"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Damn, when he said "rap music" I was totally fooled into thinking it was a Nazi plot. Someone get down there quick before we put on another puppet show for the prisoners.

The low frequency with which this happens, combined with the fact that the DoD investigates all these claims and has had several court martials for the offending parties, combined with the fact that the "many that have been released" amounts to about 40 out of over 500, and we've already caught (again) or killed half of them RIGHT BACK AT IT FIGHTING FOR THE OTHER SIDE... to even try to draw a comparison with a regime that systematically slaughtered some 35 million people between the names mentioned is ridiculous.

Was it wrong of Rove to overgeneralize? Yes. But moveon.org fits his description perfectly. So both of them have some context of truth but of course are overstated points which are then inflated and used as ammunition by the other side.

w0rf:

Was it wrong of Rove to overgeneralize? Yes. But moveon.org fits his description perfectly. So both of them have some context of truth but of course are overstated points which are then inflated and used as ammunition by the other side.


For the most part, I agree, but a distinction HAS to be made.

Once again, Durbin was specific in his comparison of a specific act of torture and its specific perpetrators with tactics used by brutal totalitarian regimes.

Rove, just like those who like to identify themselves as "conservatives" in the media and on the political stage so often do, indicted an entire social/political philosophy and a good part of the American public as terrorist sympathizers.

As I explained above, I don't like either one, but to equate the two as far as the level of outrage these incidents should elicit is disingenuous at best.

It's incredible how many unsubstantiatied allegations and meaningless blanket statements are being thrown around this thread. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the crazies around here really aren't the same nutjob posting over multiple accounts.

without reading the comments on this thread or the article-

BULLshiat

tphillips:

It's incredible how many unsubstantiatied allegations and meaningless blanket statements are being thrown around this thread. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the crazies around here really aren't the same nutjob posting over multiple accounts.

Nope. There's a whole bunch of nutjobs here.

I hope this statement doesn't constitute torture to greggen. I'd hate to be unworthy of his respect.

tphillips:

I wouldn't be suprised if some of the crazies around here really aren't the same nutjob posting over multiple accounts.

I resent that unsubstantiated allegation!!!

Hehehehe. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

This is all Carter's fault. He'll; of course, blame Ford. That bastard.

How do I become an involved liberal or conservative party hack? I want to care, or have a side. I really do. I want to feel involved and insulted on a daily basis for no particular reason.

"Now to hear some fellers tell it, the entire idea of Unlawful Combatants came to Sith mastermind Darth Rover in a vision, and he instructed his familiars Chimpy McBushiatler and Torture Master Rumsfeld to use it as an excuse to begin the unjustified savagery that is such an essential part of the American character.

"Absent from this worldview is, well, just about everything."

More...(linky pop)

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese

So you and the author of that article you linked to both seem to agree that we are justified in using torture against someone who may or may not be a terrorist because the terrorists would do the same to our forces, right?

Are we justified in kidnapping their women and children and torturing THEM until their husband/father talks?

Do you think we should be using acid baths in order to get "results"?

Or maybe we should simply be ass-raping their underage children until they talk.

Where do you, personally, draw the damned line? That's all I want to know.

Prospero424

Why do you want our side to lose?

Prospero424: Where do you, personally, draw the damned line? That's all I want to know.

Err, after turning their country into the aforementioned glass parking lot, we slice out sheets of the glass, back one side in silver and mount it on our ceilings, over our evil, capitalist waterbeds, and fark bisexual midget donkey/sheep hybrids while wearing burkhas.

That's where I draw the line, dammit; step over that and I'll have to fark your basset hound. (Flash better be fast, I've seen those luscious ears...)

enders_shadow

It's a trap!

this was a set-up which the Dems walked straight into: if the Dems don't respond, they look like ineffectual sissies who will take any slapping given to them. if they do respond, it becomes an pitiful attempt at "attacking" the White House.

rove effectively made this an issue of Dems being "singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric."

It goes deeper than that.

Lots of Democrats stood by Durbin's invokation of Godwin. When Durbin apologized, they looked like fools, so they started looking for something with which to slam the Republicans to divert the negative attention back to them. When Rove served up the conservatives vs. liberals quote, the Democrats smelled blood in the water and struck. However, what they had to compromise in order to make such an attack dwarfs the benefits of the attack itself.

- Rove dissed "liberals," not "Democrats." For Democrats to act as though the attack were aimed at them personally, they had to identify themselves as "liberals." Last election cycle, they avoided that term like the plague because of its current negative connotations, and Rove just got them to embrace it.

- The hooplah raised by bringing this debate to the media spotlight gives Republicans a reason to cite every idiotic, anti-American things Democrats and liberals have ever said, and some of the fringe elements have said some very stupid things. With the Democrats identifying themselves as liberals, including the far-left ones to which Rove referred elsewhere in the speech from which the libs vs. cons quote is derived, the reputation of these more radical members rubs off on them.

- While Rove went too far with his comment in dissing liberals in general rather than singling out the far-left elements, the fallacies in his statement pale in comparison to those of Durbin's. The Democrats' attempts to label Rove's comments as worse make them look not only terribly petty, but also tone-deaf with regards to national security in that they see more wrong with being called wimps than with comparing US soldiers to Nazis.

- In making this otherwise feckless comment the news item of the week, Democrats lead the media into engaging debates over which side is tougher on terrorists: Democrats or Republicans. If last November's election is any indication, Democrats don't have too great a chance at winning that debate for the time being.

Rove is no fool. He knew that the Democrats were out for blood after the Durbin dust-up, and he set up a well-baited trap to divert the public discourse back to national security and to get the Democrats to identify themselves among the radical elements of the far left. If the latest media pundit pieces are any indication, it worked.

Next time, the Democrats would be wise to recognize one of the following when they see it:

Yeah, I recognize a chrome pipe every time!

Dork.

/If you can link pics, at least 'Shop Ackbar into the danged thing!

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese: Why do you want our side to lose?

Sorry, my first reaction to that question was to laugh my ass off. Then I thought "wait, maybe he's actually serious." So here goes:

If your "side" is murderers, thugs, rapists, sadists, tyrants, and monsters, I think it's quite obvious. Your side is evil.

If the "side" you speak of is America, then I would argue that it is you, by supporting these counter-productive and morally indefensible actions that do nothing but harm our nation in the long run, who wants us to lose.

Why do you hate America?

I notice you declined to answer my question. I know, I know, you wouldn't want to take a moral stand or anything, would you? You'd rather, apparently, leave it to the terrorists to determine what it is our country deems acceptable as far as prisoner treatment.

Why are you willing to give such power to those who wish to do such harm to our nation and its citizens. Why are you on the terrorists' side?

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese
Prospero424
Why do you want our side to lose?

Dude, chill. I've debated Prospero plenty of times before, and he ain't a nut like that. Even though we often but heads in debates, we can cooperate, too. Case in point:



I could've just let you two duke it out, but I felt like putting up Stallone again. ^_^

FarkmeBlind:

That's where I draw the line, dammit; step over that and I'll have to fark your basset hound. (Flash better be fast, I've seen those luscious ears...)

Hehehe, awesome. Still, i would actually be interested in hearing a serious answer to this question from someone who defends this practice and worse.

Actually, this is MY Basset Hound. Mostly Basset, at least:



VideoVader:

I've addressed all of the points you brought up already. Check out my posts above, if you're interested.

Rove is no fool. He knew that the Democrats were out for blood after the Durbin dust-up, and he set up a well-baited trap to divert the public discourse back to national security and to get the Democrats to identify themselves among the radical elements of the far left.

First off, as far as public opinion is concerned, I think you're totally wrong with your prediction that this will identify the Democrats with the "far left" simply by them identifying themselves with "liberals" in general. I give Americans more credit than that.

As for Rove orchestrating this whole thing with the elaborate intent you desribed above, I think you, like so many of this administration's critics, give the man WAY too much credit. There are far better, less elaborate and conspiratorial ways to get to the Democrats' public image than what Rove did yesterday, any one of which I'm sure he could have used if he was so inclined.

What Rove did yesterday was stupid and was pretty close to the same kind of indefensible rhetoric used by the likes of Michael Savage, wherein a large percentage of our fellow Ameicans are lumped in with a few radicals. As I've told you over and over again: this is increasingly becoming Republicans' favorite tactic, and you're only going to see more of it. With Bush refusing to say even the slightest thing in condemnation, he is tacitly agreeing with Rove.

Sure makes you proud when your President agrees with Michael Savage, don't it? :/

Man, it seems like this happens every time. It's way too late here, and I gotta head out. I'll try to check back on tomorrow for any response you may have.

VideoVader:

Thanks for the kind words.

I dunno, I'm still not sure he's not just trolling or simply joking. Oh well, I don't let things like that get to me, as you know.

I could've just let you two duke it out, but I felt like putting up Stallone again. ^_^

Dude, I came THIS CLOSE to using that picture again today. Weird.

Prospero424
Man, it seems like this happens every time. It's way too late here, and I gotta head out. I'll try to check back on tomorrow for any response you may have.

Eh, I don't have too much to say anyway. Just a couple of points.

1. Maybe Rove didn't predict all of the results that I listed, but I'm sure he anticipated at least one or two of them (i.e. steering the national debate back to who's tougher on terrorists). Perhaps it just worked better than he anticipated.

2. I don't like Michael Savage either, but I don't think Bush is the one lumping the Democrats with the far left. It was Rove who got the Democrats to do that to themselves. It doesn't help that the Democrats allied themselves with far-left dumbasses like Michael Moore and Moveon.Org last year to improve their own chances in the elections since 2000 (which obviously backfired), so there is a sizeable kernel of truth to what Rove said.
The overgeneralizations must be condemned, but it's not entirely indefensible, either, and not nearly as bad as Durbin's remarks, which is what makes the Democrats' response look so absurd.

It's all one big game of media manipulation. Or rather, a game of manipulating the opponent into manipulating the media. Come to think of it, that just sort of adds to the cleverness of Rove's trick. Lots of outlets in the media are keen on parroting the Democrats, so to get the media to say what he wants, Rove gets the Democrats to say what he wants.

Thanks for the kind words.

No problem, bud.

I dunno, I'm still not sure he's not just trolling or simply joking. Oh well, I don't let things like that get to me, as you know.

's cool. Trolls on my side of the aisle annoy me more than those on the opposing side cuz the former makes my side look bad. See, contrary to the aforementioned Democrats, I reject the whackjobs who lean too far to the right. :P

Dude, I came THIS CLOSE to using that picture again today. Weird.

Heh, behold the power of Frank Stallone!

Anyway, g'night all.

/Vader out.

Prospero424

PS: Excellent invokation of the X-15 Cruise Basselope. Classic.

ALL HAIL TEH MIGHTY POWER OF TEH CRUISE BASSELOPE!!!!!!

Dude, awseome gif, seriously.

/misses Bloom County

When right-wing crap gets submitted here, it is accepted and green lit. When fact based stories critical of the neo-con Fuhrer are submitted, they are rejected.

Befuddled:

When right-wing crap gets submitted here, it is accepted and green lit. When fact based stories critical of the neo-con Fuhrer are submitted, they are rejected.

Wow... just wow.

Wow, this thread is another great example of how uneducated Bush supports are.

When they hear the word "Nazi" or "Fascism", they can only think of Hitler, His ridiculous looking moustache, Swastika's, WW2 and the Holocaust.

There is a lot more to the concept of Fascism than that. Bush supporters should be taught this.

Then again, I have no ideas on how to teach them either, as they are either closet Fascists and know it but deny it for marketing purposes, or have insufficient attention spans to explain something as complex as fascism to.

Maybe a simple way of putting it would be: "A dictatorship set up to serve the corporate elite".....

I have not heard anyone say that the US is committing genocide in a comparable way to the extermination of the Jews. I dont even think Osama is claiming that one.

Nor is anyone saying the US has no democratically elected government.

What people are saying, is that the US is Slipping into Fascism, that is, it is not there yet, but is heading there.

But this is probably too complex for Bushies to understand...

Fark: An introduction to hyperbole.

consdubya

Wow, this thread is another great example of how uneducated Bush supports are.

Thick and deep my friend.

I'm sure you are smarter than every single Bush supporter out there. If only you were smart enough to explain to them why they are wrong. Then you could save the country! From Fascism!

While technically speaking it might be true; it's like saying America is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany - technically speaking true, but still an absurd comparison. America is also becoming more socialist... You worry about the fascism though.

Your extreme examples are childish and straw man. And actually people HAVE said the U.S. is committing genocide(just google it); irregardless, that does not make the comments by Durbin, Pelosi, or many liberals any better. You can only slander your country so many times before people start to question your sincerity when you say you really do love your country. Really.

The fact that most lefts in this thread will not under any circumstances believe anything good has come from the Bush administration is just pitiful. When presented with evidence contrary to their (theories) they resort to "Well, they are obviously lying!".

shiat happens. People do bad things (and get punished), that does not mean that it is official endorsed policy. Surely that's not too..."complex" for the brilliant liberal mind.

You guys are missing the big picture. Clinton got his cock sucked 8 years ago. Anything else anyone ever has done or ever might do in the future pales in comparison to the outrageous act of being on the receiving end of a blowjob.

Prospero

However, what Durbin did was compare the (illegal, even under the most "lenient" prisoner abuse laws) actions descrbed in the memos he cited and the specific Americans who perpetrated them to attrocities perpetrated by some of the worst regimes of the last century.

Just curious, what laws would those be?

And I would argue the specifics of his statement. He simply says Americans. And later he pointedly noted that he was not specific - he did not say "servicemen" and that it could have been FBI or contractors responsible or sumsuch. I'm sure the good senator is aware that the U.S. military runs Gitmo.

Animatronik:

I think it's hilarious that Democrats are making a stink about Rove. It just shows how much they hate him. Who cares what a whitehouse aide said in a speech to a bunch of conservatives.

/Democrat congressmen pwn'd by Rove

I think we've found our submitter.

CatosRepublic:

And I would argue the specifics of his statement. He simply says Americans. And later he pointedly noted that he was not specific - he did not say "servicemen" and that it could have been FBI or contractors responsible or sumsuch. I'm sure the good senator is aware that the U.S. military runs Gitmo.

Here is what he said:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

(reading)
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.


If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

How much more specific can you get?

That was already posted by at 2005-06-24 09:53:22 AM pontechango.

Coffee break!! Smoke em' if you got em'. Lefties with the right hand and righties with the left. Lets all relax for 5 minutes and build our arguements.

CatosRepublic:

shiat happens. People do bad things (and get punished), that does not mean that it is official endorsed policy. Surely that's not too..."complex" for the brilliant liberal mind.


Buddy, do you know anything about history?

The German people also thought that it was only a few bad eggs committing the atrocities. And at first, it was. But these things tend to snowball.

You can only slander your country so many times before people start to question your sincerity when you say you really do love your country.

Imagine the exact same statement being said in Berlin to a liberal critisising the treatment of political prisoners in 1938.... Sound scary?

Dont think you are immune to being taken over by a dictator. The "Few bad eggs" line dosent cut it. The people high up in charge are responsible for everything, and should be held accountable. The fact that Bush has refused Rummy's resignation twice now should make you worried. I mean, the guy himself thinks he should be fired.

Something is wrong. You are in denial. Wake up before its too late.

CatosRepublic
irregardless, that does not make the comments by Durbin, Pelosi, or many liberals any better. You can only slander your country so many times before people start to question your sincerity when you say you really do love your country. Really.

Two points:

1. This is the essence of neoconservative propaganda: that any action can be justified and any dissent can be labeled as unpatriotic. The administration's actions can always be justified, and anyone who stands in their way only need be labeled a "liberal" and threatened with condemnation as an American-hater to either disarm them or force them to retreat.

In other words -- don't make trouble for us or you'll be blacklisted.

2. "Irregardless" is not a word.

Ya know, anytime someone says we have a liberal press, I point to our illegal wars and the free pass our leaders got on it, and the numerous lies around it that get such cursory coverage by our beloved news media.

Conservatives' new game plan is to complain about everything. They are in complete control, and yet they complain. When they WIN they complain. It's a cycle of hatred that is quite scary.

"While technically speaking it might be true; it's like saying America is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany - technically speaking true, but still an absurd comparison. America is also becoming more socialist... You worry about the fascism though."

I was just scanning through this thread when this paragraph cought my eye. I'd just like to point out that this Socialist crap is fall out from American Propaganda Durring the Cold War. Before the Mcarthy Era, programs that generally the Conservatives now call "Socialist" were enacted as a method of keeping economic and social stability in check. A Pure Democracy has never existed in the US. The closest we've ever been to it is probably the turn-of the century era where corrupt politicians and a few huge buisness tycoons ruled and families worked for pennies in pretty much horrible factory conditions, if they could find a job. Not surprisingly, counter-measure programs were popular immediatly after this. Then the Cold War comes along, and to this day, you have people calling people unpatriotic or unamerican for wanting some Republic with their Democracy.

Point is, compare us from the 1930's to now, and it's fairly clear that since the cold war, we havent been getting more socialistic.

"You can only slander your country so many times before people start to question your sincerity when you say you really do love your country. Really."

That pretty much destroyed any credibility you had as a non-asshole in this thread IMO.

"The fact that most lefts in this thread will not under any circumstances believe anything good has come from the Bush administration is just pitiful. When presented with evidence contrary to their (theories) they resort to "Well, they are obviously lying!""

Actually, it depends on what you ask. If you ask obvious good things that any president would do, like extending food stamps for poor kids in school, or going to schools to personally explain the importance of education, then yeah, most would agree. If you ask Party-Line issues, then no. When his official policy on American-level human rights is that if they're not born in North America, they dont apply, or he's creating executive orders establishing Offices of Religious Innitiatives (OFBCI) all over the government in everything from the Whitehouse to the departments of Commerce and Agriculture, then yeah, he's going to have people who disagree with him.

I didnt make the last part up by the way.

The white-houses summary document for the Office of Faith Based inniatives is called:

"Rallying the Armies of Compassion"

The main Bulk of the Actual Executive Orders:

"
The purpose of the agency Centers will be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participa-tion of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Each Center shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(a) conduct, in coordination with the White House OFBCI, an agency-wide audit to identify all existing barriers to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services by the agency, including but not limited to regulations, rules, orders, procurement, and other internal policies and practices, and outreach activities that either facially discriminate against or otherwise discourage or disadvantage the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal programs;

(b) coordinate a comprehensive agency effort to incorporate faith-based and other community organizations in agency programs and initiatives to the greatest extent possible;

(c) propose initiatives to remove barriers identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order, including but not limited to reform of regulations, procurement, and other internal policies and practices, and outreach activities;"


I'll leave you people with that.

/havent slept in 30 hours
//zzzzzzz....

vbidez:

The simple fact of the matter is that conservatives liberals are evil sub-human sacks of crap who deserve to be attacked, ostracized, humiliated, insulted, beaten, robbed, ridiculed, bludgeoned, and otherwise harassed by anyone at anytime for any reason.

That's what you get for being a conservative liberal.

Deal with it.

There, I fixed it for you.

I think Steve Gilliard has the right idea.

Let's not get distracted by draft dodgers and deferments seekers trashing half of the US armed forces.

let's solve America's biggest problem: the War in Iraq.

Let's call on the 120,000 College Young Republicans who cheer this war on, and who are all young and healthy enough to fight -to go to a nearby recruitment center and enlist immediately.

( Oh if I were the King of America, I would make it a crime to call for a war that you won't fight in.)

BTW, ever notice that the first one to call someone else unpatriotic or unamerican are always the last ones to have ever worn any uniform beyond cub scouts?

Long time reader, first time poster - just thought I'd throw this out there. You know. For perspective. Link goes to Newhouse News Service, though I don't know how to make it "pop".

/sry

billcosby

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Note the "Americans". Is that specific? Which Americans, precisely? Oh, the ones running Guantanamo Bay? Yeah - the U.S. Military. Thank you.

I can't believe servicemen would be offended by this.
/sarcasm

Clavis
There is a difference between dissent and slander.

When Rep. Rangel (D-NY) says "This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed." about the U.S. policy in Iraq, is that dissent or slander? How far removed from reality do you have to be to even ask that question? People know the difference between dissent and slander, it's evident in tone and choice of words. Sure, sometimes the line is a little blurry, but when people consistantly fall on the side of vicious and absurd comparisons, then I as a citizen have the right to question their motives. Period.

Bush has his motives questioned constantly. What's good for the goose...

And from now on I expect you to point out every slang word on fark and tell the poster that it ain't a word. Oops!

CatosRepublic:

Note the "Americans". Is that specific? Which Americans, precisely? Oh, the ones running Guantanamo Bay? Yeah - the U.S. Military. Thank you.

The one in the memo? There exist Americans that commit crimes. They go to jail. That is not a criticism of Americans.

I can't believe servicemen would be offended by this.
/sarcasm

Servicemen are offended by the use of torture. That's why most of them rightly call for full investigations.

kelly64

"Point is, compare us from the 1930's to now, and it's fairly clear that since the cold war, we havent been getting more socialistic."

I disagree, we have been getting "more" socialist. Look at medicaid and medicare. Look at our education system. Look at welfare "reform". Regardless, the point of the argument was that while we ARE becoming more fascist it is a slight move in certain specific areas of the system, not an overrall broad shift. Similiar to the socialist shift. That doesn't make either something to be ignored, but it also doesn't mean we should begin to panic and claim the sky is falling.



"You can only slander your country so many times before people start to question your sincerity when you say you really do love your country. Really."

That pretty much destroyed any credibility you had as a non-asshole in this thread IMO.

That one statement right there? That blew it for me? Wow, you have thin skin. I would say that is a true statement, how many times CAN you slander your country before people start to question your motives?


"Actually, it depends on what you ask. If you ask obvious good things that any president would do, like extending food stamps for poor kids in school, or going to schools to personally explain the importance of education, then yeah, most would agree. If you ask Party-Line issues, then no. When his official policy on American-level human rights is that if they're not born in North America, they dont apply..."

So democrats automatically disagree with Bush on ALL party line issues? The democrat party is in real trouble in America, they have become a party of one issue voters and special interest groups. Many times this puts them out on the fringe compared to most of America. This is bad for the democrat party, but also for the country.

Please show me where Bush has said "American level human rights don't apply unless you are born in America". I will reserve complete judgement until you get a chance to respond, but this is the sort of fringe crap I'm talking about.

Billcosby

"The one in the memo? There exist Americans that commit crimes. They go to jail. That is not a criticism of Americans."

Ok, we are obviously on two different pages regarding the meaning of those words, so I will ask a different question.

What crimes? I want the crime AND the law it breaks.

And do not just repaste the memo again and ask me how I can say there are no crimes in it. List me the specific crime, and the specific law it breaks.

pontechango: Why does Rummy still have a job?

Because he's in PNAC.

Just FYI Rumsfeld submitted his resignation twice during the Abu Ghraib fiasco. Being the SecDef it falls under his jurisdiction and in the military supervisors are held responsible for their departments. Rumsfeld offering to resign was a way of basically saying "This is my responsibility, and I will take the blame for it."

If you think the crap that went on at Abu Ghraib is official policy and endorsed by Dep. of Defense, well, you probably don't know much about how the military operates.

CatosRepublic:

Ok, we are obviously on two different pages regarding the meaning of those words, so I will ask a different question.

What crimes? I want the crime AND the law it breaks.

And do not just repaste the memo again and ask me how I can say there are no crimes in it. List me the specific crime, and the specific law it breaks.

Well I never said anything about crimes in the memo, so you can go look that up yourself.

I said I would ask a different question.

You said "There exist Americans who commit crimes". I was simply asking you what crimes did they commit? But whatever, if you don't want to answer just say that.

CatosRepublic:

Just curious, what laws would those be?

Sorry, I meant laws/regulations. Every official representative of the US military and government has declared what went on, as described in the memo Durbin specifically cited, EVERY ONE has condemned it and promised that those responsible would be held accountable. I think that makes it pretty damned clear, don't you?

And I would argue the specifics of his statement. He simply says Americans.

No, no he doesn't, he makes it quite clear by the context that he was referring to the specific Americans involved in the torture described in official government documents. If you have indeed read his entire statement and still believe he indicted all American servicemen, either your reading comprehension skills need a lot of improvement or you simply want him to have said that so you can be as angry at yet another "liberal" as you WANT to be. It's that simple.

It's this disturbing readiness on the part of those who like to identify themselves as "conservatives" to hate and demonize their fellow countrymen, like Rove did, that worries me more than any other trend in this country.

CatosRepublic:

Note the "Americans". Is that specific? Which Americans, precisely? Oh, the ones running Guantanamo Bay? Yeah - the U.S. Military. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to make this nice and simple for you:

I witness a crime in my neighborhood, and I describe the perpetrator to my local police. I tell them it was a large white man and go on to derscribe his crime.

By your logic, I have now said that all large white men are criminals.

See how silly that is? Now knock it off, you're wrong, face it like a man.