There are reasons the Abu Gulag photos got out---I'm not one of those people.
As far as I was aware, the photos were handed in by a soldier who couldn't in good consience stand by while abuses were being perpetrated. These were then leaked from the Army investigation to a news reporter.
A couple of times now you've claimed that they escaped onto the internet in some manner. So what's up with that?
(You also appear to be saying that if you had physical proof of US soldiers sexually assaulting, raping, killing Iraqi prisoners and gloating over their corpses that you would keep that secret, rather than report it as the US Army whistleblower has done.)
Gore gave a SPEECH at New York University. I guess he got very worked up and really let him have it:
He damanded the resignations of all those big-guns under Bush . . . and, well, read it yourselves . . . it was very long but here is a sample:
Quote:
"President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab world -- but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions. He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders."
"Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in their own lands. Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable."
"And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America. He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco."
"In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president. I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability."
"So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands."
"I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable -- and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, 'We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility.'"
\
The rest of the speech is great too . . . take some time and read it if you are so inclined . . . maybe even if you are not
I caught the replay on the screaming head shows tonight. Damn, Gore can throw some fire when he wants to. If he'd talked like that during the 2000 election, maybe things would've turned out differently.
Great cartoon(although I just couldn't do more than smile given the current state of affairs). And that speech looks to have been a good one. I guess accountability isn't part of strong "leadership" anymore.
I caught the replay on the screaming head shows tonight. Damn, Gore can throw some fire when he wants to. If he'd talked like that during the 2000 election, maybe things would've turned out differently.
If we had leaders and not heads we remove and screw onto a suit every four years we probably would have had a different direction. Some thought it was JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Bush....well, I haven't seen the honesty, forthright and the determination in anyone this election.
I voted for Clinton. Would have voted for Gore if I wasn't so pissed at Clinton(Dems) then...and Bush? God, I went through his father's Nazi Party and I didn't want that again. Now look what goes on, I guess I am psychic.
When I voted for Clinton I sensed something good...and I know now that with the good will come bad...but after witnessing the Republican Convention here in Philly and the Election from Hell in 2000...all I felt was impending doom.
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
Now THAT'S what I call a SPEECH . Gore's balls grew back. Kerry needs to learn a little from him. Kerry emerging standing in front of his shiney new campaign jet doesn't cut it. SAY SOMETHING THAT MATTERS.
Too bad Gore ain't running. I'd vote for him. But I guess since he was so "roundly defeated" he means nothing now...but he can state his opinions...
I caught the replay on the screaming head shows tonight. Damn, Gore can throw some fire when he wants to. If he'd talked like that during the 2000 election, maybe things would've turned out differently.
My thoughts exactly. Cardboard had more character than Gore in 2000.
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
/callmecynical...
I feel the way you do, but you have to look beyond Bush as well. I want Ashcroft out ASAP, and the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.
I think the perception that Kerry is bad, which is held by so many more inclined towards Dems, is a byproduct of the Bush Rove machine and their slanderous attacks . . . these things don't just work through the immediate sources (commercials etc) but through setting up a general environment of negativity.
I think Kerry is intelligent and he has leadership, and most of all, he will assemble a good crew to make up his administration, he also will work on repairinf International rifts and try to recognize that the world is made of many mutually respecting, -and some not- countries.
In fact, one of the reasons that many Dems seem disenchanted with him, namely his 'insider status', I would dare say, is a plus: someone who knows how to translate decisions into their actual implimentation through the hierarchies of Washington has an advantage to the less knowledgeable . . . . look at what a complete bungler Bush has been, and you will see what the lack of such real experience (besides his short governorship) can mean.
I say don't let the false claims of waffler sink in, they are as much distortions as was calling Gore a liar
Sure he isn't Clinton or Kennedy . . . but he is JFK
I say: Get over the wittle hurt feelings of Dean's loss (talking to experience here) and realize that this election could very well be the most important thing the world has ever known!!
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
If you can't think of a dozen ways off the top of your head that Kerry would be better than Bush, then you just aren't paying attention. The "oh, they aren't really all that different" line is nothing but stylized apathy. Kerry would be a whole lot different as President than some interchangeable head replacing Bush's head on the top of a generic statue. (I could, however, possibly be convinced that Bush's actual head is constructed from solid marble, but that's another issue.)
Perhaps Kerry isn't the greatest campaigner. Perhaps, as he has in other elections, he'll lie low and come out stronger nearer to the election.
But should that really matter? Campaigning is mostly bullshit anyhow, you should know that. There might be some rough correspondence between how effective a campaigner someone is, and how effective he'll be at the political persuasion needed to accomplish his agenda -- but only a rough correspondence, and it's not like there aren't other qualities of a candidate to consider.
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
Let's dial in Feb 03 on the internet time machine:
Quote:
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
...
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
...
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
...
Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
Shetline-- those were among the best three paragraphs I've ever read here.
I feel the way you do, but you have to look beyond Bush as well. I want Ashcroft out ASAP, and the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.
Thank you. A few of us get it. It's not about just voting Bush out of office. It's about cleaning up the mess. It's about voting Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ashcroft, and the rest of the neocons out of office.
If you can't think of a dozen ways off the top of your head that Kerry would be better than Bush, then you just aren't paying attention. The "oh, they aren't really all that different" line is nothing but stylized apathy. Kerry would be a whole lot different as President than some interchangeable head replacing Bush's head on the top of a generic statue. (I could, however, possibly be convinced that Bush's actual head is constructed from solid marble, but that's another issue.)
Perhaps Kerry isn't the greatest campaigner. Perhaps, as he has in other elections, he'll lie low and come out stronger nearer to the election.
But should that really matter? Campaigning is mostly bullshit anyhow, you should know that. There might be some rough correspondence between how effective a campaigner someone is, and how effective he'll be at the political persuasion needed to accomplish his agenda -- but only a rough correspondence, and it's not like there aren't other qualities of a candidate to consider.
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
That was an excellent post Shetline.Some of those points should be put into a postcard and sent to all the Nadarines and undecided independents.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
There are reasons the Abu Gulag photos got out---I'm not one of those people.
As far as I was aware, the photos were handed in by a soldier who couldn't in good consience stand by while abuses were being perpetrated. These were then leaked from the Army investigation to a news reporter.
A couple of times now you've claimed that they escaped onto the internet in some manner. So what's up with that?
(You also appear to be saying that if you had physical proof of US soldiers sexually assaulting, raping, killing Iraqi prisoners and gloating over their corpses that you would keep that secret, rather than report it as the US Army whistleblower has done.)
He damanded the resignations of all those big-guns under Bush . . . and, well, read it yourselves . . . it was very long but here is a sample:
"President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab world -- but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions. He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders."
"Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in their own lands. Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable."
"And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America. He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco."
"In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president. I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability."
"So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands."
"I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable -- and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, 'We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility.'"
The rest of the speech is great too . . . take some time and read it if you are so inclined . . . maybe even if you are not
Originally posted by midwinter
I caught the replay on the screaming head shows tonight. Damn, Gore can throw some fire when he wants to. If he'd talked like that during the 2000 election, maybe things would've turned out differently.
If we had leaders and not heads we remove and screw onto a suit every four years we probably would have had a different direction. Some thought it was JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Gore, Bush....well, I haven't seen the honesty, forthright and the determination in anyone this election.
I voted for Clinton. Would have voted for Gore if I wasn't so pissed at Clinton(Dems) then...and Bush? God, I went through his father's Nazi Party and I didn't want that again. Now look what goes on, I guess I am psychic.
When I voted for Clinton I sensed something good...and I know now that with the good will come bad...but after witnessing the Republican Convention here in Philly and the Election from Hell in 2000...all I felt was impending doom.
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
/callmecynical...
WAKE UP PEOPLE! (photoshopedgorepicfromfark.com)
Now THAT'S what I call a SPEECH . Gore's balls grew back. Kerry needs to learn a little from him. Kerry emerging standing in front of his shiney new campaign jet doesn't cut it. SAY SOMETHING THAT MATTERS.
Too bad Gore ain't running. I'd vote for him. But I guess since he was so "roundly defeated" he means nothing now...but he can state his opinions...
/itsgonnagethotterinherenow...
Originally posted by midwinter
I caught the replay on the screaming head shows tonight. Damn, Gore can throw some fire when he wants to. If he'd talked like that during the 2000 election, maybe things would've turned out differently.
My thoughts exactly. Cardboard had more character than Gore in 2000.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
[snippity-snip]
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
/callmecynical...
I feel the way you do, but you have to look beyond Bush as well. I want Ashcroft out ASAP, and the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.
I think Kerry is intelligent and he has leadership, and most of all, he will assemble a good crew to make up his administration, he also will work on repairinf International rifts and try to recognize that the world is made of many mutually respecting, -and some not- countries.
In fact, one of the reasons that many Dems seem disenchanted with him, namely his 'insider status', I would dare say, is a plus: someone who knows how to translate decisions into their actual implimentation through the hierarchies of Washington has an advantage to the less knowledgeable . . . . look at what a complete bungler Bush has been, and you will see what the lack of such real experience (besides his short governorship) can mean.
I say don't let the false claims of waffler sink in, they are as much distortions as was calling Gore a liar
Sure he isn't Clinton or Kennedy . . . but he is JFK
I say: Get over the wittle hurt feelings of Dean's loss (talking to experience here) and realize that this election could very well be the most important thing the world has ever known!!
WW3 could hang in the balance.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Heck, the original picture is scarier than that
Originally posted by Artman @_@
If I vote for Kerry just to "give in" or take another vote from Bush...what have I done? Nothing. Because Kerry has nothing in my opinion as to what a leader or a person should have.
We need real change and real leaders...not statues with removable heads like in ancient Rome.
If you can't think of a dozen ways off the top of your head that Kerry would be better than Bush, then you just aren't paying attention. The "oh, they aren't really all that different" line is nothing but stylized apathy. Kerry would be a whole lot different as President than some interchangeable head replacing Bush's head on the top of a generic statue. (I could, however, possibly be convinced that Bush's actual head is constructed from solid marble, but that's another issue.)
Perhaps Kerry isn't the greatest campaigner. Perhaps, as he has in other elections, he'll lie low and come out stronger nearer to the election.
But should that really matter? Campaigning is mostly bullshit anyhow, you should know that. There might be some rough correspondence between how effective a campaigner someone is, and how effective he'll be at the political persuasion needed to accomplish his agenda -- but only a rough correspondence, and it's not like there aren't other qualities of a candidate to consider.
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I feel the way you do, but you have to look beyond Bush as well. I want Ashcroft out ASAP, and the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.
Amen!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Originally posted by midwinter
Wimpy liberals.
Originally posted by faust9
Let's dial in Feb 03 on the internet time machine:
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
...
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
...
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
...
Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm
Originally posted by shetline
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
Shetline-- those were among the best three paragraphs I've ever read here.
Originally posted by tonton
MUCH better for corporate transparency.
Hehe. Whuzzat?
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I feel the way you do, but you have to look beyond Bush as well. I want Ashcroft out ASAP, and the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush.
Thank you. A few of us get it. It's not about just voting Bush out of office. It's about cleaning up the mess. It's about voting Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ashcroft, and the rest of the neocons out of office.
It really isn't that difficult.
Originally posted by shetline
If you can't think of a dozen ways off the top of your head that Kerry would be better than Bush, then you just aren't paying attention. The "oh, they aren't really all that different" line is nothing but stylized apathy. Kerry would be a whole lot different as President than some interchangeable head replacing Bush's head on the top of a generic statue. (I could, however, possibly be convinced that Bush's actual head is constructed from solid marble, but that's another issue.)
Perhaps Kerry isn't the greatest campaigner. Perhaps, as he has in other elections, he'll lie low and come out stronger nearer to the election.
But should that really matter? Campaigning is mostly bullshit anyhow, you should know that. There might be some rough correspondence between how effective a campaigner someone is, and how effective he'll be at the political persuasion needed to accomplish his agenda -- but only a rough correspondence, and it's not like there aren't other qualities of a candidate to consider.
You seem like you're sitting back and saying "I'm waiting for you to impress me! You haven't impressed me yet! I'm not voting for you until you IMPRESS ME!" Study the issues yourself instead of waiting to see if the next stump speech woos you, and you'll have more than enough reasons to pick Kerry over Bush.
If you value your vote, value it by exercising to get the best possible outcome for yourself and the country. Don't "value" it by treating it as some high and mighty prize that you'll only deign to give to someone who meets some aloof standard of Political Hero and Champion of All That is Right and Just.
You are not going to fix the flaws in our two-party system by not voting at all until some Golden Age of Great Candidates arrives, brought about when all of the bad candidates are shamed off the ballot by low voter turnout in previous elections. It doesn't and won't ever work that way.
That was an excellent post Shetline.Some of those points should be put into a postcard and sent to all the Nadarines and undecided independents.