Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 419
  1. #341  
    really, would a democratic administration have prevented this behavior from happening?
    these actions are accountable to those in the military. I think this type of behavior would have happened no matter who was holding the reigns in washington, dc.
    its wartime. these tortures are not acceptable by any means, but I hardly think another elected official with another administration would have been able to halt something like this from happening altogether. there were beheadings of americans and those of other countries.... I don't think that helped the plight of the iraqi prisoners much - or gathered more sympathy for those people in light of such atrocities
  2. #342  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    really, would a democratic administration have prevented this behavior from happening?
    I think it comes down to the fact that Bush administration went to Iraq with not enough troops and planning to prevent the chaos after the major fighting was over. Abu Ghraib was also a problem of not enough of the right resources and lack of appropriate planning that is needed when running a prison.

    In addition, the fish starts stinking from its head. Guantanamo was a very bad example of how to treat prisoners. The basic message there was: you prisoners are scum and as such you have no rights whatsoever. That message got through to the guards in Abu Ghraib. Add frustration, fear, lack of education as a guard, and lack of control - the result is very predictable, and not good PRPRPR $for$ $the$ $US$ $in$ $Iraq$.

    Let's not go back to the beheadings etc.: I agree the terrorists are FAR worse. But I hope you don't look for comfort in the fact that Al Qaida terrorists are still worse than the worst US army prison guards (who are an exception and not the rule, I know).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #343  
    not at all. I don't think the torture was acceptable whatsoever. the abuse certainly did not help our standing in the world - by no means would I condone it as a lesser and more tolerable crime compared to the beheadings. we'd be no better than the radicals in such a case.
    I think the hope was that we would try to fight the "good" fight by treating prisoners humanely and creating a contrast to how iraqi insurgents treated their prisoners. this scandal doesn't help that cause at all.
    I also agree wholeheartedly that iraq should have been planned for more effectively and with more troops. but I don't want to oversimplify that task and say that taking on such a challenge was easy to do. there are definite areas where things should have been handled better - absolutely no doubt - and we better address them and make the changes we need to make to redeem ourselves.
    but I think the effort is there -t we need to step it up and keep our behavior in check, but I think the majority of our military is doing the best they can in the environment they find themselves in.
  4. #344  
    Is torture ever an acceptable method of interrogation? It probably is, at some level, but that level is difficult to identify. Not giving the guy a soft bed? Limiting the lighting? Witholding the gourmet food? Giving just plain food? Keeping lights on at night? Questioning at night during sleep time? Sleep depravation? Making false statements to prisioners to alarm them? Making the prisoner stand up for an hour? Two? Five?

    Also, if kidnappers had your daughter and was going to kill her in 24 hours, and you had captured one of the kidnappers who knew your daughter's location, what conduct is now acceptable to you?

    It's all a sliding scale from coddling to abuse. I'm not condoning or condeming, but just pointing out that the lines are difficult to draw, change under different circumstances, and sometimes leads to abuse.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  5. #345  
    Let me begin this by making a few historical statements about myself that colors my feelings on this issue:

    After graduating from college (and participating in the ROTC program) I volunteered to go on active duty and served for 5 years. One of the reasons for this was my dad who fought in Korea (and to this day refused to speak about it as so many ohters have posted) and saw it as a way to repay him and all the others that went out to defend our country. Corny, I know, but it was how I felt. I do not regret one day I spent in service to this country.

    That being said, it really matters not one bit today as to my qualifications to do anything. Regardless of how each candidate paints his service, it really has little bearing on their ability to lead this country. Although I prefer a veteran. IMHO, the SBVFT really need to let this be. We should really honor all those that served.

    My degree was from a liberal arts college (no flames, please) and I wouldn't give this up either. But it leads us to what has become a villified word: liberal.

    So I looked it up on dictionary.com. In light of THIS discussion the definition is:

    *Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    *Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    *Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

    Looking at the first two definitions, why have so many come to the conclusion that being a liberal is a bad thing? I definitely think that someone that is "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry," or "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." would be someone we would all aspire to become.

    Looking at this from a more practical nature, one would have to compare parts of history in this mindset and answer the question, "Who is the liberal?"

    Was Jesus the liberal or the were those who felt threatened by his ideas?
    Were our Founding Fathers the liberals or was the British King?
    Was Abraham Lincoln the liberal, or the southern states fostering slavery?
    Was FDR the liberal, or were Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo?
    Was that kid, standing in front of a tank in Red Square, a liberal or were the leaders that sent the tanks?

    If you answered that you felt more closely aligned with the former rather than the latter, then you just might be a liberal (sorry, Jeff Foxworthy).

    Trust is an important issue as well. I am one of those people that politicians hate ... I vote in every election. Even those ones where only about 2% of the voters vote. And I am active. And I never vote on straight party lines ... I vote for the person I feel is best qualified for the job. This is a huge problem in Florida. Trust (and faith in the system) has been broken and this does reverberate throughout the country. Whether you want to admit or not, most of this problem would have gone by the wayside if the courts were kept out of this. As a political junkie that is absolutely a states rights advocate, I have a real problem with going to the federal bench to have this issue resolved.

    Trust also revolves around those terror threat warnings. I really feel that they are given out so often that we (US public) are becoming the villagers and the boy (the government) is just trying to cry too often. Reflect how we give an alert and compare it to how the Brits do it in N. Ireland. We could learn a few things from them.

    I personally have a problem with having gone to war in Iraq (I lost good friends in both Ethiopia and Beirut) without some blessing from the UN. Not because we needed it, but because now we are going back to the UN and asking for help. Sort of like "With our tail between our legs." Why is it OK to get help after the fact. It really makes us look bad ... and weak. Soon, we will have lost 1,000 young men and women from the US (and more from around the world) to install democracy in Iraq. I thought we weren't in the nation-building business (GWB was quite adamant about this in his 2000 campaign). What if the Iraqis choose a theocracy that is anti-American, along the lines of Iran? Will this war be worth it then? Will we have to go back in? Heck if the President would just stand up and say he screwed up on the intel, it really wasn't about wmd, but just getting rid of Saddam, his (and our country's) stock would go through the roof. Which leads me to another point.

    What the heck happened to "Character Counts" from 2000? If someone outed Valerie Pflame as a CIA agent from the White House, then the Pres should make, yes, make them come forward. If it's Rove, then it's him; if it's some young turk, well, then it's him. But, for heaven's sake stand up and make it happen. He can always pardon them before he leaves office.

    A man of character doesn't say to his opponent to come clean on why he voted a certain way, and then make fun of him and blast him for it once he does. He calmly lets it go, with everyone knowing he was right in the first place.

    A man of character says, the ads (SBVFT) are wrong, I do not condone them, I feel they are insulting and should not be aired. And, btw, I am asking my opponent to do the same thing.

    A man of character stands up and says, it is wrong to do what you did to John McCain. It is wrong what you did to Max Cleland (who gave 3 limbs in service to his country, btw) and I won't stand for it as the head of this party. And I won't tolerate it during this campaign. Each and every veteran should be appalled by what the Republican party did to these men that served, whether or not they agreed with his politics. If they did that to them, what will they do to us?

    The Democrats aren't blameless either. The candidate that wakes up, and takes this stand, will have a bounce in the polls, IMHO.

    I really have become less tolerant of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. And don't get me wrong, Michael Moore as well. He's the left's version of Rush. But if you listen to them, they can't make a comment about someone that opposes them without making a derogatory remark as well. They have to add in something like "moron," or "*****," or make fun of their name or nationality. It was absolutely disgraceful when people started calling Barak Obama, Barak Osama. What are we stooping to here?

    If we don't stand up and put a halt to it, no one else will.

    Go out and vote in November. Vote your conscience, but vote. And then pressure Congress and whoever is President to end the soft money ads, for everyone, through effective campaign finance reform.

    What?! Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL, NO! It ain't over now! For when the goin' gets tough,..............the tough get going! Who's with me!? LET'S GO! C'MON! OOOOOOOOOOOO!
    Last edited by tjd414; 08/25/2004 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Typos ...
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Also, if kidnappers had your daughter and was going to kill her in 24 hours, and you had captured one of the kidnappers who knew your daughter's location, what conduct is now acceptable to you?

    1. Well of course...you wouldn't give them their cookies and milk.

    2. There is no cattle prod big enough.

    3. Give your daughter hell for getting captured.

    And the correct answer is.....
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Let me begin this by making a few historical statements about myself that colors my feelings on this issue....
    Great post, thank you for taking the time! The whole "liberal" stuff is really interesting. I do consider myself liberal (according to your definitions) - some of you may have guessed. In the US "liberal" seems to be more or less synonymous to "left" or "democrat" (vs. republican) (?).

    The funny thing is in Switzerland (where I come from), and also other countries, "liberals" are considered to be on the right, because they favour an economy that is free (liberal) from government interventions, so more what people in the US would associate with conservatives/republicans, as far as I understand.

    So kind of confusing. I wonder what the anti-liberals here mean when they use liberal as swear word.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #348  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    So it sounds like they were looking for legal advice and he gave it.

    The DNC lawyer didnt have any issues as he is doing the same thing.

    So whats the big deal?
    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0825_1503.html

    Lawyer Advising Vets Quits Bush Campaign
    Lawyer Advising President Bush and Veterans Group Running Anti-John Kerry Ads Quits Campaign

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON Aug. 25, 2004 — One of President Bush's top lawyers resigned from his campaign Wednesday, a day after disclosing that he had given legal advice to a veterans group airing TV ads against Democrat John Kerry. The guidance included checking ad scripts, the group said.
    Benjamin Ginsberg, who also represented Bush in the 2000 Florida recount that made the Republican president, told Bush in a letter that he felt his legal work for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had become a distraction for the re-election campaign.

    "I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote.

    The Kerry campaign portrayed Ginsberg's departure as another sign of ties between the Bush campaign and the veterans group, which has been airing ads accusing Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.

    "The sudden resignation of Bush's top lawyer doesn't end the extensive web of connections between George Bush and the group trying to smear John Kerry's military record," said Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. "In fact, it only confirms the extent of those connections."

    The Bush campaign and the veterans group have denied any coordination.

    A Bush campaign official said the campaign knew Ginsberg had other clients but didn't know he was advising the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth until reporters began asking about it Tuesday. The campaign didn't ask for Ginsberg's resignation, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Mark Russell, a spokesman for the veterans group, said it would continue to get legal advice from Ginsberg, whose work had included approving ad scripts.

    "He offers legal counsel to make sure everything we do is in compliance," Russell said. "We have an ongoing relationship with Ben. We're going to maintain that and we're going to leave it at that. There's an attorney-client privilege there that we're going to maintain."

    The Progress for America Voter Fund, a pro-Bush group, said Wednesday that Ginsberg was also providing it with legal advice and that it planned to continue the relationship.

    Having an attorney in common does not automatically make the Bush campaign and the veterans group coordinated in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, nor does Ginsberg's approval of the swift boat veterans' ad scripts.

    Whether the two are coordinated would depend on other factors, such as what Ginsberg did with the information he obtained about the ads, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said.

    Ginsberg said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that he didn't advise the veterans group on strategy, nor did he tell the Bush campaign or the group what he discussed with the other.

    In his letter to Bush, Ginsberg accused the media of a "stunning double standard" regarding the activities of groups supporting and opposing Kerry.

    Law firms on the Democratic side are also representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org.

    DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera said that "isn't even comparable" to Ginsberg's relationship with the Bush campaign and veterans group.

    "Of course a lawyer can have multiple clients," Cabrera said. "The issue here is one of deception. The Bush campaign repeatedly denied anyone on staff, including its legal counsel, had any ties to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

    Kerry is the subject of complaints by the Bush campaign and the GOP accusing his campaign of illegally coordinating anti-Bush ads with soft-money groups on the Democratic side, allegations Kerry and the groups deny.

    Neither campaign has produced proof of coordination on the part of its rival.

    Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot released a statement calling Ginsberg a "friend, public servant and statesman." He said of the lawyer, "For the past five years, he provided the president with first-rate campaign legal advice."

    In Texas, meanwhile, former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland was rebuffed when he tried to deliver a letter protesting the attack ad at Bush's ranch.

    The former Georgia senator, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, was carrying a letter from several Senate Democrats who wrote Bush that "you owe a special duty" to condemn the attacks on Kerry's military service.

    Cleland said he wanted to hand the letter "to a responsible officer here on the gate," but neither a Secret Service officer nor a state trooper would take it. A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said he would accept the letter and offered Cleland one of his own supporting Bush. Cleland left and said he would mail the letter.

  9. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #349  
    just for the sake of ending all these critical views on the current administration, it almost makes me want to just put kerry in there to see if all the problems we currently have do indeed get solved.
    i want to see what he is capable of. all this critique and bush-attack aside, i just want to see if the issues being brought up here by bush opposition actually get addressed, and if kerry and a democrat administration are capable of the follow through that they insist bush is so impossibly bereft of. seriously. the feeling is almost like - enough! if these problems are solved - all hail kerry. but if we change administrations and find yet again.... airport security is a joke, or our foreign policy is still a mess, or if our economy continues to suffer, outsourcing is no better, promises go unfulfilled, and in addition - the infamous tax increases we know will probably happen, etc, etc. then i will be one ticked off republican.

    i hope we hold bush's replacement to the standards expected here, vs spinning excuses for any similar lack of ability to get it done. we will see
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/25/2004 at 11:51 PM.
  10. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #350  
    for all the criticism going on here, i want to see some serious perfectionist behavior out of this prodigal son, john kerry, ya know fellas?
    we're pretty rough and tough on old george w here, arent we? so i want to see if your kerry can live up to the standards these anti-bush people are putting forth here. there wont be much slack given to kerry after such critical attacks on bush.
    if he can do it - great! and i will back the man. but if he fails to get things done just as you are claiming bush is allegedly so glaringly guilty of, than this whole debate will amount to one giant sack of garbage, everybody. all spinning aside - no kidding. for as hard as folks are here on bush, kerry better damn well be THE MAN.
    Last edited by vw2002; 08/25/2004 at 11:44 PM.
  11. #351  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    just for the sake of ending all these critical views on the current administration, it almost makes me want to just put kerry in there to see if all the problems we currently have get solved.
    i want to see what he is capable of. all this critique and bush-attack aside, i just want to see if the issues being brought up here by bush opposition actually get addressed, and if kerry and a democrat adminsitration is capable of the follow through that they insist bush is so impossibly bereft of. seriously. the feeling is almost like - enough! if these problems are solved - all hail kerry. but if we change administrations and find yet again.... airport security is a joke, or our foreign policy is still a mess, or if our economy continues to suffer, outsourcing is no better, promises go unfulfilled, etc, etc. then i will be one ticked off republican.
    i hope we hold bush's replacement to the standards expected here, vs spinning excuses for any similar lack of abilty to get it done. we will see
    If Kerry wins and is ineffective, the left will just say that it's Bush's fault for screwing things up too bad for Kerry to fix em. Happens almost every party change. And both sides do it.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #352  
    youre on the money, woof. that is exactly what's going to happen in my view. though bush will be gone, any kerry failure will by definition be blamed on bush.
    i hope that will not be the excuse we see here if or when topics of kerry's inadequacies come up here, bc if that happens, my stomach is gonna start doing the twist and shout.
    you want bush out? no problem. as long as you replace him with a winner who will back up those expectations you have of bush right now. if he doesnt do that, well you can imagine how that will look.
  13. #353  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    for all the criticism going on here, i want to see some serious perfectionist behavior out of this prodigal son, john kerry, ya know fellas?
    we're pretty rough and tough on old george w here, arent we? so i want to see if your kerry can live up to the standards these anti-bush people are putting forth here. there wont be much slack given to kerry after such critical attacks on bush.
    if he can do it - great! and i will back the man. but if he fails to get things done just as you are claiming bush is allegedly so glaringly guilty of, than this whole debate will amount to one giant sack of garbage, everybody. all spinning aside - no kidding. for as hard as folks are here on bush, kerry better damn well be THE MAN.
    I for one will be just as hard on Kerry as on Bush...just like I was on Gore last election...
    But from what I see now Kerry is the lesser evil, and think he is far from perfect... as a matter of fact I think it is impossible in the current american political climate to get the perfect candidate, too much games involved...
    Also a good candidate is chanceless if he isnt a milionaire of has milionair friends backing him up...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I for one will be just as hard on Kerry as on Bush...just like I was on Gore last election...
    But from what I see now Kerry is the lesser evil, and think he is far from perfect... as a matter of fact I think it is impossible in the current american political climate to get the perfect candidate, too much games involved...
    Also a good candidate is chanceless if he isnt a milionaire of has milionair friends backing him up...

    Well crap if all you need is money. I think I'll get into politics.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #355  
    well, you asked for bush to actively put an end to the smear ads?

    here you go: " bush is to work with john mcCain to pursue court action against the ads and activities of outside groups smearing john kerry's vietnam record."

    people have asked for him to take the stand - bush is taking the stand - WITH the very man who was the target of similar smear ads himself - senator mcCain. so in my view, he's taking a responsible position towards the unfortunate ads that have been propogated lately.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  16. #356  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    .... so in my view, he's taking a responsible position towards the unfortunate ads that have been propogated lately.
    Well, it's about time... It's been two weeks or more!
    This just proves that Bush's advisors think that he is running a loosing battle. This story just won't go away and it's hurting Bush more than it's hurting Kerry the longer it goes on.
    Browse over to my new forum. http://www.palmfanatic.com

    "The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat. " - Albert Einstein

    Palm IIIxe - Kyocera 7135 - Treo 600 - Treo 650 -> Palm Vx - Tungsten T3 - Treo 700p
  17. #357  
    Came across this article. I'll post the link and not the whole article in the interest of bandwidth.

    http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...iani082604.htm
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #358  
    one thing doesn't make sense. if bush was behind these ad campaigns, why would he now turn around and take court action against the people whom he ordered to behave this way? that doesn't make sense at all.
  19. #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    but I think this Swift Boat-Issue has gotten too far, in my opinion.
    What has gone to far? That Kerry has filed an FEC complaint against a political ad? That Kerry has threatened TV and radio stations with lawsuits if they don't refuse to run the ad?

    It is amazing Kerry is so worked up about a political commercial. He is running for President! Some people have different viewpoints and want to criticize him! Last I saw, this was still a (semi) free country where we can criticize a presidential candidate without the fear of being sued and attacked.

    I don't see Bush threatening to shut down Moveon.org or Michael Moore's movies.

    Sheesh!
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  20. #360  
    if the ad campaigners can be tied directly to bush, that's one thing. but people can speak their mind about kerry too if they want.
    not to disrespect anyone's war record, anyone who serves in vietnam is a hero. end of story.
    but to question certain accuracies of "told" events is perfectly fair game. if things didn't happen the way they were said to happen and someone is basing a large part of his campaign on these events - you better expect people to raise questions about them.
    if they 're not true, what is the motivation behind the change in story? and would you want a person who fabricates historical events such as these in office when we are indeed in another war? that's the concern!
    I applaud kerry for going to vietnam - voluntarily, no less. there's no greater courage you can show your country. and we have no right to try to smear the honor that is owed to him.
    however, when a campaign is centered on the events that took place over there which may not be the true story - serious red flags shoot up into the air!
    no one has the right to smear vets, but we do have the right to make sure the stories we are being told by our potential future leaders are not doctored and altered for personal political interests.

Posting Permissions