Article

2004-06-27 Home Front: WoT

CIA Suspends "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 10:17:31 AM|| || Front Page|| [11142 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is a serious mistake, and will lead to unnecessary American deaths. If another major terror attack occurs, and it is found that some of the planners involved were in American custody, I will blame GWB and "human rights organizations"* for making it possible. The unfortunate thing is that butt-covering and political correctness has taken the place of effective policy.

* These organizations do not apparently view the right not to be killed by terrorists to be a basic human right.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 10:49:00 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 10:49:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 ZF, I won't blame Bush--I will blame the Left and the Dimocrats who beat this story to death and made it a "story" as a sheer political tool resulting in the further tying of our peoples' hands.
Don't you blame Bush either--that's what they want.

You gonna vote for sKerry, a U.S. Senator who helped promulgate the Ho Chi Minh-founded government of Vietnam which still to this day violates the human rights of its citizens?
The Left has no problem with their governments (Stalin's Russia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Red China) that violate their peoples' rights on a daily basis, yet let members of the American military put ladies' underwear on a POW's head to get him to talk and we're "inhuman."

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 10:57:26 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 10:57:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The CIA may have suspended THIER stress interrogations,but not those of countries we have sent terrorist prisoners for interrorgation.And there are many.

Posted by rich woods 2004-06-27 11:05:28 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:05:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#4
If another major terror attack occurs ... I will blame GWB .... for making it possible.

Now GWB is objectively on the side of the terrorists too?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 11:14:57 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:14:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#5
GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 11:16:20 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:16:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Here's a must read from the WSJ on how the memos released by the White House show that the Abu Ghraib abuse was not "systemic" or ordered from above by Bush or the Pentagon but was the personal misconduct of a few bad apples like Karpinsky:
Tortured Arguments

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 11:20:40 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 11:20:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.

Last I heard Gen. Karpinski was so in the dark about what was going on in her command, it is impossible to believe her commanders knew what was going on.

And we are talking about the CIA's intention to put more Americans in danger, not some Byzantine plot to humiliate murdering thugs.

I guess we now know which side in the War on Terrorism the DoJ is now on.

My observation about the story at hand is: why did the CIA find it necessary to broadbcast to the world its intention to help the USA lose the war on terrorism.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 11:31:23 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 11:31:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Jen: Don't you blame Bush either--that's what they want.

I will blame GWB, but vote for him anyway, since Kerry the appeaser is going to be much worse. But in terms of stature, where I thought GWB could have reached Reagan's level, it is becoming apparent that I may have been wrong.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 11:51:57 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 11:51:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#9
CIA's intention to put more Americans in danger ... we now know which side in the War on Terrorism the DoJ [Department of Justice] is now on ... the CIA ... broadbcast to the world its intention to help the USA lose the war on terrorism.

So far today (it's 11:49 a.m.) I've seen accusations that the CIA, Department of Justice, George W. Bush, the BBC and Walter E. Williams are objectively on the side of the terrorists.

We all should be grateful that a few vigilant Rantburgers are able to expose all these secret traitors in the War Against Terrorism.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 11:53:09 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:53:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Mike Sylwester: GWB was president when Gen Karpinski was assigned to command Abu Ghraib. It's all starting to add up.

Actually, what's starting to add up are Mike Sylwester's pro-jihadi sentiments, which may be why he spends so much time reading Jihad Unspun.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 11:53:46 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 11:53:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#11
#9: I forgot to include The Washington Post in my list.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 11:55:54 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:55:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Mike Sylwester: So far today (it's 11:49 a.m.) I've seen accusations that the CIA, Department of Justice, George W. Bush, the BBC and Walter E. Williams are objectively on the side of the terrorists. We all should be grateful that a few vigilant Rantburgers are able to expose all these secret traitors in the War Against Terrorism.

Actually, the only parties who've been exposed as such are Mike Sylwester and the BBC. But MS should feel free to extrapolate all he wants to - when Jihad Unspun and WaPo form essential parts of his daily reading, it's pretty clear that he is interested in enemy propaganda more than the truth.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 11:57:44 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 11:57:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#13
Mike Sylwester's pro-jihadi sentiments

#9: I forgot to include Mike Sylwester in the list!
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 11:58:03 AM|| 2004-06-27 11:58:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike Sylwester: I forgot to include The Washington Post in my list.

Understandable omission, given Mike Sylwester's worship of WaPo as the ultimate source of unvarnished truth.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 11:59:19 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 11:59:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#15
Jihad Unspun and WaPo form essential parts of his daily reading

My major reading every day is Rantburg. Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:00:02 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:00:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I don't appreciate RBers being denigrated and summarily dismissed in a sneering, sarcastic tone for being "vigilant" warriors.
I think of myself as such and I'm proud to do so.
I dare say it's why Fred maintains this site.
The internet war of memes, ideas, hearts and minds is a valid front in this war.
In addition, given the pro-Islamofacist, Leftist agenda of the Main Stream Media, sites like RB, as well as its non-idiotarian posters, are vital sources of information for our fellow Americans (and friends and allies) they won't get anywhere else.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:01:20 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:01:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mike Sylwester: My major reading every day is Rantburg.

That can't possibly be, given all those long Jihad Unspun and WaPo articles that MS posts unedited.

Mike Sylwester: Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!

Fred has a high tolerance threshold for jihadi-lovers. I wouldn't.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 12:03:16 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 12:03:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#18
Don't apologize, Jen. Throughout history, many societies have been saved by the vigilance of a few true patriots who are quick to identify and accuse the secret traitors and their treasonous organizations.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:06:14 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:06:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Mike Sylwester: Don't you think it's suspicious, Zhang Fei, that Fred Pruitt allows me to post these articles? Maybe he's objectively on the side of the terrorists too!

Note also that perhaps 90% of the articles in WaPo and the BBC provide favorable (but false) coverage of enemy progress or agitate in favor of initiatives that aid the enemy, whereas 90% of articles on Rantburg (excluding Mike Sylwester's) provide the converse information and opinions. Only to someone as obtusely pro-jihadi as MS could confuse Rantburg and the pro-jihadi media.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 12:07:09 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 12:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#20
Fred has a high tolerance threshold for jihadi-lovers.

Maybe he's objectively on the side of jihadi lovers.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:07:23 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:07:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Don't I know it, Mike.
But how many were trashed by the Left, like Whittaker Chambers?
And as my role model Ann Coulter is every day, right now?

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:08:29 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:08:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Mike Sylwester: Maybe he's objectively on the side of jihadi lovers.

Actually, maybe MS should be banned from Rantburg.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 12:09:55 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 12:09:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#23
Actually, maybe MS should be banned from Rantburg.

If I'm not, then that might indicate that Fred Pruitt is objectively on the side of the terrorists after all.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:13:37 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:13:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "Maybe he's objectively on the side of jihadi lovers."
Are you trying to be funny?
You must have him mixed up with Atrios.

"...a few true patriots "
Actually, there are more than a few of us.
It's just that some of the more vocal and articulate ones come here like ZF, Dotcom, B-a-r, Frank G., Long Hair Republican, Deacon Blues, ex-lib, Old Spook and Cyber Sarge.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:15:27 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Damn straight!

oh, yeah and Al-Aska Paul lol

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-27 12:18:04 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:18:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#26
Re #21 (Jen): Whittaker Chambers identified specific people who committed concrete acts of Soviet espionage. You accuse the BBC of "carrying water" for terrorists.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:19:13 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:19:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Mikey - they're a NEWS organization that has willingly distorted and misled about the Arab world, the war on Terror, Bush and Blair' war on Iraq, etc, etc. - that's not a innocent mistake, that's abuse of their position that provides aid to the enemy. I call that an act of treachery by fucking lefty pacifists who'd do anything to further their antiwestern, antiamerikkan agenda. Slap a burka on and join em

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-27 12:23:24 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:23:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 "Actually, maybe MS should be banned from Rantburg"

I don't agree, I would aplaude it however if you guys decide to continue this little flamwar of yours in a private Email exchange, this thread is neither infromative or amusing to read.

Posted by Cardinal Fang (Evert V. in NL) 2004-06-27 12:23:44 PM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-06-27 12:23:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Yes, Mike.
Did you just wake up this morning?
The BBC started the whole sneer quotes thing around the word "terrorists."
Yes, the BBC is on the side of the terrorists.
Could we make our position any clearer?

And Frank, yep. Forgot Paul and Atomic Conspiracy and Jarhead and Howard UK and Bulldog and.... LOL!

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:24:42 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:24:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#30
#19 (Zhang Fei): 90% of the articles in WaPo and the BBC provide favorable (but false) coverage of enemy progress or agitate in favor of initiatives that aid the enemy

Zhang Fei, since you are such an expert on the content of The Washington Post and BBC, how much time do you spend immersing yourself in their propaganda, which is objectively on the side of the terrorists? Aren't you afraid that you yourself will be misled and begin to objectively support the terrorists?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 12:25:44 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:25:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Sorry, Evert. (Forgot to put you in the Roll Call, too!)
I don't know what got into MS.
The Left, pro-Islamofascism bias of the Main Stream Media has been known and taken for granted here at RB almost since the war started.
Yet he chooses to make it issue on this thread today--who knows why?

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:28:12 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:28:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 ok Evert.....I'm sorry :-(

damn, the adults showed up

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-27 12:29:40 PM|| 2004-06-27 12:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Sorry, Evert. (Forgot to put you in the Roll Call, too!) I don't know what got into MS. The Left, pro-Islamofascism bias of the Main Stream Media has been known and taken for granted here at RB almost since the war started. Yet he chooses to make it issue on this thread today--who knows why?

Jen, we are going to see a lot more of this sort of behavior in the coming months. A lot of folks on this forum formerly counted on as allies are turning on us because they cannot stomach supporting the war any more. This is going to happen more and more in the blogosphere and it is happening here.

And it is their God-given right to cross the lines: I just hope MS is comfortable with the character of folks he is about to ally with.

And I don't know what f*ck is wrong with him to begin with. I post that the CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it. Why is this a positive development in the WoT? What element of this story could possibly make me think it can be used to win a War against Civilization Islam has declared on the west?

Is there something I missed. Something which has been codified while I wasn't looking that only throw pillows and comfy chairs can be used against murdering thugs?

Someone help me out here...

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 12:45:46 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 12:45:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 badanov, too right.
I unjustifiably left you, off too, for which I apologize as you do yeoman's work over here.

I fear you are right about the Left--maybe it's because we're ultimately winning both the real war at the front and the Culture War here at home, but whatever the reason, the Left is having to face the fact that their propanganda war is failing miserably and they can no longer use sly attacks of disinformation to keep people from supporting President Bush and the war and from preventing them from siding with what is right, true and just and that is our President, our country and this righteous war on Evil.
Once again, battle is joined and people must choose sides, if they haven't already done so, in which case it becomes time to remove the pretender's mask.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 12:54:11 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 12:54:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 sigh
my planet right or wrong
my country right or wrong
my region right or wrong
my state right or wrong

sounds about right
there is no room for compromise or even argumentation
what's right is right!

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-27 1:11:53 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:11:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#36
A lot of folks on this forum formerly counted on as allies are turning on us because they cannot stomach supporting the war any more.

Another interpretation is that some people are falsely accusing others of supporting terrorism.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 1:13:14 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:13:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Agree, Badanov, more and more people can't stomach the war, and this war is still at the level of what the military calls low intesity conflict. Imagine what it would be like if we ever get into a real war. With the massive propaganda campaign by the left, I'm not sure the US can fight wars anymore.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 1:14:22 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:14:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Another interpretation is that some people are falsely accusing others of supporting terrorism. .

Fer chrstsakes!

Will you at least admit that micro-managing matters such as how a prisoner is interrogated will not help us in the War on Terrorism?

Do you have the personal intellectual honesty to at least concede that much?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 1:19:46 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 1:19:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#39
Fer chrstsakes! I'll say it again: Some people are falsely accusing others of supporting terrorism.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 1:21:54 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:21:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Mike, let the chips fall where they may.
The WaPo almost singlehandedly drove the Abu Ghraib "story" and what has resulted?
It took even more tools away from our interrogators so that they are almost forced to mollycoddle enemy combatant detainees to get intell.
Who does this help?
Particularly given the fact that the mild form of abuses wasn't really hurting anyone and was only being done by a few out-of-control soldiers...It helps the Enemy.
The Post also implied that Bush and Rummy were complicit in the abuse by their orders.
Who does that help by eroding confidence at home in the Commander in Chief and our war effort?
The Enemy.
The Culture War being waged at home (and by this I include Britain, Australia, and every other democracy on this planet, really) between the Left and the Right is every bit as much of a war as the military one.
The BBC and the WaPO, among others, have thrown in with the Left, which is also the side of Islamofacism.
While they have different end goals in mind, they must feel that joining common goals will get them closer to their victory which is Socialist government on the part of Western Leftists and shari'a government on the part of the Islamofascists.
And the Left (as well as the right) has its adherents.
Why be so afraid to fly your colors in Year 3 of the war, even if it is the green flag of IslamoNazism?

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 1:24:49 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 1:24:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#41
Will you at least admit that micro-managing matters such as how a prisoner is interrogated will not help us in the War on Terrorism?

Who is micro-managing interrogations? The CIA? That's what the article is about. The CIA decided to suspend some methods.

You are the one who is declaring how the CIA and the Department of Justice should and should not conduct its interrogations. You are the one who declares that the "CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it."

Why may you express an opinion about this issue, but others may not?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 1:26:49 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:26:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#42
Jen, you're a good debater. You would be even better, though, if you would moderate your accusations about other people's motives.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 1:31:47 PM|| 2004-06-27 1:31:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Because we're right and you're wrong.
The Left is trying to derail the war--just like they did in Vietnam and they used those same tactics to bring down Nixon--because with every day that passes, America gets stronger in every way and Americans (and now people around the world) come to the conscious realization that they love Liberty and Freedom and they love America and everything it stands for and they're sick to
death of the failed promises and misery of the Liberal (Left) agenda.

You posted this and the WaPo has this as a feature because this is one small victory for the Left and they helped make it possible.
If they can get a Useful Idiot to post it on a VRWC website like RB, even better.
I personally wanted my government's interrogators left alone to deal with enemy detainees as they saw fit to get information so that me and my fellow Americans WOULDN'T GET MURDERED.
But maybe that's just me...

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 1:33:30 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 1:33:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Who is micro-managing interrogations? The CIA? That's what the article is about. The CIA decided to suspend some methods. You are the one who is declaring how the CIA and the Department of Justice should and should not conduct its interrogations. You are the one who declares that the "CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it." Why may you express an opinion about this issue, but others may not? .

Mike, I am not going to get into a super-threaded pissing match with you like I did last Sunday.

I will let you declare victory and let you continue whistling passed this graveyard. Don't ask me to endorse a kinder, gentler means of dealing with suicidal thugs.

I will leave you with this thought before I have to go back into the shop: I have absolutely no influence over matters of intelligence. I am in fact just a dumb machinist. I am not micro-managing anything.

But I believe in tying the hands of our intel agents worldwide does in fact endangers more Americans, and it makes prisoners more resistant to extracting intel from. That cannot be a good thing, unless you no longer support the War on Terrorism, as I believe you have reached that point.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 1:41:24 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 1:41:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 badanov: Don't ask me to endorse a kinder, gentler means of dealing with suicidal thugs.

It's not suicidal thugs that bother me - it's mass murdering thugs. 9/11 occurred because we couldn't even get into Zaccarias Moussaoui's laptop, let alone torture him for information. I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans in exchange for the well-being of captured terrorists. If GWB agreed to this, it's on his head. (MS clearly has a simplistic good-and-evil view of the world, where he goes to sulk in the corner if not everything goes his way. Not me. I'll support GWB in spite of my disagreements with specific policies because the alternative, Kerry, is much more dangerous).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 2:01:26 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 2:01:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#46
#45 (Zhang Fei): MS clearly has a simplistic good-and-evil view of the world,

I think that the issue of prisoner treatment is complex, with several conflicting considerations. One consideration is that prisoners are a potential source of tactical intelligence. Among other considerations are that we want our tactical intelligence to be reliable, that we want to encourage our opponents to surrender, that we want to convert our opponents to our side, that we want our opponents to treat captured Americans properly, that we want to develop international support for our side, and that we want our policies to be clear to the soldiers who implement them.

We try to weigh these considerations and develop a well-balanced policy. Public discussion of these issues is not treasonous. Posting an informative article about the subject is not pro-jihadi. Suggesting that various considerations be weighed together is not being "objectively on the side of the terrorists."
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 2:15:25 PM|| 2004-06-27 2:15:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 MS: Among other considerations are that we want our tactical intelligence to be reliable, that we want to encourage our opponents to surrender, that we want to convert our opponents to our side, that we want our opponents to treat captured Americans properly, that we want to develop international support for our side, and that we want our policies to be clear to the soldiers who implement them.

Word salad. My bottom line isn't any of these considerations - it's what will keep Americans from getting slaughtered in the thousands by these thugs. And micro-management of interrogation methods because of political correctness is not the way to go. If a terrorist has to be hacked to pieces to get life-saving information, I'm all for it.

MS: Public discussion of these issues is not treasonous.

Discussion isn't treasonous. Siding with the enemy is.

MS: Posting an informative article about the subject is not pro-jihadi. Suggesting that various considerations be weighed together is not being "objectively on the side of the terrorists."

We get enough enemy propaganda in the news pages of the major media (through their Baathist and Arab handlers). Spare me the platitudes about all viewpoints being equally valid.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 2:41:15 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 2:41:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 I think that the issue of prisoner treatment is complex
Prisoner treatment should no be at all complex. Its simple - tell us what you know and you'll be executed without suffering. Hold out, and we'll throw you in a room with some family members of a 9/11 murder victim for an hour first, force feed you pork and garrot you slowly.
Say what you will, but I know enough to understand there is an entire culture dedicated to my families death - that's enough.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-06-27 2:53:04 PM|| 2004-06-27 2:53:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Badanov: I will leave you with this thought before I have to go back into the shop: I have absolutely no influence over matters of intelligence. I am in fact just a dumb machinist. I am not micro-managing anything.

You're not micro-managing anything. You're just saying, as I am, that torture should remain a weapon in the toolkit of CIA interrogators. We're not saying that CIA personnel must torture prisoners. We're saying that they should have the authority to torture prisoners. It's people like MS who want to micro-manage the CIA, by taking away methods they had previously been allowed to use.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 3:06:16 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 3:06:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 we can bury the next round of terror victims on Mike's Moral High Groundâ¢

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-27 3:10:31 PM|| 2004-06-27 3:10:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Ahem, cough cough
Outraged. Outraged, I am! An "honorable RB roll call" that leaves off my three personal faves:
1) Mucky
2) TGA (wherever he is now), and
3) our very own intern in "Neocon/Zionist World Headquarters" the inimitable Dan Darling ("yeoman's work," indeed)
(cloaking deviced reenabled)

Posted by Another Dan 2004-06-27 3:29:51 PM|| 2004-06-27 3:29:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 You're right, of course, AD...and yourself, too.
And JFM, Barbara Skolaut, Verlaine, and...?

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 3:31:51 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 3:31:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 I've got a list of 200 RBers who are known doubters and compromisers! They are soft on the red, white and blue! They buy commie textiles! They watch Marx brothers movies and they sometimes forget the party line!

Posted by joe and roy 2004-06-27 3:43:02 PM|| 2004-06-27 3:43:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 joe and roy: I've got a list of 200 RBers who are known doubters and compromisers! They are soft on the red, white and blue! They buy commie textiles! They watch Marx brothers movies and they sometimes forget the party line!

What party line? The (Republican) party line is that illegal immigration is a good thing. Most Rantburgers oppose this. The (Republican) party line is that torture is a bad thing. Most Rantburgers disagree. The (Republican) party line is that Islam is religion of peace. Most Rantburgers disagree. The (Republican) party line is that China is a constructive force in the North Korea situation. Most Rantburgers disagree.

The Democrats have one party line - whatever the problem is, America is to blame. The Dems believe that whatever others (Dems don't believe in enemies) have done, Americans have done far worse. Dems believe that America needs to be punished, and that 9/11 was just a small downpayment on a well-deserved round of punishments.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 3:49:46 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 3:49:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Thank you for your insight Mr. Fei!
The party linie will be along between 4 and 5 eastern. Stay tuned.

Posted by joe and roy 2004-06-27 3:51:40 PM|| 2004-06-27 3:51:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Who are "joe and roy?" One of America's new "married" gay couples?
You're certainly good Lefties to make fun of Conservative principles and trivializing them ("They buy Commie textiles.") on this thread which is about saving American lives.
Now that you've "come out," it's time to go back in.
One thing most GOPers and RBers are together on is the Defense of Marriage Act.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 3:57:33 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 3:57:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 I'd be a repubilcan, if they were even remotely right wing anymore.
I'd have to agee with ZF, and add that we have nukes, and if the US determines you have sided with the terrorists you cease to exist - that is the only statement we need to make on the matter.
That's right wing.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-06-27 4:14:18 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:14:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Jersey Mike - Aha! A "closet" Bull Mooser, eh? I knew it! Lol! *offers secret handshake*

Posted by .com 2004-06-27 4:22:03 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:22:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#59
Who are "joe and roy?" One of America's new "married" gay couples?

Probably a reference to Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohen.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 4:28:24 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 .com: Jersey Mike - Aha! A "closet" Bull Mooser, eh? I knew it! Lol! *offers secret handshake*

If only we had a Teddy Roosevelt in the ring. The Navy today is far more powerful than Roosevelt's Great White Fleet. If only we had someone with the charisma and will to use it effectively.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 4:33:42 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 4:33:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Very astute .com - you pegged me!

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-06-27 4:37:38 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:37:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 MS: Probably a reference to Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohen.

It's pretty funny that liberals do a fair bit of gay-bashing with respect to Roy Cohn, who spared no prisoners in his pursuit of the enemy within - language that they would consider prejudiced if applied to any other gay person.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-27 4:37:41 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-27 4:37:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Jersey Mike - Lol! Cool runnings, bro!

ZF - I'm afraid that no matter WHO is sitting in the big chair right now is bound hand and foot by the current political idiocy combined with everything that has transpired since the Khobar bombing. If you swapped Teddy with George, you'd prolly only see more crocodile smiles vs. PR smiles as November draws nearer. Nothing new, such as the Congressional approval for action in Iraq, would be forthcoming for any other theaters or threats, such as Iran, regardless of the evidence or danger.

Even given the incredible Iranian cassis belli I believe Congress would do nothing more than form 50 "commissions" (read: multi-ring circuses) all scheduled for open public sessions - for lots of TV face time, with no intention of bringing any crisis to a vote. I enjoyed AC's plan to force them to take responsibility, yesterday, He's got some great ideas! Sigh. We are, regards any new venture, at least as stymied by politics are we are by the "shortage" of boots. This environment sucks like an F5, IMHO.

Posted by .com 2004-06-27 4:52:57 PM|| 2004-06-27 4:52:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 damn, I missed by this much!
Party shrike was at 3.57 eastern loving time.

Posted by Joe and Roy 2004-06-27 6:14:43 PM|| 2004-06-27 6:14:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Ah yes! The Defense of Marriage Act!
Let's built up our Morale Armies and face the
foe faggot with a thousand nuptuals hetro!

Let's draft for Sex!
10,000 blonde babes marry up on 12,300 Greeks!
Sabine Women done right!

Posted by Joe and Roy 2004-06-27 6:17:58 PM|| 2004-06-27 6:17:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#66
Re #62 (Zhang Fei): It's pretty funny that liberals do a fair bit of gay-bashing with respect to Roy Cohn, who spared no prisoners in his pursuit of the enemy within - language that they would consider prejudiced if applied to any other gay person.

I don't think you'll find many liberals who fault Cohn just because he was homosexual.

Roy Cohn was dispicable because smeared people as traitors with little thought about whether his accusations were true. The fact that he himself was homosexual is relevant to the story because many of his actions were motivated by a desire to obtain special favors for his homosexual lover David Schine, with the cooperation of Joe McCarthy.

President Eisenhower collected a secret file on these shenanigans and intended to use it to discredit McCarthy, but McCarthy self-destructed before it was necessary. There's a very good book on this subject, but I can't find a link to it at the moment.

Here's an interesting article on the subject of McCarthy, Cohn and homosexuality. Search down to the text "Was McCarthy himself gay?" and read from there.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 6:27:18 PM|| 2004-06-27 6:27:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 This thread reminds me of a chapter in one of Chesterton's books called The Flag of the World. Here is a relevant quote:

And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.

I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back -- his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all. And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor; for he is using that ugly knowledge which was allowed him to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it. Because he is allowed to be pessimistic as a military adviser he is being pessimistic as a recruiting sergeant. Just in the same way the pessimist (who is the cosmic anti-patriot) uses the freedom that life allows to her counsellors to lure away the people from her flag. Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 7:18:08 PM|| 2004-06-27 7:18:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Thank You Virginian.
Exactly.

Posted by Joe and Roy 2004-06-27 7:25:48 PM|| 2004-06-27 7:25:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Thanks for your Chesterton quotation, Virginian. I hope Zhang Fei and Jen read it! Maybe they'll learn something!!

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 7:43:16 PM|| 2004-06-27 7:43:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 I had an uncandid candid friend once. They still haven't found the body

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-27 7:46:12 PM|| 2004-06-27 7:46:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 Chesterton: An overweight author, poet, playright, and novelist who lived during the socialization of Great Britain

THAT Chesterton?

Chesterton, whose sentiments helped pave the way for the modern day left in UK, politics?

That Chesteron?

Isn't that cute little quote sounding a little like the wit and wisdom of Michael Moore?i
An antti-patriot is actutally a patriot. A traitor is actually someone who is loyal? Isn't that the essence of a fifth column?

I would say that Chesterton is a recursive charicature of himself and today's modern leftist: the worship of slogans and short conclusions based upon little more than a smarmy self introspection, displayed as some great and memorable wit yet with no substance, and nothing based on events of the day.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 8:21:15 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 8:21:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 If the CIA has suspended use of torture for its field agents, you have to wonder about the dynamics at work in Washington. Right now the CIA is without a director. This can't possibly anything other than a 'leak' by someone related to the CIA who has an axe to grind with Bush.

I read the parts that MS quoted. No one is named as a source.

What a surprime.

Wishful thinking being passed off as journalism.

Somehow I get the idea.

If it is in fact the case that this is not actually policy I hope whomever gets in to the CIA cleans this rat's nest out. The same with the DoJ.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 8:26:33 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 8:26:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 I read the parts that MS quoted. No one is named as a source.

Par for the course of Mike's crap. Unsourced leaks intended to hurt the administration and impede the war. Anything to defeat the home front, eh?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-27 8:52:14 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-27 8:52:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Here's the only part of the quote that we all need to concern ourselves with:
"And he [the anti-patriot] may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor;..."
It's clear that you are the anti-patriot, the "candid" "friend", Mike and the other 3 Leftist poster, but then where does that live you?
Headless in Gaza, I'm afraid.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 8:59:19 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 8:59:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#75
When I read that Chesteron quote, I felt he was speaking out from his grave to sting Badanov with his words. Badonov obviously felt the target had been hit accurately.

Jen and Zhang Fei, I hope you too will read Chesterton's words and take them to heart!
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 9:05:17 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:05:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 When I read that Chesteron quote, I felt he was speaking out from his grave to sting Badanov with his words. Badonov obviously felt the target had been hit accurately.

Sometimes I like to make sure my mommy knows I won without telling her I really lost badly, too but I only tell Mommy, not all of Rantburg.

Why was it necessary for you to declare victory and run away from your personal defeat in this forum without dealing with your personal mendacity concerning the WoT?

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 9:16:47 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 9:16:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 What's to take to heart?
Chesterton is nothing but a Leftist trying to justify his treason and disloyalty to Britain by taking some sort of cynical, intellectually aloof "high ground."
The whole thing is soulless and wrong and there's nothing of the heart about it.
Although you should have it put on a plaque in your home to be your Contrarian's Prayer.
And as Frank G. said awhile back, we can bury the victims of our next Islamist terror attack on Mike's Moral High Groundâ¢.
Leave badanov alone--he's good.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 9:18:15 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 9:18:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 This is getting a bit insane. So, we won't torture terrorists for information anymore. Instead, drop them alive into vats of molten glass, let it cool, then put them on display in Mecca with a sign saying "This could be you."

And someone explain to me why we're still bothering to take prisoners? If we can't beat the information out of them, let's just stop taking them.

Posted by Silentbrick 2004-06-27 9:24:28 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:24:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 badanov, if there's no named source and it isn't official policy, does this mean the story's bullshit and just wishful thinking on the part of the WaPo (and Mike and his little pinko friends)?
Can we hope?
Let's hope that CIA interrogators have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place about sweating enemy detainees.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 9:25:55 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 9:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 A more relevant quote:

from the film "Mississippi Burning"

Mr. Anderson: Don't put me on your pedestal, Mr. Ward!

Mr Ward: Don't drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson: These people crawled out of the sewer, Mr. Ward! Maybe the gutter is where we should be!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jen.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 9:27:12 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 9:27:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#81
I hear the voice of Chesterton crying out from his grave:

And what is the matter, Jen, with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, Jen, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter, Jen, with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature, Jen. ...
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 9:27:44 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:27:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 What drivel, Mike.
As badanov said, you refuse to deal with your own "nuanced" views on the WOT and your tacit approval of the Enemy's position by your silence on important issues like this one under the cloak of being some variation of a Chesterton-like Ãber-patriot/Anti-patriot.
What's an "anti-patriot?" A traitor, that's what. Even Chesterton admitted it.
The persons crying out to me from their graves are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Paul Johnson, Barbara Olson, my ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War, my ancestor who was massacred at Goliad, Texas and my own father who served with the U.S. Army in WWII for 3 years in Europe.

Posted by Jen 2004-06-27 9:34:36 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-06-27 9:34:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 badanov, if there's no named source and it isn't official policy, does this mean the story's bullshit and just wishful thinking on the part of the WaPo (and Mike and his little pinko friends)? Can we hope? Let's hope that CIA interrogators have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place about sweating enemy detainees.

I have no doubt some elements of the story is real but without anyone willing to talk, we just don;t know which is the lie and which is the truth. And neither does Mike and his little pack of lies either.

It appears there are elements within the CIA who want to see the US fail in the war on terrorism, and thus they leak and fabricate news try to further influence events.

And Silentbrick, I think at would be the natural progression. When our spooks, (May God Bless the field guys fighting this thing for real, BTW) capture an intermediate level terrorist operative, I think that man should disppear into the dark night, never to be seen, with whatever could be extracted in the way of information safely in our hands and the terrorist discarded like the used tampons they are.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 9:35:22 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 9:35:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 Wow, you guys have interpreted the quote in the opposite of the way I did. I thought it was pretty obvious that Mike is awfully close to being this candid friend. Mike's posts remind me of someone who says "I'm sorry to say we are ruined", when he is not sorry at all. Badanov: I am about as right wing as you can get, and I love Chesterton.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 9:36:25 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:36:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#85
I am sorry to say, Virginian, that you are presumptious.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-27 9:42:29 PM|| 2004-06-27 9:42:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Badanov: I am about as right wing as you can get, and I love Chesterton.

I am as right wing as you can get too but I like Nirvana as well as Bob Wills' music from the 30s. So, go figure.

And as for Chesterton: I have found that satire which is relevant for the day it was originally uttered can usually be turned to reflect the opposite view. Espically for leftwing authors. I read the quote as opposite as Mike wanted it read because frankly, not only was the quote irrelevant, but also it could be turned to my own meaning.

Sorta like Chesterton.

And unlike Chesterton in his time, we now know what happens to great nations which become infected with socialist sentiments which are intended to become policy.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 9:43:22 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 9:43:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 I hear the voice of Chesterton crying out from his grave:

I do, too.

I want to Super Size that!

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 9:45:54 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 9:45:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 virginian> Why would most people here not disagree with that quote? That quote you used, has Chesterton say among other things: "A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. "

Did you really think that a person like e.g. Jen and others here, who believes that anyone criticizing the administration or the war is immediately an enemy, would have liked something like this?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:06:25 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:06:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 Badanov: I've read several of Chesterton's books, and I've found nothing resembling leftism in them. I don't know much about his politics. He may have been socialist as you say.

Mike: I don't think I'm presumptuous, since lots of folks here read your posts the same way -- they project a "gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things". They make people wonder what your motives are. "Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive." (Chesterton)

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 10:07:09 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 Did you really think that a person like e.g. Jen and others here, who believes that anyone criticizing the administration or the war is immediately an enemy, would have liked something like this

We have in this country people, all over the nation who have volunteered to place their very lives at risk for everyone's right to live and thrive in freedom.

And these brave people have families and friends here at home who fear for the lives of those patriots. These people deserve all the support every person can give them, and that include attacking leftwingers who are opposed to the mission those people are on.

And as long as they are willing to fight and as long as they are defending freedom and capitalism, anyone who opposes their mission will be attacked, fiecely and without rest or relent.

And that includes you and MS.

So, get over it.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 10:14:04 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 10:14:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 Mike's problem is that he, at best, states only half the facts. He leaves out any facts that don't fit the Sy Hersh storyline.

That makes his motives suspect.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-27 10:14:35 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-27 10:14:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 Badanov: I've read several of Chesterton's books, and I've found nothing resembling leftism in them. I don't know much about his politics. He may have been socialist as you say.

I don't know his politics, but I figure that an author in ascendency during the period of his adulthood was praised and supported by the leading socialists of the time, and all this during a time of great decline in Great Britain.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 10:16:35 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 10:16:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 Aris: Yes some people will disagree with THAT ONE SENTENCE, but that sentence is OBVIOUSLY NOT the main point of the quote. Jeez, do I have to spell it out for you people?

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 10:19:12 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:19:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 badanov> My point exactly. You can't even *comprehend* the idea that people may object to the war exactly BECAUSE we don't want to see those brave heroic people who volunteered their lives die in a meaningless Charge of the Light Brigade.

You'd rather the child leave his mother fall off a cliff rather than shout a warning.

So, *you* get over it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:25:15 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:25:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 virginian> Is it not? The main point of the quote is that motives are what matter. Some people's motives are rotten. But some of them aren't.

I agree, motives are what matters.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:28:14 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:28:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 Aris, what is your motive for criticizing the war? I'm really curious. You live in Greece, correct? What impact is the war having on you?

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 10:32:40 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:32:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 I have a vested interest in the survival of Western Civilisation.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:35:17 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:35:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 My point exactly. You can't even *comprehend* the idea that people may object to the war exactly BECAUSE we don't want to see those brave heroic people who volunteered their lives die in a meaningless Charge of the Light Brigade

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Soldiers die in war. It's part of it. So is sacrfice. So, as long as these folks are willing to fight, they deserve every chance to survive the war they can get.

Their loved ones are not encouraged when the left or the 'anti-patriots' think their humanitarian is so real they must make those soldiers' loved one also feel this fear. It's ugly and its unnecessary. It is also an expression of sentiment of an element of our society that knows nothing and is quite unwilling to do anything nor make any scarifice for this nation to win this war. And if they make the relatives of soldiers in the field afraid enough to demand their return before the mission is done, then they have accomplished nothing more than futher engander the country and its citizens.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 10:35:26 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 10:35:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#99 Aris, the main point of the article is a certain psychology which takes a gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things, who says I'm sorry to say we are ruined when he is not sorry at all. That sums up just about everything that comes out of the BBC and the WaPo.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 10:36:12 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:36:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 The Charge of the Light Brigade wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of giving lives for a purpose. It was a stupid waste of lives, people who died for nothing.

Don't you think that people have an obligation to speak against the administration whenever they feel that they are leading your country's troops into such "sacrifices"?

Regardless of whether you think THIS war is such a case, don't you think that people have a right to complaint against their government when they feel a war is either unjust or meaningless or stupidly fought or whatever?

virginian> I don't know about WaPo -- I've never read it. I don't know about BBC -- I've never had the chance to watch it. You may be right about them and whether they are gleeful about it or not.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:43:35 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:43:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 Aris, re #97, Western Civilization is a big place, and I don't see a whole heck of a lot of countries doing much to defend it. There does seem to be a plentiful supply of critics, though.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 10:47:02 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:47:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#102 Badanov makes a good point; I'm slated for my Iraq rotation next year. I get different relatives calling me all worried & stuff from the b.s. they see on the nightly news. I tell them about all the good we're doing over there (i.e. schools, orphanages, infrastructure renewal), how it's a small percentage of hardliners who are creating havoc, and that most of my buddies who have returned say it's not nearly as bad as people think. They (some of my family and friends) simply don't comprehend how I (& so many others) want to go there and pull our share. There are no consripts in our military, this is what we do, we train for this stuff every day, we are professional warriors. Going to Iraq w/my Marines will prolly be the capstone of my life as a fighting man. My biggest fear is not being killed or maimed or any of that shit (which would obviously be horrible on my family), my biggest fear is seeing our nation and it's people succumb to having no stomach for the dirty un-popular work that needs to be done. If we cannot see this through as a nation then I will wonder if a lot of Americans are really worth fighting for. I do not want my little boy doing this thing again in 20 years over there, I'd like my generation to finish this now and move on. Iraq is one part of the WoT imho, this whole WoT is going to be long, hard, ugly, and unpopular. If the average American cannot bear the burden of this then we are destined to be hit again and again by those who wish to kill us.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-06-27 10:51:47 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:51:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#103 virginian> Really? I see the whole bunch of them doing lots to defend it. But I think it depends on what we believe Western civilisation consists of, and whether human rights are part of it.

E.g for me the person who *doesn't* defend human rights is the true traitor -- other people see the idea of human rights themselves as treasonous when they interfere with the wishes of the government.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 10:56:24 PM|| 2004-06-27 10:56:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#104 Jarhead, you Marines are amazing guys. But then, I'm biased, cause my dad was one.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 11:06:36 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:06:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#105 Aris, are you telling me you see it in black and white terms, kind of like, er, George Bush?

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 11:12:16 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:12:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#106 Let's say that I often see it in terms of very dark and very light grays.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-27 11:16:42 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:16:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#107 You know every poll taken on the subject of torture shows that a strong majority (60%+) are in favor of it. It not a good thing to do but sometimes it is necessary. If you have time then you can use slower methods of interorgation, but sometimes you need info PRONTO. Case in point was that LtCol last year that fire that 38 next to that cops head. Next thing you know Abdul was REAL cooperative and saved some lives. This crap about treatment of our guys is PURE BS. Hell they are beheading people over there! Marine, before you go can I send you a St. Christopher Medal?

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-06-27 11:26:22 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:26:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#108 Aris: LOL!

What I think is, to paraphrase a famous quote, the charter of human rights is not a suicide pact.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-27 11:29:10 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:29:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#109 Thanks Virginian, but we're just like anyone else, I don't think I'd call it 'amazing', just maybe a different mind set (thanks to good Corps training) then the average joe. Either way, thanks for the compliment.

Sarge> sure you can send me the Medal. I'd be much obliged. I already have a Cross and Miraculous Medal taped to my dog-tags but far be it from me to turn down any good will from the Almighty. (no atheists allowed in a fighting hole :)

Posted by Jarhead 2004-06-27 11:36:57 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:36:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#110 I think it's silly, presumptive, and rather mean spirited for some posters to claim to know so much about a person's patriotism based on the articles he posts on a political discussion forum. Some of us, perhaps even the majority of us, participate on this forum to read the news about WOT events not easily found in MSM and to debate issues relating to the WOT. How can a forum have any intellectual debates if everyone just mirrors the other guy's viewpoints and there some self-proclaimed Thought Police who say that Washingtomn Post articles are too left or Newsmax are too right, whatever, and if you post them, you're as much a jihadist/Kerry/Moore supporter as the reporter who wrote them.

Reading and debating the contents of an article from the Washington Post or the NYR will not "infect" or corrupt" us, you know. Sometimes it's interesting to learn the latest jab the MSM is taking at the WH. Sometimes the WH is wrong on an issue and why can't a poster say that as an opinion without having shrill voiced value judgments made on that person's ulterior motives or political leanings?

Most of us are conservatives but we are not clones of one another. Most of us, I imagine, are more right or more centrist on a host of issues, but we would still view ourselves as overall conservative. A few posters like Aris are not conservative, but his posts and arguments are consistently thoughtful and well articulated and even if I don't agree with them, I sure learn alot and appreciate reading his posts.

I don't see the problem about thinking independently and disagreement makes for animated debates/discussions. Actually, I see a greater problem with mindless group think, because that's what leads to "empty" posts whose thrust is in the main just name calling and generally obnoxious exchanges.

Posted by rex 2004-06-27 11:39:33 PM|| 2004-06-27 11:39:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#111 I think it's silly, presumptive, and rather mean spirited for some posters to claim to know so much about a person's patriotism based on the articles he posts on a political discussion forum.

Wrong. Leaving out parts of an article everytime lead me to believe the poster is trying to hide something, in other owrds is being dishonest. In order for the debate to be a dabate, both sides must be honest or it ends up in ad hominiem attacks, such as the Gen. Karpinski super-hread last Sunday.

Some of us, perhaps even the majority of us, participate on this forum to read the news about WOT events not easily found in MSM and to debate issues relating to the WOT. How can a forum have any intellectual debates if everyone just mirrors the other guy's viewpoints

You sound like you know there are plants in this forum placed here just to mirror others' views. If you know something about that, speak up. I am not a plant. Are you?

and there some self-proclaimed Thought Police who say that Washingtomn Post articles are too left or Newsmax are too right, whatever, and if you post them, you're as much a jihadist/Kerry/Moore supporter as the reporter who wrote them.

Go to hell, rex. Washington Post is a liberal publication. Identifying it as so does not make it such, I agree except for the very fact that it is. Witness the article MS posted: Full of innuendoes and no sources. How can anyone know what is the truth; named how can anyone debate in the face of such dishonesty?

Reading and debating the contents of an article from the Washington Post or the NYR will not "infect" or corrupt" us, you know.

Nor will identifying a news article from a known liberal publication as agenda laden and not factual.

Sometimes it's interesting to learn the latest jab the MSM is taking at the WH. Sometimes the WH is wrong on an issue and why can't a poster say that as an opinion without having shrill voiced value judgments made on that person's ulterior motives or political leanings?

Maybe 20 years of leftwing mendacity and constant attempts to undermine the national security of the nation through the press and through political policy-making, as our experience causes that.

Most of us are conservatives but we are not clones of one another. Most of us, I imagine, are more right or more centrist on a host of issues, but we would still view ourselves as overall conservative. A few posters like Aris are not conservative, but his posts and arguments are consistently thoughtful and well articulated and even if I don't agree with them, I sure learn alot and appreciate reading his posts.

Aris is so thoughtful he can't detect a joke if it bit him on the ass.

I don't see the problem about thinking independently and disagreement makes for animated debates/discussions.

I encourage you to think independantly. I encourage you to debate, too but when you state facts from a news source which is questionable or you leave out facts in the article which do not bolster you views, we do not have a debate. We have a liar trying to advance an agenda.

Actually, I see a greater problem with mindless group think, because that's what leads to "empty" posts whose thrust is in the main just name calling and generally obnoxious exchanges

I have a problem with mindless conclusions reached based upon a personal prejudice.

And, rex, sing the term 'groupthink' does not make you a great intellectual in my view. It just makes you sound ignorant especially in view of the fact I am not dealing with anyone else with my views. I am simply stating them, some agree, others have other views and I disagree. If that is group think maybe you should re-read Orwell.

I agree with people in this forum who want to kill terrorist. I disagree with those people who would hamstring that effort.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-27 11:59:14 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-27 11:59:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#112 Very well said Rex. I've found that dissecting an opponent's argument and not their character usually leads to a better understanding of the issue and an effort to get at some truth. (Though I've certainly fallen short and have been guilty of the occasional personal attack). Plus, you can also at least walk away from the exchange w/some sort of respect for each other's view.

I also disdain left/right labels but they are so easy to use it's hard to get away from. Though some of us do not fall wholly into either category. Heck, for example, the LLL would prolly despise me because I love guns (NRA life member), hunting, the outdoors, smaller gov't, lower taxes, nascar/country music & am a quasi-isolationist. However, the Christian right would prolly not like my general view on matters pertaining to *organized* religion and abortion. I'm also pro environment and would prolly argue w/the stereotypical Republican (label again) when it comes to matters of business versus environment. I would also piss off a lot of people because I don't think it would be a bad idea to legalize & regulate both prostitution and marijuana. BTW - I think we should seal the borders and stop all immigration for about 10 years until we find out just who the hell we have in the country illegally & whether or not to retain, detain or deport them. So after putting all my cards on the table one can certainly argue my logic on any aforementioned issue but questioning my patriotism or anyone's patriotism as in the case of Mike S. (who, I believe as an intel officer served in the USAF or Army for 12 years) is beneath most RB posters. Though I don't always agree w/Mike S I do read his posts. Sometimes I chime in but usually don't. As a caveat though, if I felt I was wrongly attacked ad hominem style then I'd prolly hit back in kind as well.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-06-28 12:12:54 AM|| 2004-06-28 12:12:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#113 Jarhead, you described yourself pretty much as I see myself [except I like R&R better than country and I do not hunt for sport but I don't begrudge anyone who does]and other conservatives ie. people holding views that represent variations of "rightness" depending on the specific issue, but nonetheless identifying overall with conservatives.

Badanov, I don't see myself as an intellectual - if I did, I sure would not be particpating on an internet discussion forum. But I think a conservative political discussion forum should allow for differences of opinion without having one's patriotism being called into question. As for posting from the Wash.Post, MS provided the link,you are not forced to only read MS's cut and paste, so how is MS being dishonest? On the issue of interrogation rules of POW's, I happen to agree with you 100%, but I don't think MS is a traitor or unpatriotic for holding the opinion he does about the Geneva Convention nor do I think MS is committing a sin for posting an article from Wash. Post. Who knows...maybe MS is far more right than you with regards to border control, which is a national security issue and if you post a loosey goosey open borders article from WSJ, [yes, that's the WSJ's position on immigration] does MS get the right to call your patriotism into question?

Posted by rex 2004-06-28 1:52:31 AM|| 2004-06-28 1:52:31 AM|| Front Page Top

02:32 Bootlicker
02:30 Bootlicker
02:06 Bootlicker
01:57 Bootlicker
01:53 Bootlicker
01:50 Bootlicker
07:45 .com
07:25 .com
07:23 Robert Crawford
07:08 Anon1
07:06 Anon1
15:24 Super Hose
03:46 Anonymous5296
02:24 Another Dan
02:24 Anonymous5296
02:08 Anonymous4617
02:06 rex
01:52 rex
00:55 Anonymous4617
00:40 Victory Now Please
00:28 Anonymous5296
00:16 Mike Sylwester
00:12 Jarhead
00:11 rich woods