BrainKing - Discussion boards (Politics)

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Pedro Martínez: Were captured solders meant to be included into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with respect to individual trials) or isn't it more aimed at decent human treatment such as adequate food, water, shelter and humane treatment?

26. January 2009, 00:55:52

Subject: #1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime #2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court

Vikings:#1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime
#2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court

yeah, that's better put

26. January 2009, 00:54:55

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Pedro Martínez: The guys at Gitmo aren't sitting there for a crime like a civil crime. They are enemy combatants and were captured on the battlefield. I think their situations fall under a different classification and it isn't a matter of guilty or innocent (as in a civil crime) but more a matter of being captured on a military battlefield and in that case they are detained prisoners.

26. January 2009, 00:20:45

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Bernice:

26. January 2009, 00:20:02

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Pedro Martínez:61 of those released went back into terrorism. I doubt Obama will release any of them without some sort of hearing. I personally don't think they deserve a civic hearing but would agree that in some cases a military hearing would be appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, if they were captured in a military operation/conflict, they are military combatants and should be treated as such. I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo. And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial. With all due respect, it's not the same thing as being falsely accused of an illegal act by someone. There are very specifc reasons these guys were detained in the first place. And the fact that many of those previously released have gone back into terrorism and participated in the killing of innocent people should give us all pause before we release any more. Of course I could be missing some important point here and maybe should rethink my position. But at the moment, I can't think of any reason to alter my view.

26. January 2009, 00:03:49

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Bernice: Far too often people speak out of ideology, ignorance, or emotion. In America (as in many countries) a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime. All facts are considered, and testimony is heard. Political discussions should follow this model. Opinions are for flavors of ice cream, but history should be about facts. It's probably my biggest beef with some of the liberals I have run into. Something is either true, or not true. Some things are not a matter of opinion. And if a claim is made, the facts must bear it out. Otherwise the claim should be rejected. If I'm falsely accused of something, I don't want my accusers hiding behind the "it's my opinion" excuse. I would think that most people see it this way. ;)

25. January 2009, 23:47:49

Subject: Re: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

Bernice: politics is infamous for that sort of thing :) lol

25. January 2009, 23:37:14

Subject: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

The facts tell a different story than the left wing spin. It's a legitimate war and was fully supported by congress after full disclosure. The fact of the matter is that congress had all the intelligence it needed to make intelligent decisions with respect to Iraq and any possible invasion. The following if from a speech President Bush gave. The link will appear at the bottom and contains the entire speech.

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/bush200511111418.asp

25. January 2009, 22:40:24

Subject: Blagojevich is in the news again.

Impeached Gov. Blagojevich, on the first leg of his media blitz timed to the start of his impeachment trial, in an NBC interview broadcast on The Today Show Sunday compared himself to human rights heros Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
...
As he was taken from his home by federal agents on Dec. 9, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/25/blagojevich-compares-hims_n_160666.html

25. January 2009, 17:59:33

Subject: Re:

Bwild:Good point. He handled it well in the beginning too.

25. January 2009, 08:13:02

Subject: Re:

Bernice:I knew it. On the job training!

25. January 2009, 07:50:51

Commentary: Obama breaks his own rule

Will this become a problem for the Obama administration?

CNN Commentary

25. January 2009, 07:39:17

PJTV on the Hamas Charter

25. January 2009, 07:20:09

Subject: Re:

Foxy Lady:Have you heard of it?

25. January 2009, 06:13:00

Obama snubs vets, skips Heroes ball

Subject: Is this part of the change we can believe it? If Bush had done this.....yeah...we all know

Modified by Papa Zoom (25. January 2009, 06:15:08)

Becomes 1st new president to miss inauguration event

Since its inception in 1953, every new president has attended The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball – until now.

The ball was created for President Dwight Eisenhower's inauguration to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award. The event is sponsored by the American Legion and co-sponsored by 13 other veteran's service organizations, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

And while 48 of the nation's 99 living recipients of the Medal of Honor attended the event, reports the Cleveland Leader and various self-attested attendees of the ball, newly sworn-in President Barack Obama became the first president in 56 years to skip out on the ceremony.

25. January 2009, 06:05:41

Has anyone read Atlas Shrugged?

25. January 2009, 06:00:47

Subject: Re: hey dan if u was president thou

Foxy Lady: And when the gun is on lock, use

then resort to

and if you're still losing, go

25. January 2009, 05:53:27

Subject: Re: hey dan if u was president thou

Foxy Lady: GUN CONTROL: "A steady grip and hit your target on the first shot"

Ok, not exactly that but close :)

25. January 2009, 05:50:17

Subject: Re: hey dan if u was president thou

BadBoy7: No, it was to do with "gun control" :)

25. January 2009, 05:49:51

Subject: Re: hey dan

BadBoy7: I don't know. Usually the guys making the decisions are out of the way of the bullets. But I suspect there would be plenty of men willing to lead the charge. But in reality, it would be irresponsible for any leader to put themselves in harms way since killing them could lose the war for their side (or at least seriously jeopardize things)

25. January 2009, 05:46:00

Subject: Re: hey dan if u was president thou

Foxy Lady: I've never owned a gun but I saw a bumber sticker I really liked (ok, I do own a pellet gun and I shoot at the racoons butts when they come in my back yard). Wanna hear what the bumper sticker said?

25. January 2009, 05:41:44

Subject: Re: hey dan if u was president thou

BadBoy7:

Wanna hear my views on gun control?

25. January 2009, 05:37:17

Subject: Re:

Modified by Papa Zoom (11. October 2011, 15:48:08)

Bernice: Thing is, I actually like Obama. :)
(update) but I no longer do...along with thousands of others who have seen his true colors. He's and incompetent loser and proof that the Peter principle is true.

25. January 2009, 05:32:51

Subject: Re:

Bernice: I just wish people would argue their case on its merits and remain consistent. Obama has the backing of the government in Afghanistan but because people see that war as necessary, when innocent people are killed it's considered differently. I don't get the double standard.

25. January 2009, 05:28:43

Subject: Re:

coan.net: This is the problem with these kinds of discussions. It was said that Bush is a war criminal. Then you support it by asking a question on whether Hitler could be considered a war criminal for his actions (because he had the backing of his government). But his government was very different for one. And Hitler invaded countries that were no threat to anyone. He had treaties with them and yet he attacked them anyway. He bombed cities relentlessly. He didn't go for military targets, he bombed cities and infrastructures. Then he ordered his soldiers to kill everyone. He did this with the backing of the government (because he was a dictator).

If Bush is a war criminal, then so are all the democrats and republicans that gave approval for the war. It's not a stretch to suggest you were comparing Bush with Hitler since that is exactly what you did. Otherwise, why bring him up?

25. January 2009, 05:19:52

Subject: Re:

coan.net: Comparing Bush to Hitler is just such a cheap comparison. Bush never ordered the murder of millions of people (as a matter of policy, that is exactly what Hitler did). Bush attacked an outlaw government after 18 years of defiance, murder, and invasion of allies. How many more years of actively pursuing weapons programs were we to tolerate?

As for the statement, how it can not be a lie, but yet a distortion? What facts were distorted?

25. January 2009, 05:01:50

Subject: Re:

coan.net: I see. So the fact that the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, and other members of his administration called for military action against Saddam (well before Bush came along) and the fact that they all claimed a connection to terrorism and the fact that they all claimed over and over about WMD, just because Bush acts upon those facts, with the backing of congress, democrats and republicans, the war is somehow "elective?"

And that in and "elective" war, it's not ok to kill innocent women and children but in a correct war, it's ok to kill innocent women and children.

Yeah, that sounds like a liberals way of thinking.

So tell me BBW, was the president lying when he said the following:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

25. January 2009, 04:43:40

I see, Bush is a war criminal because because when he killed women and children he was the President longer. But If you're new at the Presidency, you can kill innocent women and children and get a pass.

So how long can Obama be responsible for the killing of innocent women and children before he can be accused of war crimes? He's killed 5 so far (according to liberal logic) so how long can this go on before people on the left start to call him on it?

25. January 2009, 04:32:39

Modified by Papa Zoom (25. January 2009, 04:33:27)

I wonder if the liberals in congress will now call for an investigation of the Obama administration for war crimes? (much like they are trying to do for the Bush administration)

Or will the incident below just be ignored because they will either link it to Bush or just excuse it away. After all, women and children were killed and Obama is the Commander in Chief? Any liberals care to comment?

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. coalition in Afghanistan opened an investigation into an overnight raid early Saturday that American commanders say killed 15 armed militants but that two Afghan officials say killed 11 civilians.

A detailed U.S. statement said multiple teams of militants fired on the coalition forces during a raid against a Taliban commander early Saturday in the eastern province of Laghman. The U.S. said a woman carrying a rocket-propelled grenade was among the 15 killed.

"We know the people who were killed were shooting at us," said Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan. "The people who were killed today were running around, maneuvering against our forces, and we killed them."

But Sayed Ahmad Safi, the spokesman for Laghman's governor, said that government intelligence reports indicated 11 of the dead were civilians, including three children and two females. Two of the dead were militants, he said.

25. January 2009, 01:24:01

Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact

Subject: Government isn't the solution, they are the problem. More is coming

24. January 2009, 05:29:12

Subject: Re:

Bernice: We had a dog like that too. Refused to pee outside when it rained. And I live in a State where it rains all winter ! lol

I wonder if the dog in question will go to a shrink?

24. January 2009, 04:56:53

Subject: Re:

Bernice: The headline cracks me up. How does a poodle get depressed? Poodle:" I'm feeling kinda down today. I didn't get my doggie treat like I'm supposed to. I think I'll bite Chirac."

24. January 2009, 04:34:07

Former French President Chirac hospitalised after mauling by his clinically depressed poodle

a clinically depressed poodle?

24. January 2009, 02:39:37

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Interesting. Hard to now what to believe. Here's another story. From Fox. lol http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262960,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261542,00.html

And Kevin McCullough calls Daivd Hicks a "dunderhead." What was he doing in Afganistan? Don't know but I wasn't there. But Davie was. And it's unlikely he was just there for an afternoon stroll. It makes more sense that he was aiding the enemy. http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/2007/2007/04/page5

24. January 2009, 00:39:05

Subject: Re:

Bernice: If true it's an injustice. But terrorists don't wear name tags so I give the benefit of the doubt to the US. As for "torture" if they had to eat my cooking they could call it torture. I don't know what people mean when they say "torture." I always think of ripping out fingernails or slicing off fingers. Loud music just doesn't seem to be so bad. My kids listened to loud music all the time. Yes it was torture for me but not on the level of having my skin peeled off my body or my fingernails yanked out.

24. January 2009, 00:35:26

Subject: Re: I couldn't resist,fair and balanced?

Jim Dandy: Two things: first, that is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. No one does it better than John. Second, isolated clips don't mean much in a larger context. You know what you get with Rush and you know what you get with Hannity. So those aren't good examples. OTOH, there were some soundbites that truly had my head shaking.

A few months ago Chris Wallace chewed out the hosts of a daytime Fox show (not sure which one) for "bashing" Obama. Some of those shows do that or at least, have done that. When the hard news programs go that direction, I'll switch the channel.

That said, I highly recommend the clip. You will get a huge laugh out of it. Somehow John Stewart is able to make Fox always look bad and in some cases I find it difficult to disagree with his assessment.

My favorite is the question about the second swearing in: Obama didn't have his hand on the Bible. So is he really the president.

Duh, it's the Chief Justice swearing Obama in. The dudes the president already.

23. January 2009, 23:51:45

Subject: You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war????

Czuch: Good point. I don't know that I've ever gotten a good explanation on this one. I think the entire situation is far more complex than most of us realize.

Not sure where I heard this but the question was asked, is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe?

I do know of former terriorists that are no longer committing acts of terror but are in fact, exposing Islam as a religion of hate and intolerance. But these terrorists weren't changed because of some government program. They found a greater reason to abondon Islam and embrace a belief that makes far more sense to them. ;)

23. January 2009, 22:43:41

Subject: Re: here's one

Charles Martel: Excellent example of the problems the US will face if they release any detainee.

23. January 2009, 22:39:48

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Jim Dandy: I'm sure I will have plenty of opportunity to do just that. I'll just pretend he is Bush making the decisions and ask myself what the liberal left would say, and then I go from there.

23. January 2009, 22:27:15

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

Jim Dandy: See, I'm not totally unreasonable.

23. January 2009, 22:00:58

Subject: Re: Closing Gitmo

coan.net: You may well be right. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that Obama is in charge. I have confidence that he will take into consideration the ongoing threat against the US. I don't expect Obama to cave in to radical pressures but to do what is both right and in the best interest of the security of the US. I know that Obama favors closing Gitmo in large part because of the negative view the world has on the US for what they percieve as injustices at Gitmo. Even if none of what's percieved were true, perception is a large part of their reality and Obama is dedicated to changing the world's opinion on the US. That is a good thing if properly balanced with the realities of the kind of enemy we have detained.

23. January 2009, 17:55:04

Subject: Re:

Czuch: I know that there have been some terrorists released and they went back to their terrorist activities and killed Americans. I'll see if I can find any specifics on that. This idea of a trial by civil court is terribly misguided. They were caputured on the battlefield, good enough for me.

23. January 2009, 06:41:54

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Most of us will live in peace (your country for example) because we see great value in it. And many see the value in helping other nations that aren't as fortunate as ours. Bush, love him or hate him, has done more for Africa than any other individual human being, living or dead.

I like the thing Obama has said so far. And for the most part, he's gotten right to work and kept up with his promises during the campaign. I don't doubt that he will continue that trend. But reality has a way of altering our priorities and only time will tell what the next 100 days will reveal. The direction of the Obama administration will be seen more clearly by then.

For example, Obama is closing Gitmo. But so far, he has no plan other than saying he will close it. His administration will "study" the logistics of closing the facility and look at available options and create a plan from there. So if one wanted to be picky, he's made a decision to close Gitmo with no plan in place of how that closing will proceed and no plan on what to do with all the inmates.

I agree with on conservative commentator who said put them all in Florida, right next to some of those hollywood hotshots that kept calling for Gitmos close. I say open a new facility right in their neighborhood. Then they can put on benefit concerts for them.

Do people really think that putting terrorists into the general population is a good idea? How long will it take before a couple of big burly inmates knock off a few of them former Gitmo inmates?

23. January 2009, 06:07:03

Subject: Re:

Bernice: Obama has some good ideas on foreign relations but he will soon find out that the Islamic terrorists are a different breed and death to them is the ultimate way to serve their god. They want what they want and if they don't get it, they will kill others. Then when they get what they want, they will settle on their next target. They want world domination ultimately. And killing everyone that stands in their way tops their list of things to do. I hope Obama can deal with them effectively but I suspect that nothing will work in the long run. When in the history of the world has the world ever been at peace?

23. January 2009, 05:54:03

Subject: Re:

Bernice:Yeah, they loved Bush in the beginning too. I suspect this administration will be different. Obama knows how to adapt to the political climate and he already has. When in Chicago, do as is expected. Check out the landscape and play according to the rules.

Bush was very different. He didn't care what the world thought of him personally. His goal was to secure the US from further terrorist attacks. And he did just that. No domestic attacks and for that, the American people can thank him.

23. January 2009, 05:45:48

Subject: Re:

Bernice:So what is the news your way regarding the Obama election?

23. January 2009, 05:33:25

I think likely the board moderator would have stepped in before things got too heated. A little heat in a debate is good for the blood.

As for personal attacks, hmmmm, I have no idea what is meant by that and I'm not going to try to read minds.

23. January 2009, 03:46:25

Subject: Re:Democrats supported the war,but only based on what they were fed as facts.

Czuch:Czuch, we need to clear up the air, you and I don't always agree do we.

23. January 2009, 03:43:41

Subject: Re:Democrats supported the war,but only based on what they were fed as facts.

anastasia:I didn't say right-wing nuts. I said left-wing. There's a difference.

In the news today is a story about a military photo journalist who took a picture of a US soldier cradling a young Iraqi girl. The girl was severely hurt by a bomb. The soldier was carrying the girl to get medical help. He was clearly comforting her.

Michael Moore, the left-wing's poster boy for spineless, gutless, dumber-than-rocks democrats, ran across the picture and posted it on his website. Moore passed the picture off as just another example of how the US military is killing children. The child in the photo had later died of her wounds.

And all the left-wing, spineless and brainless twits cried out against the US and it's war policies.

But there was a problem. Moore used the photo without the permission of the Journalist for one. For two, Moore used the photo as propaganda. In short, Moore lied. He used the death of this little girl to once again besmirch Bush and the war in Iraq.

But, the Photo Journalist testified that in fact, the US soldier found the girl after an enemy roadside bomb went off. The girl was killed by terrorists.

This is what people like you fall for. You read about some event and jump to the conclusion that it's true. Case in point, your claim that Bush made fun of people dying in Iraq.

Your claim is not only false, it's a deliberate lie. And you fell for it. Just like all the readers of Michael Moore's website, you fell for a lie. A distortion. And clear thinking people, like myself, see right through such things.

23. January 2009, 03:20:01