December 29, 2005
More Republican Logic and Hypocrisy*
One argument against torture is that it'll create future terrorists. And that's true. The pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib were turned into recruitment posters for al-Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in the world.
Another argument against torture is that American soldiers would be subject to the same treatment if they're taken prisoner. But that's ludicrous because we could be sending all the insurgents and "enemy combatants" we're capturing to Club Med, and American soldiers would still be tortured.
So besides creating more terrorists, the reason why we shouldn't be torturing prisoners isn't to ensure that our soldiers are treated humanly. It's because as enlightened and educated American's living in a civilized society, we've learned a long time ago that two wrongs don't make a right. And if I have to explain that to the moronic Republican base, then they should go back to kindergarten and learn it all over again.
Besides, Bush and the Republicans always talk about "American morals and values." Since when did our morals and values include torture?
But let me see if I have this straight: it's alright to torture terrorists (and ignore your "pro-life values" in the process), but it would be wrong for terrorists to torture American soldiers.
Yup, sounds like Republican hypocrisy to me!
What makes us so special to think that it's alright for us to torture terrorists, but wrong for the terrorists to torture our guys?
And we wonder why the world thinks we're arrogant hypocrites.
As usual, Republicans have their talking points prepared: "what if a captured terrorist has information about an imminent attack?" (Assuming he really does.)
Okay, so if an American solider is taken prisoner, would it be alright for his captives to torture him so they get him to tell them when and where Bush will attack next? Hey, with Bush's track record of being the crazed madman that he is, the Iranian backed Shiite militias in Iraq could very well think his next target is Iran and it's "imminent" too.
But we shouldn't be surprised at such blatant hypocrisy coming from Republicans because this whole war is hypocritical.
For instance, Hitler was the wrong for invading Europe and Saddam Hussein was wrong for invading Kuwait. And Hussein would have even been more wrong had he invaded Israel, despite the fact that Isreal does have nuclear weapons - right in Iraq's own backyard - and was their "imminent threat."
So let me see if I have this straight: it was wrong for Hitler to invade Europe, it was wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, and it would have been wrong for Iraq to have invaded Israel. But we have the right to invade our "imminent threat" 6,000 miles away, that wasn't a threat at all.
Yup, sounds like more Republican hypocrisy to me!
If the coach of a football team was interviewed at halftime with his team down by two touchdowns, he'd look awfully foolish if he said his team "was winning." That said, despite the fierce battles in Falluja, Najaf and Sadr City in 2004, American casualties this year in Iraq are comparable to those we suffered last year. And "according to the Pentagon, the number of insurgent attacks is at its highest recorded level - at more than 550 a week - and the rate of civilian casualties is also higher than ever before, at more than 60 a day" (Rep. Jack Murtha said the number of insurgent incidents over the past year increased from 150 per week to more than 700 per week).
And yet, Bush has always maintained that "we're winning" in Iraq.
Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me!
One of Bush's favorite talking points is that "we're going to win this war on terror" (well, what do you expect him to say?). But if we're "going to win," we should - to use another sports analogy - at least be "leading," right?Well, after losing 160 soldiers during the first three years of the war in Afghanistan,
One argument against torture is that it'll create future terrorists. And that's true. The pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib were turned into recruitment posters for al-Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in the world.
Another argument against torture is that American soldiers would be subject to the same treatment if they're taken prisoner. But that's ludicrous because we could be sending all the insurgents and "enemy combatants" we're capturing to Club Med, and American soldiers would still be tortured.
So besides creating more terrorists, the reason why we shouldn't be torturing prisoners isn't to ensure that our soldiers are treated humanly. It's because as enlightened and educated American's living in a civilized society, we've learned a long time ago that two wrongs don't make a right. And if I have to explain that to the moronic Republican base, then they should go back to kindergarten and learn it all over again.
Besides, Bush and the Republicans always talk about "American morals and values." Since when did our morals and values include torture?
But let me see if I have this straight: it's alright to torture terrorists (and ignore your "pro-life values" in the process), but it would be wrong for terrorists to torture American soldiers.
Yup, sounds like Republican hypocrisy to me!
What makes us so special to think that it's alright for us to torture terrorists, but wrong for the terrorists to torture our guys?
And we wonder why the world thinks we're arrogant hypocrites.
As usual, Republicans have their talking points prepared: "what if a captured terrorist has information about an imminent attack?" (Assuming he really does.)
Okay, so if an American solider is taken prisoner, would it be alright for his captives to torture him so they get him to tell them when and where Bush will attack next? Hey, with Bush's track record of being the crazed madman that he is, the Iranian backed Shiite militias in Iraq could very well think his next target is Iran and it's "imminent" too.
But we shouldn't be surprised at such blatant hypocrisy coming from Republicans because this whole war is hypocritical.
For instance, Hitler was the wrong for invading Europe and Saddam Hussein was wrong for invading Kuwait. And Hussein would have even been more wrong had he invaded Israel, despite the fact that Isreal does have nuclear weapons - right in Iraq's own backyard - and was their "imminent threat."
So let me see if I have this straight: it was wrong for Hitler to invade Europe, it was wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, and it would have been wrong for Iraq to have invaded Israel. But we have the right to invade our "imminent threat" 6,000 miles away, that wasn't a threat at all.
Yup, sounds like more Republican hypocrisy to me!
If the coach of a football team was interviewed at halftime with his team down by two touchdowns, he'd look awfully foolish if he said his team "was winning." That said, despite the fierce battles in Falluja, Najaf and Sadr City in 2004, American casualties this year in Iraq are comparable to those we suffered last year. And "according to the Pentagon, the number of insurgent attacks is at its highest recorded level - at more than 550 a week - and the rate of civilian casualties is also higher than ever before, at more than 60 a day" (Rep. Jack Murtha said the number of insurgent incidents over the past year increased from 150 per week to more than 700 per week).
And yet, Bush has always maintained that "we're winning" in Iraq.
Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me!
One of Bush's favorite talking points is that "we're going to win this war on terror" (well, what do you expect him to say?). But if we're "going to win," we should - to use another sports analogy - at least be "leading," right?Well, after losing 160 soldiers during the first three years of the war in Afghanistan, we've lost 99 this year. And more then two-thirds of the wounded, over 450, have occurred in 2004 and 2005.
And then there were the al-Qaeda attacks in Mombassa, Bali, Madrid, Jakarta, Beslan, Istanbul, Doha, Riyadh, London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Cairo, and Amman (a partial list of attacks from 9/11 through July 2005 is here).
So the Taliban is reforming in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has reformed globally, and Osama bin Laden - remember him? - is still at large.
If this is what Bush calls "winning," I'd hate to see what his idea of losing looks like.
So I'm a bit confused because Bush says "we're winning" and "we will win this war on terror." But then he and his administration keep reminding us how dangerous the terrorists are and they're planning attacks against us "every day." So which is it?
More Republican logic I suppose.
Obviously, we aren't "winning" in Iraq, Afghanistan or on the "war on terror." And unfortunately, none of these wars will be "won;" at least not by this arrogant incompetent President because he's not only creating more terrorists, but he's done nothing to prevent young Muslims from becoming terrorists.
So saying we're "winning in Iraq" and saying "we're going to win the war on terror" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's twisted Republican logic, hypocrisy, spin and stubborn talking points like that which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
But wait, there's more!
By all means, let's spill American blood so Iraqi's can vote in a "democracy" (so the Islamic Theocrats and the insurgents that are shooting at us can gain political power). But when American's are disenfranchised at the voting booth, Bush and the Republicans don't give a damn.
And what kind of example is Bush setting for the Iraqi people and the Arab world about "freedom" and the "rule of law" when he's trampling on the Constitution by using the NSA to spy on American's without a warrant or any legal authority to do so?
Hmm...
"...any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires...a court order. Nothing has changed...we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (bold mine)
- George Bush, Apr. 20, 2004
"The Patriot Act (safeguards) civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse." (bold mine)
- George Bush, July 20, 2005
"Words mean things!"
- Rush Limbugh, everyday during the Clinton years.
Yup, sounds like more Republican hypocrisy to me!
After the Oklahoma City bombing, it was President Clinton and the Democrats that wanted to change the law on wiretapping - have the warrant apply to the person, instead of the phone - because bad guys would simply change phones and always be one step ahead of the authorities.
But I seem to remember that it was the Republicans that blocked it at the time because it gave excessive powers to the government and was seen as an infringement upon personal liberty's and freedoms.
Let's see how important protecting our liberty's and freedoms are to the Republicans now.
But wait, there's more!
After the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft pandered to the National Rifle Assn. by refusing to allow the FBI to check the records of two suspected terrorists that had purchased a gun, or to see if 1,200 detained foreign nationals had tried to buy a gun.
So let me see if I have this straight: this White House won't look into gun records when they have a darn good reason to (Republicans are soft on terrorism!), but will spy on Americans without getting a warrant.
Yup, makes sense to me!
You could tell that Bush knows he got caught with his grubby little fingers in the cookie jar with this one because he's not only acting like the belligerent nine year old that he is, but he's using the best defense Republican focus groups have given him: 9/11.
So let me see if I have this one straight: Bush cares so much about the nations security that he "would do whatever is necessary to protect the country;" and yet in 2001, he ignored the al-Qaeda threats and warnings, failed to demand "specifics" after reading the infamous Aug. 6 PDB (incredibly, he went fishing instead), won't check the gun records of suspected terrorists or detained foreign nationals, hasn't come close to adequately protecting our ports, oil reserves, chemical facilities and nuclear power plants, and is creating more terrorists every day with his senseless war in Iraq.
And when someone on his staff leaked the identity a secret CIA agent - whose job it was to protect the country - Bush thought it was more important to spin then determine who is responsible for such a childish, vindictive, treasonous act.
Yup, that sure sounds like irresponsible, incompetent, immature, illogical, hypocrisy to me!
So as you can see, there's no use trying to figure out Republican logic and hypocrisy because it only makes sense to them. But keep in mind we're very lucky. Imagine what Iraq would look like if Bush didn't "err on the side of life."
+/- show/hide this post
