkeys hiding out in a cave somewhere?They can kill people but so can drunk drivers.They Cannot overturn this nation but the world is full of armies that might.That is the threat.Bush has made a great nation fearful of a bunch of nuts hiding out in a cave.

Barak has made it clear that the bill on torture is flawed and will not stand.This is not a secret,the dems who voted for it are just playing to their base.The tragedy is that this is just a garbage bill that is being used for sound-bites.It offers no legitimate immunity for bush.Nothing to prevent past torture crimes from being prosecuted.Not even a chance to legalise torture in the future because the entire bill will be found unconstitutional.All political fluff,no real change.Stop shooting yourselves in the foot over this junk bill.It won't stand.

Posted by Kristen on September 28, 2006 at 01:25 PM

Thanks Kristen for watching out for me.

I know the polls say something, but I just haven't seen the national coverage Lamont was getting and now is seems that we keep hearing about the who's who is helping Lieberman.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No, no, the Geneva Conventions are not outdated, and that's... It's a very important principle. First of all, Terry, we are adhering to the spirit of the Geneva Convention. When you say, "you're holding the prisoners in the manner you are," we're giving them medical care. They're being well treated. There is no allegation... There may be an allegation, but there's no evidence that we're treating them outside the spirit of the Geneva Convention. And for those who say we are, they just don't know what they're talking about. And so-- let me finish-- and so, I am looking at the legalities involved with the Geneva Convention. In either case, however, I make my decision, and these detainees will be well treated. - King George, January 28, 2002

OK ER.I think you might be right if we had an honest and open minded Supreme Court.I think ol' George was thinking ahead when he got Alito and smiley in there.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Sexual Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on September 28, 2006 at 03:41 PM

Well, he will and does lie about anything. why pay any attention to anything he says?

BlueinIdaho-

First let me say that I am NOT for torture or erosion of rights. I am for finding acceptable ways to deal with something we've never had to before.

Article 5 is, I beleive what you are referring to; and I merely questioning the validity of and application of the Geneva convention to the terrorists.

I didn't get info on the detainee treatment from F-news, it was an article in the NY Times sent to me by a friend.

Lastly, you said "we did the invading"...well, the insurgents are mostly foreigners with munitions supplied by Iran and Syria...not the indiginous Iragi...so not sure how that makes any sense.

Posted by grain_of_salt on September 28, 2006 at 02:50 PM

Notice Tennessee has 4

Harold Ford Jr.
David Lincoln
Bart Gordon
John Tanner

There is a major problem in TN, - the voters here can't tell a republican when they run on a democrat ticket. Just because someone had a D behind the name does not make them a Democrat. After this elecion cycle - I hope we can continue to watch how they vote and take the rebups on dem tickets out of their offices and replace them in the next possible election.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

http://ministryofhomelandsecurity.blogspot.com/

Blue - cant this be change back if we take the senate and house?

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 03:17 PM

Don't you think the Geneva Convention may be outdated, and may not even apply here? The terrorists are not another country-state, they are individuals who operate outside the of any laws.

There was a time when countries agreed to agree on rules for fighting. The Geneva convention was borne of that era. Terorism as we face today wasn't even around back then.

Terrorists are criminals...not soldiers.

Does the Constitution "not apply here"? Is our constitution outdated? Of course not and to suggest otherwise is unamerican at best. We entered into the Geneva Convention of our own free will. If your side wants to try to withdraw, then let's have that debate. We Democrats will not lower ourselves to the standard of the lawless terrorists. We Democrats are civilized; are you Republicans? And if the terrorists are criminals as you suggest, then why are they not afforded the same rights to a fair trial as all other criminals in our judicial system are? Does the consititution and two centuries of case law not clearly lay out how to proceed? You cannot arbitrarily apply the constitution. If the constitution does not apply to everyone then it means nothing.

win back america- you say the insurgents are mostly foreigners? my newspaper published a poll taken in Iraq just this morning.An overwhelming majority of Iraq citizens approved of the attacks on our armed forces.The Kurds just want to be free of the Turks so that is another BUsh smoke screen.

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 03:46 PM

No, actually, it is Article III. It does apply to the terrorists.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3

How do you know that the insurgents are "foreigners"? How does that idea lessen the fact that we invaded? I was using your example of a home invasion. Yes, anyone would fight "tooth and nail" ---that applies to the Iraqis, whom we invaded, or the people that are fighting for the Iraqis.

Posted by dk2 on September 28, 2006 at 03:47 PM

Yes, and the south in general has 19 names on that list of 28.

Unfortunately, I think that part of the problem is that to be an electable Democrat in most parts of the south, you have to be a lot like a Republican. I tend to be cynical about the likelihood of turning the south "blue" for that specific reason.

Posted by dk2 on September 28, 2006 at 03:52 PM

I believe so....but I would rather not bank on that.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 03:11 PM To my good friends on the far left I say this.

Bob, I consider the people on the "far left", where ever they are, to be conservative and resent being labeled as a "conservative". I hope, dear friend, that you don't resent my being resentful.

The shills for the GOP moonbat leadership and the GOP leadership itself labels anyone who thinks that we need a change of course in Iraq as being "far left" (that's when they're not calling us terrorists).

I'm glad to be your good friend and I'm grateful that you don't think I'm a terrorist.

McVeigh was a terriost of the first order-Pretty Boy Floyd was a terriost- Bonnie Parker was a terriost-Machine Gun Kelly was a terriost-Al Capone was a terriost-why did these people not scare a nation out of it's wits?None had Bush the lesser for a public relations agent.

Posted by wap on September 28, 2006 at 04:06 PM

If "Bush the lesser" and these cowardly republicans were in office then, our government would have responded by attacking Canada. "Better to fight them there...."

Terrorist is mispelled but you get my point.

Posted by dorsano on September 28, 2006 at 03:59 PM

Of course not. Your thoughts expressed in this forum have always been well thought out and insightful, in my opinion. Quite frankly, I don't care what the far right thinks of us because they only represent 20% of the nation, or so, and they'll always vote Republican in hopes of getting a closet David Duke type elected. What makes American great is our ability to freely debate what we disagree on and settle all of our arguements in the voting booth. I'm sure we'll both be pulling all the 'D' levers in November.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 04:23 PM Your thoughts expressed in this forum have always been well thought out and insightful, in my opinion.

Thanks, Bob. Apparently my satire needs some work though. :)

How many more expert interrogators are going to have to come forward saying that torture does not now, nor has it ever worked. People will say anything to make the pain and humiliation stop (check out how many "real" witches were burnt or hanged. Not a damned one ever over thousands of lives pissed away.)

I've worked beside some pretty amazing interrogators a long time ago. Believe me, those guys could meet you on the street, never saw you before, ask you about five questions and tell you you whole life's story. They're not stupid people and don't need to resort to stupid tactics.

Bottom line, the guy in the Oval Office loves the thrill of power over others, the same way he got a powerful charge off of sticking firecrackers in frog's butts. Probably gave him a woo... uh, well, make that a toothpick.

Torture degrades the torturer as much as it does the one being tortured. I'm reasonably familiar with the Gospels and I'm really having a hard time coming up with any place where Jesus said it's okay to do violence on another human being. I'm pretty sure He didn't because his second commandment (which, please recall, He called "equal to the first") was to love one another. Not to kick your opponent in the jewels the instant he stumbles.

I'm not over my rant just yet, but I'll leave with a satirical piece from the Guardian from June 2004 back (how eerily prophetic...). It's a sad, sad state of affairs when more than two years later we're still even entertaining the notion...

For some time now, I've been trying to find out where my son goes after choir practice. He simply refuses to tell me. He says it's no business of mine where he goes after choir practice and it's a free country.

Now it may be a free country, but if people start going just anywhere they like after choir practice, goodness knows whether we'll have a country left to be free. I mean, he might be going to anarchist meetings or Islamic study groups. How do I know?

The thing is, if people don't say where they're going after choir practice, This country is at risk. So I have been applying a certain amount of
pressure on my son to tell me where he's going. To begin with I simply put a bag over his head and chained him to a radiator. But did that persuade him? Does the Pope eat kosher?

My wife had the gall to suggest that I might be going a bit too far. So I put a bag over her head and chained her to the radiator. But I still couldn't persuade my son to tell me where he goes after choir practice.

I tried starving him, serving him only cold meals and shaving his facial hair off, keeping him in stress positions, not turning his light off, playing loud music outside his cell door - all the usual stuff that any concerned parent will do to find out where their child is going after choir practice. But it was all to no avail.

I hesitated to gravitate to harsher interrogation methods because, after all, he is my son. Then Donald Rumsfeld came to my rescue.

I read in the New York Times last week that a memo had been prepared for the defence secretary on March 6 2003. It laid down the strictest guidelines as to what is and what is not torture. Because, let's face it, none of us want to actually torture our children, in case the police get to hear about it.

The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith".

What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only "torture" if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else - such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice - then it is not torture.

Mr Rumsfeld's memo goes on: "a defendant" (by which he means a concerned parent) "is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control".

Couldn't be clearer. If your intention is to extract information, you cannot be accused of torture.

In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent "has a good-faith belief [that] his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture". So all you've got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn't think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy!

I currently have a lot of my son's friends locked up in the garage, and I'm applying electrical charges to their genitals and sexually humiliating them in order to get them to tell me where my son goes after choir practice.

Dick Cheney's counsel, David S Addington, says that's just fine. William J Haynes, the US defence department's general counsel, agrees it's just fine. And so does the US air force general counsel, Mary Walker. In fact, practically everybody in the US administration seems to think it's just fine, except for the state department lawyer, William H Taft IV, who perversely claims that I might be opening the door to people applying electrical charges to my genitals and sexually humiliating me.

So I'm going to round up all the children in the neighbourhood, chain them and set dogs on them. I might accidentally kill one or two - but I won't have intended to - and perhaps I'll take some photos of my wife standing on the dead bodies, and then I'll show the photos to the other kids, and finally, perhaps, I might get to find out where my son goes after choir practice. After all, I'll only be doing what the US administration has been condoning since 9/11.

Posted by dorsano on September 28, 2006 at 04:27 PM

;-)

Grain of salt,

Thank you for posting that list. I can't believe that Melissa Bean was on that. I was thinking of contributing to her campaign, Not anymore, I am so pissed that I wrote her a letter. She gives meaning to the terms that the republicans constantly refer to dems as--cowards. OOOH I am so angry.

Now watch Mary Landrieu vote for it in the senate.

What is the point of fighting for "freedom" in a foreign land if we so readily give it up here. How long will it be before they are torturing Americans? This blood will be on your hands, Melissa Bean!

Posted by RedLetter_Rev on September 28, 2006 at 04:33 PM

Well said!

Play down our unfortunates who have to support this crap to satisfy their base. Remember the reds ALL support torture-The shame,the shame keep shaming them so their base stays home!And keep pushing Obama& Feingold.Push hard, let them be the party that hates jews and blacks.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 03:53 PM

Maybe I am wrong in classifying them as mere criminals. That's the rub. How do you define the terrorists in a way that assures justice? How often has our system failed us? I don't agree that these folks should be put into the normal prison populace, because they will just breed more of thier kind. It's a tough thing to ponder. New laws are needed, don't you think?

I agree hawk, maybe we should have a debate about the Geneva Convention, and maybe we just started it here :)

Anyhoo, I do not consider myself a Republican. I was one of those folks who never voted until my mom pushed, prodded and begged me to vote...and vote for Bush (the first term). I was basically a "let the good times roll" person. As long as things were ok in my little world, I didn't care who was in office. After 9/11, all that changed. I wish Kerry had been a better candidate last time around.

I am actually a person who is willing to vote for whoever can get the job done the right way. I think the damage that both parties have done to this country is going to take us decades to recover from.

Unfortunately, I see the Democrats as the best alternative to Bush, but they can't seem to pull thier heads out of thier asses long enough to get it together.

From Gov. Mark Warner’s Forward Together PAC

Ned Lamont and I come from the business world—where results matter and no one considers it a good day’s work to have just poked the other side in the eye and gotten nothing done. That’s now how it is right now in Washington . Ned Lamont gets it. Washington needs an entrepreneurial approach, Washington needs Ned Lamont.

Thanks to Tim Tagaris and all those trading their donations, time and energy for a better government and a better Democratic Party.

From the "Send-Others-to-Die-Coward":

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.

At a GOP fundraiser, Bush accused Democrats of using a new intelligence estimate that ties the war in Iraq to rising extremism to win votes in November.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/bush.ap/index.html

Posted by ranger995 on September 28, 2006 at 04:39 PM

You're welcome, and as to Landrieu's vote, yes, I'm sure we can pretty much bank on it. Any person who voted to sick Priscilla Owen on her own state would vote for anything deplorable.

Cyn_NY -

Absolutely not. Zogby is far and away the most accurate and reliable polling service...bar none. One reason is that they don't sell their polling results to "news" outlets like the major networks. It is well documented that polling services regularly change their sampling methods to ensure that poll results from day to day and week to week change (within the margin of error) because...after all...poll results that do not change are not "news" and the "news" programs don't like to pay for non-"news." Zogby does not do that.

Now, if you are alluding to the "incorrect" call they made in Ohio in 04 and therefore for Kerry, I'll stand by their results, which could not possibly have accounted for the widespread corruption and distortion of vote tallies which occurred in that state. How could Zogby have anticipated exactly how many tens of thousands of new Democratic registrations were tossed out by the Republicans, the voting machine shortages, the "patches" installed on the machines at the last minute, etc.?

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 04:33 PM

GregG has been working out and is thinking about getting a part time job as a bouncer at a sex bar. I hope he reads the information above that I left for him.

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 04:50 PM

Fair enough. I appreciate your candor. You asked, "How do you define the terrorists in such a way that assures justice?" You don't define terrorists, per se. They are either criminals or POW's. If the person is captured inside the U.S., treat them as a criminal. If they're caught outside the U.S., treat them as a POW. To the best of my knowledge, those are the only two ways to run afoul of our constitution. To assure justice, we treat them as any criminal or POW. We either have the evidence to convict or we set them free. For those who are POW's, then apply the Geneva Convention.

Bob, and Win,

How do you define a terrorist, and who gets to decide who is and who isn't one? What actions must one take to be a terrorist, or are thoughts and speech enough? Do you have a limit on what is torture? Who gets to decide that limit?

The Geneva convention was agreed upon by many nations, and now the US wants to throw it out, because our populace is so afraid that they now want to allow torture.

So, if the US says it is ok to ignore the Geneva convention, then the next time the Chinese shoot down one of our reconaissance planes, will it be alright for them to torture the crew? Will you have an argument against it that will be tenable?

What about the poor souls who have been deemed terrorists and have proven not to be. They spent time in prison being tortured--some are still there. Do you think that is acceptable? Or do you not care?

I do agree that the Democrats have got to come up with a more specific plan in Iraq that guarantees some kind of face saving. However, I find it odd that no one asks for such a plan from the Republicans. Where is Bush's plan?

I for one, do not trust Bush to make me safe. In fact, I think this is just another one of his moves to gain more power. Slowly but surely he is going to defy every single treaty and rule of law that we have. Then, when you are forced to pay tribute to him or be defined as a terrorist, I wonder what you will say. I see Bush as a greater threat to my freedom than any other thing now. Terrorists may be more of a threat to my safety, but Bush is more of a threat to my freedom.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 05:03 PM

HhHmmm. Well, I think I can agree with that. I just think they need to keep them seperate and isolated and subject to harsher penalties or something. maybe slather them in pig's blood or something...sorry I know that was tasteless...lol

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 05:09 PM

Actually, burying terrorists in pig's blood and guts was a tactic used by General Pershing in the Phillipines during the turn of the twentieth century. He left one POW alive and released him to tell the others what he had seen. To the best of my recollection, there were no more terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in the Phillipines while General Pershing was in command. It almost, almost, makes one wish for as simple a world as it was then. I'm glad humanity is evolving into a more civilized society though. I just wish the process were faster.

Posted by ranger995 on September 28, 2006 at 05:08 PM

Ranger, I think it's obvious that Bush doesn't have a plan. I wish the Dems did.

Would anyone care to vote on a little poll?

A. Bush doesn't have a plan. He's just riding things out.

B. He is unwilling to reveal the true plan, and hasn't come up with a good enough lie.

C. He can't because he is really a puppet and hasn't recieved direction on this.

Bush is hoping to ride things out and that whoever replaces him has a plan.

I know something that some of you don't know-The world is full of people who hate america-They think we are a pompous bunch of overfed,sex crazed folk.They thought this fifty years ago,they still think so.We can either join the world or still treat it as if it is our handmaiden to be used at our discretion,ain't gonna work no more,ain't gonna work no more.Bush the lessor has just made things much worse.

The beginning of the solution is to get rid of bush the lesser and his gang of outlaws.Regardless of your political bent if you are interested in the welfare of the USA vote against any supporter of bush the lesser.

Posted by ranger995 on September 28, 2006 at 05:08 PM

A terrorist is defined as a militant individual who uses violence as a political tool. However, the law should not distinguish. A criminal act is a criminal act. An act of war is an act of war. And you're absolutely correct, President Bush has made no one safer and I do not want him defining torture either. You also said,

Terrorists may be more of a threat to my safety, but Bush is more of a threat to my freedom.

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 05:19 PM

I would say, "A". Couple that with Sec. Rumsfeld's blatant incompetence and voila, we're in the state we're in.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 05:32 PM

God I hate Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld...incompetence and arrogance had a child.

Bob,

I may have mischaracterized your opinion from earlier posts. I do like your basic ideas on Iraq. I wish that we had the power to influence the powers that be on this blog, but alas...

Just for my own sake, I think Democrats should make the argument to take the fight back to Afghanistan where it belonged in the first place.

1) Set a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and move them to Afghanistan. This should be part of an OPORD that specifies specific goals and allows comanders to carry them out within a time-frame. I also agree that it would be good to have a presence in the Kurdish area, this could be accomplished easily by moving our personnel from Qatar, Turkey, and Iraq. Thus, we could eliminate permanent bases on Muslim soil and maintain a strategic presence in the area.

2) Start engaging Pakistan in a very firm manner. We have to address the terrorist safe haven over there before it comes back to bite us. Ignoring Pakistan is not going to make it go away. They are increasing their nuclear technology every day. Despite Musharaf's recent publicity tour, he has no real power in the border regions of Pakistan. We have to start taking out those training camps now. I can't believe no one is pushing for this.

This should be such a heavy point in the Democratic campaign. We should be talking about Pakistan, this is a real problem!!

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 05:19 PM

Are you in particular referencing Iraq in this poll? If so, I vote B, if not, I await clarification.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Gore-Warner2008 on September 28, 2006 at 05:16 PM Actually, burying terrorists in pig's blood and guts was a tactic used by General Pershing in the Phillipines during the turn of the twentieth century.

From Snopes

The desire for simplistic solutions to complex problems has spawned several widely-circulated messages of late which seek to transform a fight against terrorism to the easily-manageable level of a horror film or a comic strip. Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is to a vampire — simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine.

....

We haven't yet found any references to this alleged incident in Pershing biographies, however, nor does it match the way Pershing is generally recorded as having dealt with the Moros in 1911. When they refused to obey Pershing's order banning firearms by surrendering their weapons, his response was to draft a letter to the Moros expressing sorrow that his soldiers had to resort to killing to enforce the order:

You realize, Bob, the stuff you posted is circulated around internet by right wing moonbats don't you?

Posted by winbackamerica on September 28, 2006 at 05:19 PM

Posted by grain_of_salt on September 28, 2006 at 05:39 PM

Actually, let me adjust that. I believe in a hybrid of A and B on Iraq.

"i hate rumsfeld" hate him you may but if you direct your hate to bush the lesser you might have a chance to correct the problem.Rem