The Black Republican

Nice!

Richard writes:

Condemn to the ash heap of history those who are willing to diminish the USA's reputation...Those who are willing to give our enemies fuel for their propaganda are not patriotic. Those people are not worthy of being Americans."

That's an interesting comment. I'd like for you to do me a favor, and evaluate the intrinsic "American worth" of the following individuals and how their open commentary may affect the USA reputation abroad.

ANN COULTER
"To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas." - http://www.anncoulter.com/ (since removed) December 22 - 29, 2004.

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages." - [2], 16 August, 2004

RUSH LIMBAUGH
(on the torture at Abu Ghraib)
"Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"

(on American troops pictured participating in the torture, such as Lynndie England)
"And these American prisoners of war -- have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture. You know, if you look at -- if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don't know if it's just me, but it looks just like anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City -- the movie. I mean, I don't -- it's just me."

MICHAEL SAVAGE
(on the Tsunami of 2004 that killed nearly 200,000)
"It's not a tragedy. I wouldn't call it a tragedy. It's a human disaster. It's not a tragedy in that sense. But, the issue is, theological questions suddenly arise. ... Now, for you atheists, you have no questions about this. It's a pure accident of nature. You don't ask yourself, 'Was it God's hand?'

If you are a God-believing, God-fearing person, I am sure at some point you ask yourself, wait a minute. The epicenter of this earthquake and the resulting tidal wave was adjacent to the sex trade island of Phuket, Thailand ... and then it knocked out many, many regions of Indonesia, some of which are the most vicious recruiting grounds for Islamic terrorists. That's a fact of reality. Then going the other way, it hit Sri Lanka, ex-Ceylon. And as you well know, Sri Lanka is a viciously anti-Western nation, the home of the Tamil Tigers, who are not only separatists but anti-Westerners, anti-Christians, etc. You could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don't know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don't argue that because I'm not a theologian. Nor do I believe that God is omnipotent. I believe God is omnipresent. But I don't think God has control over every act because there would be no free will and I don't believe in that. ... But then again, who knows? I'm one man amongst billions of people, with one man's opinion."

BILL O'REILLY
(on the Iraqi People)
"Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.

Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.

And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

In summary, if you're truly concerned about America's reputation abroad, and stopping the flow of propaganda material that can be used to incite anti-American hatred in the Islamic world, you might want to take a gander at what some CONSERVATIVE media figures are spewing out into the open airwaves.

Not just "nice" - very nice. One thing to keep in mind. When the Hildebeast runs, it won't be as a liberal. She's smart enough to know that she has those votes already.

Cobra I certainly expected those remarks to draw critcism, but I went with them anyway. I said it, I'll stand with it.

And I'll note that your citations are not so much criticisms, as you do not seem to refute my contentions, as an opportunity for you to provide a thoughtful presentation of these quotes which you feel also meet the criteria I set out. Fair enough. We don't play favorites here, if they qualify, then so be it.

Let me remind our readers that we here at TBR are apologists for Republicans, or Conservatives, we have proven this fact in the past. That is not our purpose here.

That said, I'll give you my brief synopsis, (I am not however taking the time to follow your links back to your sources, but I appreciate that you provide them as many often fail to do so), based on the words provided. And, I invite you to explain how you view these quotes in relation to those quotes of mine which you cited.

Anytime you quote, or listen to, Rush or Coulter, you must be able to put their remarks in their context. Rush, in particular is often using sarcasm or satire to make a broader point. Coulter has a habit of throwing back someone else's comment by taking their argument and reforming it in an extreme version true to original speaker's postion; she does this in first person so the quote reads as though it is her position when a real time viewing would show it to be a parody of another's comment. Without hearing these remarks in their context I can determine the actual intent, and I can understand how they could be used by another to gin up antagonism. The key is the context. If they are able to stand alone, with the foundational intent being in the literal translation that is one thing, if a third party has selectively excerpted these words to defame the quoter the shame falls on the third party and not the one quoted for in that case the third party has caused the damage. As to the second quote, what is wrong with Christmas presents? Just kidding, I understand the objection is to use of force. Basically, for these, I suggest you ask the source for their explanation; I am not a mind reader (not all of the time).

Moving on to your second post, and getting past the repeated quotes, (see above, same reaction as before on those). Limbaugh seems to be making some point about women being angry, in this case it is directed toward prisoners from a culture which demeans women, just a guess but that might be where he going. Can't say that I find it un-American for women to be angry at those who they feel oppress them. As for the resemblance Limbaugh sees between the Abu pictures and what is presented to us by the NEA, pop stars, television, (movies, porn, etc. for there are boundless examples in our culture these days), you can agree, or not, with his analogy; but it sems to me that he is on target when he suggests that our society is inudated with these types of imagery. I do not presume that he condones it in either form, either the "free" expression in this country, or the forced mimicry at Abu; he seems to be making a larger commentary no doubt illustrating the irony he sees in the outrage over acts which are decried as inhumane there, but which we are forced to view here. Even though many find the public exposition of such offensive. A societal commentary? American as apple pie, no?

On the Savage quote, I agree with him completely that "human disaster" is a more accurate description for the Tsunami situation. Though, it is also tragic, either term suffices. Continuing, if he wishes to conjecture about how religious and non-religious people might view that event, that is his right, Freedom of Speech. A reasonable person could debate the matter and come to different conclusion than do his conceptualized religious persons, but then a reasonable person would also have to admit that some religious people will view their life's events as being influenced by the direct intervention of God.

Thanks for that one, btw, I don't usually follow Savage well enough to gain that much insight into his thoughts. You granted me an opportunity on the right day.

As for O'Reilly. Love what he did to uncover the fraudulent charities after 9/11. I have a hard time with him lately, seems his train of thought has jumped the tracks since he was accused of sexual harrasment. Not that he is right or wrong, (I do agree that the Iraqis were being represented as being ingrates, 2% we now know is too low more appreciate what we are doing, and they do have some cultural obstacles to overcome before they realize the gifts we are putting before them), I just can't always tell where he is going. Bombing them is not a solution, but in that he speaking of showing strength I do believe it is not as hurtful to our image as I suspect you believe. I want the bad guys to fear us, Mr. O needs to be more precise in his targets though. (What is he trying to say bringing up the Balkans? I do not know, seems we have not succeeded there, talk about a quagmire.) We do need to stay involved in that region, they are behind the curve of human progress, and to the extent that his remarks are accurate they are not harmful. MR. O is upset at the lives we've lost, we all are, but his strategy is not workable. We will not succeed from arm's length.

Richard,

I appreciate the level of tone and discourse here. You make somewhat reasonable explanations, especially in view of context with some of the above comments. I disagree with some of your assessments, particularly Coulter, who is constantly seeking the spotlight for "most outrageous quote" of any given week. My issue though goes back to your statement:

>>>"Condemn to the ash heap of history those who are willing to diminish the USA's reputation.

Those who are willing to give our enemies fuel for their propaganda are not patriotic. Those people are not worthy of being Americans."

In what possible way does America's international reputation INCREASE with any of the above statements? We're not talking about bloggers, or soap box evangelists with a limited audience. We're talking about people whose broadcasts can be heard worldwide. You argue "context", and "conversation styles." Perhaps it's acceptable to you because you're in a position to "defend" people who generally hold your point of view. Foreigners don't hold such responsibility ordinarily.
We know from facts in evidence that hatred of America and Islamofascism many times originates in the wahabist madrasses of Saudi Arabia. Can you just IMAGINE what some of those wahabi imams could do with the locker-room material of the above statements? Do you think these imams take the time, or have the inclination to differentiate satire...or incorporate equal time debate formulas?
We already know that Islamic websites and news organizations are monitoring American media. If you need an example--

>>>To fully appreciate the depravity of the Bush claque, we only need to
visit the Rush Limbaugh web site, where the drug-addicted spokesman for the
administration is currently hawking T-shirts (Orange; “I got my free Koran
and Prayer Rug at G’itmo” or, orange baseball cap reading “Camp G’itmo”) and
baseball caps in an public relations scheme to trivialize the horrors of
systematic torture of detainees in US custody. Limbaugh has always been at
the forefront of apologists for the abuse of prisoners. During the Abu
Ghraib scandal he defended the conduct of the military by saying that “they
were just blowing off steam”. Perhaps, Limbaugh finds something uplifting
about being “sodomized with a chemical light” or having “electrodes attached
to his penis to simulate electric torture”; it’s impossible to know. But,
for most sane people, these are conspicuous acts of barbarism for which the
perpetrators must be held accountable."
http://www.islamic-world.net/read.php?ArtID=1086

Now, you TELL ME, Richard. Would people in the Islamic world-- especially those already frustrated by the woefull US reconstruction efforts in Iraq, already suspicious of America's unbalanced handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and hand-holding relationship with the oppressive House of Saud--tend to believe Islamic organizations interpretation of events or statements, or give American pundits and talk show personalities the benefit of the doubt?

--Cobra

Richard writes:
>>>Anytime you quote, or listen to, Rush or Coulter, you must be able to put their remarks in their context."

First of all, thank you for the respectful level of discourse. I would agree with you that I can discern context and application of satire, rhetoric and hyperbole in the course of an entertainment program, or book promotion tour. I rarely take any of the above people very seriously because by and large, they're PAID to be provocative, incendiary and controversial. That being said, you cannot control how those provocative, incendiary and controversial statement will be used and interpreted by NON-US audiences, especially the wahabist madrassas in the middle east where anti-US hatred and terrorism is being fomented as we speak. We know in the information age that American commentators and pundits are being monitored. Look at what even MODERATE Islamic websites and newsources have to say in regards to Rush Limbaugh:

>>>No, it wasn’t the OxyContin that made Rush Limbaugh a torture fan—more than likely the loudmouth radio talk show host has lacked sufficient human compassion and a sense of fair play since he was a kid. Completely void of any sense of propriety, Limbaugh “has plumbed a new low in both sickness and inaccuracy,” writes Prison Planet ( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/200605limbaugh
plumbs.htm ), by “hawking a new line of caps, T-shirts and mugs that depict the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba as a holiday home.” No doubt Rush (as a witty sociopath) wrote the perverted messages himself: “Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad,” “I Got My Free Koran and Prayer Rug at G’itmo” and “My Mullah went to Club G’itmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt,” thus sufficiently demonstrating that the millionaire hate-monger and pill-popper is truly a despicable piece of human trash. But the sincerely frightening thing is this: hundreds of thousands of people will buy this pornographic flotsam and proudly wear it, thus making public their mindless support for torture, degradation, intolerance, and religious bigotry. Imagine some dark-skin person from Southwest Asia attempting to wear a t-shirt that proclaims: “I used a Bic on the Blackwater Boys in Fallujah.” Imagine him ripped to shreds by the yellow magnetic ribbon crowd on the street while people drive past in their SUVs, honking their horns in approval. Limbaugh is a hate monger of the worst caliber and the fact he can pedal this ugliness (and profit from it) is yet another example of how sick our culture is—a largely lamebrained culture that believes whatever self-serving lie its rich rulers offer up and enthusiastically partake in collective boorishness, xenophobia, and officially sanctioned animosity toward engineered enemies. It was probably a lot like this as the self-destructive idea of a Genius Populi Romani led to the “inevitable effect of immoderate greatness” (Edward Gibbon) that resulted in the Fall of the Roman Empire.

:: Article nr. 12876 sent on 22-jun-2005 17:14 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=12876

How do you think Rush Limbaugh's comments go over on Al Jazeera? And who do you think Muslims are going listen to?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/68874930-36DE-4F98-A288-8CC9E031B9C6.htm

--Cobra

First, a little housekeeping.

You said, ""defend" people who generally hold your point of view"

I sought to make it clear that I was not defending anyone. And I would appreciate if we could keep this conversation such that I can expect my expressed intentions will be respected, and not mis-represented.

Now, as to my comments, wherein I say;

Condemn to the ash heap of history those who are willing to diminish the USA's reputation.
Those who are willing to give our enemies fuel for their propaganda are not patriotic. Those people are not worthy of being Americans

That immediately follows this;

Politically disenfranchise those who can not be a part of the solution.

Implied in all of those lines is that I am speaking of those within, not the enemy without. Maybe this is another of those crazy context things that are so hard to fathom, but I see that others get it.

Had I been talking about those from without who are willing to run down the USA with false accusations I would not have called for political disenfranchisement, the appropiate response would be stronger. I wouldn't have suggested that they be allowed to remain Americans, albeit with less political clout, and the burden of shame upon them. I would have suggested a less forgiving fate for them.

Your complaint, as suggested by the quotes provided is that the enemy without will use these statements, out of context, to gin up antagonism against the USA. No doubt about it. That is what happens in wartime, the enemy will propangandize. And then we will have to kill the ignorant SOBs who don't get memo that they have been sold lies about America. That is unfortunate, but it is a natural law, if you will, as immutable as any; at that point we kill them or they kill us.

And I am much more comfortable knowing they have come to that place based on lies from without, rather than from lies from within. We can make every effort to make sure they get the right facts, that they are given the chance to know that we are not the bad people they are being told, but that effort is thwarted when the unworthy within are telling them that their native propagandists are correct.

I would much prefer that they are told that Rush sells a T-shirt which accurately reports that prisoners at Gitmo are given a koran and a prayer rug, than for them to hear that a US Senator says Gitmo is a Gulag, (which is pure BS). And, I would much rather that they hear about the progress we are making to reconstruct Iraq instead of hearing a constant harangue focusing on what has not happened, not happened yet anyway.The yet would be an improvement as it would suggest the situation is a progression and not a stagnation.

It is expected that the enemy will take even the most innoucuous statement (not that you cited any which qualify under that description) and twist it for their evil purpose, so it is not surprising if they are using more liberated speech for that purpose too, and we will have to react and respond to their tactic. They will not stop, and so we must not stop with our counter measures. Being nice to the enemy will not make them go away. We can not expect them to be fair and comprehensive in presenting our words. They will not explain context and humor. The enemy will not attempt to explain our society and culture, such will not serve their purpose. Sending back a consistent and accurate counter message is the correct tactic. Or, if they don't get the memo, we have to kill them, so be it.

My complaint remains with those, within, who are knowingly spouting false accusations (or should know better, a US Senator who doesn't understand the worst crimes of the 20th Century? For example. Ridiculous, as your main man Mr. O' is want to say). If they redirected their enthusiasm away from getting Bush and toward promoting the good work our people are doing we would then all be able to concentrate on dealing with the enemy without. We could all work to counter the misrepresentations. We could all work to convince the ignorant SOBs they are due a better life in this world, and that we are too. That is what I call being part of the solution, and that is what we should all be, part of the solution. Those, within, who wish to not get with the program are not worthy. Those without doing the same will never be worthy.

Richard writes:

>>>It is expected that the enemy will take even the most innoucuous statement (not that you cited any which qualify under that description) and twist it for their evil purpose, so it is not surprising if they are using more liberated speech for that purpose too, and we will have to react and respond to their tactic. They will not stop, and so we must not stop with our counter measures. Being nice to the enemy will not make them go away. We can not expect them to be fair and comprehensive in presenting our words. They will not explain context and humor. The enemy will not attempt to explain our society and culture, such will not serve their purpose. Sending back a consistent and accurate counter message is the correct tactic. Or, if they don't get the memo, we have to kill them, so be it."

I try not to misinterpret your words, nor am I seeking to make an "enemy" out of you. I am simply stating the obvious from viewing the rantings of unbalanced conservative communicators and the damage they can do. If our "goal" in the Middle East was to wipe out ALL MUSLIM leadership, and subjugate the surviving indigenous population to exploit their natural resources, then there wouldn't be as much of a problem with Limbaugh and Coulter's jingoistic, dehumanizing and quasi-racist rants. It would almost make sense to jin up disdain and disrespectful commentary against enemy nations as propaganda.
But, THAT's not what this "war on terror" is about. Terror isn't a "place" or a "country". Terror is a tactic. Islamofacism is an ideology. You can't "bomb" an ideology. In order to combat Islamofacism, you have to have a significant part of the muslim world ON OUR SIDE.
You're absolutely right that we can't expect the "enemy" to be fair and comprehensive in presenting our words. But you also have to understand that it's not only Islamofascists who hear our words. This is WORLDWIDE information age we live in. There are one billion plus Muslims living on 6 continents. How are THEY interpreting
these messages?
Think about this...as much as one criticized Dick Durbin, from the Muslim perspective, he did America an invaluable PR Service, by showing that not ALL American leaders support prisoner abuse or torture.
Counter that with what a Muslim teenager in London, Riyad, Tehran, or Ramadi thinks about America while Rush is hawking "Club Gitmo" t-shirts?
I UNDERSTAND your position, and you have the time, and a blog to explain the context, humor, satire and entertainment value of Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly, etc. to ME, an American Christian guy who participates in blogging online.
Who's going to explain it to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Muslims we're trying to win to OUR side of this war on terror?

http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues2.html

http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues19.html

Balderdash! Dhick Dhurbin hurt our image by telling the world that we are just like the worst criminals of the 20th century. When Americans blame America the enemy only hears that they have been right in attacking us. They do not see good Americans and bad Americans; they do not discriminate when they attack. To be sure, among the dead in London this week were no doubt some who opposed England's involvement in the War on Terror. The bomber did not care if he killed people who sympathized with him, the bomber's "ideology" is hatred, his method is savagery. Indiscriminate savagery against an opponent he does not wish to understand, one he only wishes to destroy.

Dhurbin's comments were directed at the world, his aim was to garner support from the world in the liberal's war on GWB, his method was to exagerate and falsify. That his words could give the enemy rhetorical ammunition may have never occured to him. (anyone without the perspective to see that the USA is not like Nazi Germany probably lacks the insight to understand the impact of their inaccuracies). Fool that he is.

The conservatives you cite are directing their remarks for the American people. That they don't pass the global comprehension test is not the fault of the speaker. If they are taken out of context it is always the fault of the ones who take them out of context.

I would still prefer for the Muslim world to know that we show their religion respect, than for them to be told (falsely) that we are just like the worst criminals of the 20th century.

Richard writes:

>>>Dhurbin's comments were directed at the world, his aim was to garner support from the world in the liberal's war on GWB, his method was to exagerate and falsify. That his words could give the enemy rhetorical ammunition may have never occured to him. (anyone without the perspective to see that the USA is not like Nazi Germany probably lacks the insight to understand the impact of their inaccuracies). Fool that he is."

Maybe, you're reading something into Durbin's remarks that I did not. This is the direct transcript of the significant portion of Durbin's speech. I encourage you to go to the link, and read the ENTIRE passage, and not accept the RNC/Karl Rove interpretation.

>>>What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different?

We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in the international community in the process.

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the 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:

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.

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course.

The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in.

The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts it as the law of the land, a commitment which we have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American."

http://durbin.senate.gov/gitmo.cfm

Now, are you saying it's "wrong" for Durbin to make public what an FBI agent witnessed was occuring at Gitmo? Or are you saying that the obsevations of the treatment don't rise (or fall) to the conditions of prison treatment in Nazi Germany, Soviet Gulags, or Pol Pot?

Well, without going into depth on Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot, Nazi Germany was a participating nation in Geneva Convention III.

>>>Germany was a signatory at the Third Geneva Convention which established the provisions relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War.

Article 10 required that PoWs should be lodged in adequately heated and lighted buildings where conditions were the same as German troops."

(Art 5):"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
(Art 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
(Art 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
(Art 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
(Art 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
(Art 27): "Clothing, underwear and footwear shall be supplied to prisoners of war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Am I saying the German POW camps weren't a nightmare? Not at all. But that's not the issue here. That Republicans, in their desire to deflect attention from a bad situation on the ground in Iraq would choose to suggest that the comparison of prison camp conditions are off base, well... you need to read up on your prison historical prisoner of war conditions.

I don't NEED to read up on anything, thank you just the same.

Where is your resolve to win this war?

Which war am I supposed to be resolved to win? The war in Iraq? Well, you don't need to be asking me about MY resolve in Iraq. You need to be asking your PRESIDENT.

>>> In his televised speech to the nation two weeks ago President George W. Bush reiterated his opposition to any troop withdrawal deadlines in Iraq...

"Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done," Bush said...

"It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission ... and it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is wait us out."

...Given the president's commitment, it was then a bit surprising to read the reports over the weekend of a memo leaked to a British newspaper that said British and U.S. military were looking at the possibility of reducing troop strength in Iraq drastically by the end of next year - from 176,000 down to 66,000 troops. The report, called "Options for Future U.K. Force Posture in Iraq" said there was "strong U.S. military desire to hand over control to Iraqi forces in 14 out of 18 provinces.

The leak caused Iraq prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari to respond to his parliament Tuesday, telling them foreign troops would not stay forever, but their withdrawal would not be dictated by insurgent attacks."

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2005/07/13/opinion/iq_3599871.txt

War on Terror my left nostril. They're playing politics as usual with the mid-term elections in 2006.

And you KNOW it.

There is only one war going, the war on terror. And, I contend that since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" signifying the end of the war to depose Saddam, every US soldier killed in Iraq has died at the hands of terorists. Thus the current operation in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

And, knowing that you will disagree, I will allow you to leave the actions in Iraq out of the question and ask again. Where is your resolve to win the war?

We understand you are resolved to blame America. And that you are resolved to get Bush! But, where is your resolve to win the war?

And please stop with the quotes. You don't adequately explain why you think they support your position, you seem to toss them out leaving it to the reader's imagination to see in them what you see. And that is not what happens. For instance, in this last set you see lying and conspiracy, and I see a consistent public policy, and, (purported), military secret planning; the two are not inconsistent. You understand that we do plan to leave Iraq eventually, and that the public policy is to not announce a date. Since we plan to leave, why would it surprise you that we have been working in private to coordinate a plan to withdraw? And, shouldn't your anger be directed toward the leaker? The leaker has just revealed a military secret, had that happened on June 5th 1944 the Germans would have been ready for D-Day, leaks get our guys killed (if that matters to you). The real injustice in your example isn't that we make plans not intended for the enemies eyes, it is with those who show them to the enemy.