"...those who complain about Gitmo don't know what they are talking about..."
Of course they do. They are talking about how evil GWB is - anyone and everyone else is their natural ally, under the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. That would include Bin Laden, Hezbollah, heck even Satan himself.
~EdT.
Hmmm, so, these secret prisons from which people are being transfered... are these the ones that the rightwing, yourself included as of April 23, suggested were fabrications of the left?
Interesting.
Quiet andy! It's that kind of thinking that is aiding our enemies. Shhh!!!
And this is absolute proof that the prisoners at Gitmo have been treated with only the utmost in hospitality since the day they arrived. Conditions have not changed in Gitmo one bit, despite the fact that leadership down there has changed rather dramtically, the prisons were eventually opened to the same organizations which are allowed into every other prison run by a U.N. nation, and Congressmen who represent American citizens were eventually allowed to visit.
And it also proves without doubt that every person who was ever placed in this prison was guilty of whatever charges were secretly leveled against them, despite the fact that almost 1/3 of them have been released, and many more are awaiting release as soon as we can find a country who will take them.
I love this. As someone else pointed out on another blog, now it's "put up or shut up" time for the weasley democrats. Genius. 
andy,
Where did I say the secret prisons were fabrications of the left?
"Where did I say the secret prisons were fabrications of the left?" - Rightwingsparkle
Andy, I'm appalled that you would even suggest such a thing.
"those who complain about Gitmo don't know what they are talking about and can just shutup until they do."
Sparkle, can we assume you'll do the same regarding this and other subjects?
On April 23, 2006, RWS concluded a post with:
I sum it up this way. We have a CIA lefty illegally leaking a story to anti-war socialist lefty reporting for the Washington Post about a "secret prison" story where the only evidence we have of it is their word.
Are you with me here? Add in the mix Joe Wilson and his "outed" CIA wife with their grandstanding Bush bashing PR cover shots tour, and you have a cabal of lefty anti-war activists trying to hide their true objective (bring down Bush!) and to lie and lie and win prizes and get their faces airbrushed and gushed over in same thinking magazines (like Vanity Fair)
Unfreakinbelievable.
Sure sounds to me like you didn't believe it...
Let's take these fine gents over to Andy and Zed's house. Party on, dudes! (I met a sheik from Mozambique...)
Also, on May 10, you discussed the topic as well, lumping it into a diatribe on why conservatives are so busy:
Everytime we turn around we hear about some ridiculous accusation from the left....
The left went crazy over the "secret prisons and torture" thing and now we find out that that bit of information was leaked by a partisan CIA agent to a partisan lefty journalist. We only have her word for it....
We conservatives are so busy dispelling the myths and the lies of the left we can't even express our anger over the immigration mess, the spending, the compromises, the lack of the veto pen, and the blank check the government seems to want to give to all those things to do with Katrina.
Given that you included this in your "myths and lies of the left" rant, I'm assuming you discounted the existence of these prisons.
I have to admit, I'm one of those on the right who leaned heavily toward believing they didn't exist. However, their existence doesn't really bother me very much.
However, their existence doesn't really bother me very much.
Well, that's an entirely different argument, and one on which we'll just have to agree to disagree, so don't you go and try to be reasonable or anything. Got it?
They should have been kept at these formerly secret prisons! They do NOT deserve being accorded POW status. They are pieces of human excrement.
Agreed, it's a different argument that's been going on forever. I won't say anything else because, frankly, I think you're an idiot to disagree with me.
File me as one of those on the right who hoped that they did exist. And who doesn't really care what happens to those incarcerated in them.
andy,
I only questioned the existance of secret prisons when the only source for it at the time was the word of devout Bush hater. Given their capacity for distortions on so many other things, I really don't feel too bad in questioning it. Sorry if that was unreasonable. I just needed more proof than that.
I don't see much of a difference between a King's abililty to throw his enemies in a dungeon on his word alone and the President's right to throw someon in Guantanamo. Perhaps we won't have to worry about the terrorists hating us for our freedom too much longer.
Not if you guys get in charge, Paul. There will be freedom for no one.
Paul wrote:
I don't see much of a difference between a King's abililty to throw his enemies in a dungeon on his word alone and the President's right to throw someon in Guantanamo.
...and that, is why your side keeps losing elections.
Bwahahaha....
I don't understand why the left is complaining. President Bush was just following the same policy that President Clinton used.
"He said a small number of detainees have been kept in CIA custody including people responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in addition to the 2001 attacks."
So, let's get back on topic... the President is admitting the existence of secret prisons that RWS and other rightwingers didn't think existed, right?
Just checking.
Andy, I think you're pushing it too much. Like I've said, I wasn't inclined to believe it and it's primarily because it was based on "un-named sources." Do you believe everything Seymore Hersh writes? (That moron is legendary for being wrong because of his low-level anonymous sources.)
Seymour Hirsch,
Not an authority.....
A totally discredited journalist
this in his own words source Wikipedia
"Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people...I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."
"basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.” [16] In a subsequent interview with New York Magazine, Hersh admitted, "I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly...it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful."
Andy, I think you're pushing it too much. Like I've said, I wasn't inclined to believe it and it's primarily because it was based on "un-named sources."
Yet, I'm willing to bet that these same folks, when the story fits their agenda, will happily recount the tales of "unnamed sources."
I'm more interested in that segment of the population that says they don't trust the media to tell the truth, but think the government would offer nothing but the truth. The far right and the far left continue to be two sides of the same whacked-out coin; it'd be funny if it didn't put the rest of us rational folks in the middle of their idiocy.
Oh, and I guess you believed the lefty CIA agent with an agenda?
Talk about rational.
You are just the mushy middle andy, not something to be proud of imo.
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you calling me irrational? For the record, I don't trust either the media or the government. I'm probably the most cynical s.o.b you would ever meet in regards to both. And yes, I don't trust Republican politicians either.
Tell me, have you ever believed a news report based on un-named sources that turned out to be false? (Trust me, we all have.)
Oh, and I guess you believed the lefty CIA agent with an agenda?
I see no reason for a government agent to lie about something which could readily be denied rather than the non-response provided by the government, or the pointing to other "studies" from Europe showing it wasn't the case.
Talk about rational.
Well, you think there's some merit to intellgent design, so perhaps rationality isn't your strongest trait.
You are just the mushy middle andy, not something to be proud of imo.
No, I look at things as objectively as possible, incorporating past knowledge and the necessarily subjective criteria of past experience, into assigning a likelihood of a certain thing being true. Trust me, it's a lot more complex than your "if it's left, it's a lie" mentality. If anyone has something to be ashamed of, my dear, 'tis not I.
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you calling me irrational? For the record, I don't trust either the media or the government.
As I said, those who always seem to take the word of one over the other are the irrational; thus, no, Blake, I'm not calling you irrational.
Building on my comment prior to the previous one, given that the current Administration has sought to deny general protections to those held, guilty or innocent; has pursued the denial of essential Constitutional rights to American citizens (e.g. Jose Padilla, the non-dirty-bomber); and has wanted secret military tribunals sheltered from the watchful eye of this government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then - yes - I don't put secret prison past them either.
Looks like I was right.
I voted for Dubya... twice. More and more I wonder what crack I must have been smoking to do so (but then I look at the Democrats and realize it's a lesser of two evils thing than tje Republi-masturbatory political fantasy that exists here).
Andy, That's the way our system is set up. You will always have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I knew voting for Bush both times that he would betray true conservative principles (and I'm from Texas), but he was the closest to my beliefs so that I felt there was no choice.
Just a piece of advice for everyone (lib and con), as cynical as it may be, never trust a politician. The principled ones have little power, but the ruthless, unprincipled s.ob's always get into leadership positions.
Now, Andy, you didn't answer my 2nd question.
And one person said, how come you're giving Saddam Hussein a trial? I said, first of all, it's your government, not ours. She said, he doesn't deserve a trial; he deserves immediate death for what he did to my people. And it just struck me about how strongly she felt about the need to not have a rule of law, that there needed to be quick retribution, that he didn't deserve it. And I said to her, don't you see that the trial, itself, stands in such contrast to the tyrant that that in itself is a victory for freedom and a defeat for tyranny -- just the trial alone. And it's important that there be rule of law
- George W. Bush (In his 12/19/2005 speech explaining how the NSA Wiretapping program was unquestionably legal, and those questioning it were aiding the terrrorists)
The "mushy middle", RWS? So, in today's America, if you don't align yourself with the most radical agendas of either left or right, you have no backbone? This is where the irresponsibly macho rhetoric of the right wing in power has brought us. The "strong" position to hold these days is disdain for intellectual analysis and a magical toddler like trust in the motives of an unaccountable "president". Isn't it amazing how the English language can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of the original intention?
What was that about all of us coming together to fight a common enemy? Your entire blog, like every rightwing blog, is nothing but a catalog of demonizations of your fellow Americans. There is no news item that interests you other than as a way to bash those Americans who legitimately disagree with you. You don't want a united America any more than you want to mobilize the country behind the WWIII your leaders are currently trying to market. You want a tax free, draft free, sacrifice free excuse to consider yourself superior to your fellow Americans. This whole thing has become a pathology.
That is kind of ironic coming from you considering how radical you are. At least I hold some positions that would be considered liberal.
Lou,
Step away man don't go near the conservative light you're right side of your brain is conflicting with your left side
So you feel the need to work today?
If so, you might be becoming a republican
Do you ometimes long to have your own Business
Watchout, elephantitis is setting in
Do you find yourself constantly posting on conservative websights
Are you having cravings for peanuts or Peanut Butter?
Run Lou, run to the middle
Tell me, have you ever believed a news report based on un-named sources that turned out to be false?
Yep, when there's been just reason for doing so. As I said on my blog, it's the outright dismissal of anything critical of the Bush administration that I find laughable and sad at the same time... given this administration's decisions during the ongoing war, a secret prison isn't far-fetched.
RWS - so, wait, am I mushy middle or am I a liberal? You've called me both in the space of a couple of days... and they don't seem to me to be the same thing at all.
Again, though, using terms like "mushy middle" is indicative of a failure to appreciate the depth of the political sphere. That I have a number of conservative views and a number of liberal views doesn't mean they average out to some kind of political center. That works with two numbers on a line, but (though you continue to fail to appreciate this) that's not the nature of politics... at least among thinking adults.
LOU - I would only add that those on the fringes of the left are just as guilty of the same demonization as RWS. No one can force you to take the polar opposite side of a debate; you must choose to do so, forsaking reason for dogmatic adherence to the party (as it were). Folks on the right and left have both made this choice, with no signs of turning their brains back on anytime soon.
Darleen - not that there's any point in replying to your snarling (I assume that's why your blog is such a void) - but if you honestly want to know where your "president" flouted the rule of law (and is PROUD of it) try his admitted criminal breach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Just for starters.
RWS - I've actually got plenty of Republican type positions as well (old style, principled Republican that is): fiscal responsibility, state's rights, strict interpretation of the Constitution (and yes, I have no problem overturning Roe and giving it back to the states). I don't believe in welfare for those who can work. I DO believe in universal health care, in fair trade, in getting corporate money out of our government, in worker's rights, in empowering the middle & working classes. I believe in a strong military used to protect and defend OUR nation and Constitution, not as a political toy of chickenhawk elitist intellectuals.
So now President Bush is a chickenhawk elitist intellectual ? I thought he was just stupid ... which is it ?
JD - god, your ignorance is boring - that referred to the neocon cabal that engineered this Iraq fiasco. No sane person would ever call Bush an intellectual. He's just an aristocratic poof, always has been.
Commenting by HaloScan
