Gary, still in not-getting-it mode: > > If it's been a big talking point for you l&l's for so long, > why shut up now? > > Where are the demonstrations organized by ANSWER in front of the UN > > building? Where's Michael Whoore or John Kerry talking > about it every > > damn day? > > Uh, because the problem which occurred in the past is being > investigated? �Why aren't billionaires for Bush leading > marches in front of the UN or going on quiche strikes? �Could > some have made money off of it?
Oh. I see. As a card-carrying member of the liberal conspiracy, you're fine with the job the UN is doing on the investigation. Now, you've just suggested that Bushies or Bushie cronies are on the list of PPOS (Pricks Paid Off by Saddam). Who? But you do raise an interesting point. Why hasn't Bush been going nuts on the UN about this? Certainly, this is vindication for his ignoring the UN, and demonstrates the unprincipled heart of darkness in the Security Council. It's called "not piling on." I think it's hilarious to hear all the rabid Democrats bitching about the so-called Republican attack machine. I loved it when Kerry got on GMA last week and said that it's wrong to go after him for something that happened 30 years ago when they should be going after Bush for something that happened 30 years ago. The Democratic rhetoric is 10.5 on the hydrophobic scale, and they only stop foaming and snarling when they're drawing a breath and sniveling about how everyone else is so mean to them. > LOL, NK unlike Iraq actually has a half-decent or > quarter-decent army and really has WMDs. Maybe. Time will tell if they're bluffing. > > Stalin and Mao don't count, I guess? At least the right > supports itty > > bitty dictators, unlike you leftists who say that as soon as a > > dictator kills 10 million he's no longer a cult but a church. > > Compared to the GOP that arranges for one of the most > powerful cult leaders, but a strong financial and media > supporter, to have himself crowned Messiah in the capital? I don't quite get what your point is here. Somewhere in there, I supposed you think that the GOP is worse than Stalin, but other than that, I'm baffled. > > But you make an interesting, if deranged, point: what exactly is it > > about what's going on that's unconstitutional and destroying the > > separation of powers? > > This administration. > > They have made repeated prolonged assault on the separation > of powers, elevating executive power and classifying secret > public meetings with private citizens. �They have detained US > citizens without charges and without access to an attorney > and communication. They have expounded a right to collect any > and all information from any source about anyone in the > United States without revealing a reason. And the Supreme Court has ruled against them when? And they have ignored the Court after that ruling when? And the administration implemented the Patriot Act despite Congress not passing it? > > By the way, Bush just used the word "apologize" > > but it still won't make you happy. What he did was gutsy > and difficult > > and you don't care. > > Bush calls treatment of Iraqi prisoners 'abhorrent,' but > doesn't apologize > http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/05/05/448149-ap.html > > You have low standards for gutsy and difficult. You like to move the goalposts a lot. Notice, that I was right. You don't care. You got what you want and you still aren't happy. What are you, a 23 year old hot chick? > Maybe. Except for a couple public moments for a couple months after > 9/11 he has been pretty much a miserable, dangerous excuse > for a president. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I think you're a miserable, dangerous excuse for a citizen. > I agree he is a right wing moron. �I cannot see Kerry doing > anything as bad as this gang has managed to do and�Kerry was > way down on my list of candidates. � Well, that's what happens when you let Mr. Mole vote. Kerry has said he'll kiss Eurabian/UN ass in the war on terror. He'll out-Chamberlain Spain. Also, let's not forget, it wasn't just 30 years ago today that Sgt. Kerry threw his medals away. Since then, he's been about the most consistently leftist member of Congress. Even if he had reformed, I wouldn't care. Really, there's something wrong with you if you buy into this shit even when you're 20. > Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted from the > beginning, however, "They will be handled not as prisoners of > war, because they're not, but as unlawful combatants. > Technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under > the Geneva Convention. > > "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, > treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the > Geneva conventions, to the extent they are appropriate." I've already conceded your point in another post on this: Rumsfeld said it, I believe it, and that settles it. You might want to keep in mind that the Geneva Conventions prohibit things like keeping POWs in cells or isolated from each other. Those are the kinds of provisions we need to violate. When the cops interrogate criminals they don't put them all in the same holding cell so they can get their stories straight. What our MPs did to those prisoners in Iraq sucked. Whether it technically violated the conventions, I don't know or care. I'm proud of how the Bushies have sucked it up and taken their lumps. No, they haven't been perfect. Bush didn't say the A-word timely. Rumsfeld was a little defensive the first time he was confronted about it. But what the Chappaquiddick Kid did today was beyond shameful, and Rumsfeld was spot on, only losing his temper at stupidity a couple of times today. If you think the dog and pony show that went on today is going to play well with the voters, please keep thinking that. As a great man once said, Bring it on! > Amnesty International and others in the coalition, however, > have argued that those held in Guantanamo are presumed to be > prisoners of war, and if there is any doubt about their > status, it is not the prerogative of the US secretary of > defense to unilaterally make the determination. Fuck Amnesty International. I used to give them money. What a maroon. Amnesty International can take the issue to court or go to hell. They choose soft targets and ignore the really bad stuff. Poseurs. > According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, said > Amnesty, the US must convene a "competent tribunal" that is > competent and impartial to decide on their status. Read more, believe AI propaganda less. > This is also the position exposed by the International > Committee of the Red Cross, considered a key interpreter of > the Geneva Conventions. First, that would be espoused, not exposed and second, too bad for the Red Cross. They shouldn't play politics like this or they could go the way of French wine in America. Really, I'm about done with taking crap off my moral inferiors, especially when they are wallowing in their pretensions to moral superiority. Which has a lot to do with my attitude when posting in this forum. Mike Lee Islamic Easter Bunny _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
