Patterico's Pontifications

Oh man. Seems like every meeting I’ve ever been in at work would have been greatly improved by farts.

Peg C. (48175e) — 3/13/2009 @ 3:36 am

On the one hand, there’s nothing funny about Crowder’s spectacular lack of honesty about what U.S. interrogators have said they did at Gitmo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

On the other, his wonderfully candid, unwitting, demonstration that he believes sadistic murderers make for the most appropriate moral comparison with U.S. interrogators is hilarious.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 4:56 am

I love the unintended irony of Hacks dropping a deuce in a thread with references to farts.

JD (b186eb) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:20 am

I thought Crowder was hilarious.

Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/13/2009 @ 6:50 am

Mrs. carlito LOL-ed.

carlitos (3f0da9) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:02 am

Very well done! We need more right-wing humor on left-wing insanities. Torture! Those dirtbags at gitmo are sitting around reading their Korans and getting fricken fat, we’re taking such good care of them.

The way I try to look at it is this: If this terrorist might have information and that information would help save a life, I pretend that the life being saved is my child’s life. In this case — to save a child’s life — there is nothing, nothing I would not do to extract the life-saving information from the terrorist. I would have no problem getting all freaky midieval on their *ss. So this bullshit that we are “torturing” these numbnuts by sleep depriving them or playing music or humiliating them is just that, bullshit. You want torture, look at what the North Vietnamese did to our guys in Vietnam, or what the terrorists do to innocent civilians today — that’s bloody torture.

Senator Dick Durban is an ass with his head up his ass!

J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:25 am

#

On the one hand, there’s nothing funny about Crowder’s spectacular lack of honesty about what U.S. interrogators have said they did at Gitmo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

On the other, his wonderfully candid, unwitting, demonstration that he believes sadistic murderers make for the most appropriate moral comparison with U.S. interrogators is hilarious.

Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/13/2009 @ 4:56 am

#

One reason I relentlessly argue with people is that I just enjoy the challenge of it. Maybe a little perverse, but there you have it.

The second reason is that, on almost every issue, I’m almost certain that I’m wrong, I just haven’t yet discovered exactly how I’m wrong.

Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/12/2009 @ 10:33 pm

carlitos (3f0da9) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:50 am

Hax… listen to your inner voice! 🙂

GM Roper (85dcd7) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:08 am

…and I also love to inanely threadjack on every thread as well, since I cannot effectively produce counter – arguments to the posts at hand. Diversion and obfuscation is all I have, other than my pet ocelot.

Sincerely,
Hairball Inc.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:09 am

“Is it diet? Doesn’t taste like diet. Death to America *sssiip!* LOL Crowder’s hilarious; always love to see him get a link.

Don’t miss the Braveheart goof at the end. Comedy gold.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:50 am

2. Yeah Daniel Pearl might disagree

EricPWJohnson (4d7bc6) — 3/13/2009 @ 11:14 am

I <3 the freedom to make mockery of evil, especially evil as humorless as the morons and vile killers who slaughtered Daniel Pearl. Were Islam more able to self-deprecate we would not now be at war with the nasty bits of a 9th Century religion.

Just saying…

Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/13/2009 @ 12:11 pm

Comment by Vivian Louise — 3/13/2009 @ 12:11 pm

Really like the way you think. All your comments are direct and right on. Welcome to Patterico’s (if you’re new…?) Nice blog as well.

no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/13/2009 @ 12:25 pm

noyk @ 12:25 – I could not agree more. She seems like a great new addition, for a racist 😉

JD (537b67) — 3/13/2009 @ 12:39 pm

Funny, both of them!

Notice no one fessed up in the second vid. 🙂

Patricia (2183bb) — 3/13/2009 @ 3:01 pm

Patterico – Speaking of Balko, whatever happened to his big piece on that Louisiana murder conviction and the dental impression guy? Did it get pulled after your great pieces, is it being rewritten or did it actually run?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/13/2009 @ 3:13 pm

daleyrocks – Did Balko’s acolyte ever respond to Patterico’s tome? If memory serves, that was almost 2 weeks ago, and that clown was all atwitter when Patterico went less than 2 hours in not responding to his post.

JD (dd18ce) — 3/13/2009 @ 3:24 pm

Why didn’t he mention the Abu Ghraib photos that Donald Rumsfeld said cannot be made public because they contain acts “that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman“?

Are these the photos/videos Seymour Hersh said to contain images of children being sodomized and women being raped.?

Andrew (71f6da) — 3/13/2009 @ 4:56 pm

Got any links, Andy?

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:14 pm

Yes, Dmac:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/index.html

Andrew (11f0c2) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:23 pm

by Hax V.
Viv: watch the video again. It isn’t making fun of the people who slaughtered Pearl, it’s making fun of torture victims.

Rather, it portrays the head-chopping sadists as no-nonsense murderers who know how to do the job right, versus the silly Americans giving tummy noogies to towelheads.

Lying to yourself that Pearl’s murderers are the same people as the torture victims at Gitmo is exactly like saying the American sadists caught on film at Abu Ghraib are the same people as the 100,000 plus proud U.S. soldiers just trying to do their job right, follow the rules and get out of Iraq alive.

Self-deprecation, indeed.

You may also want to check your calendar.

Nothing about Islam suggests it’s a 9th century religion.

On the other hand, when your down to laughing at torture and blatantly lying to yourself about where, when and how it took place, getting dates off by a few hundred years is nothing.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:43 pm

on almost every issue, I’m almost certain that I’m wrong, I just haven’t yet discovered exactly how I’m wrong.

Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/12/2009 @ 10:33 pm

carlitos (efdd90) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:45 pm

The second reason is that, on almost every issue, I’m almost certain that I’m wrong, I just haven’t yet discovered exactly how I’m wrong.

You have valid viewpoints but you present them in an ad hominem manner. Who cares if the accomplishment or failure is Clinton’s or Bush’s, or the idea is some moonbat’s or some wingnut’s? Just present it on its own merits.

nk (31b2d3) — 3/13/2009 @ 5:52 pm

Rather, it portrays the head-chopping sadists as no-nonsense murderers who know how to do the job right, versus the silly Americans giving tummy noogies to towelheads.

No, HV, it’s making fun of the people who elevate persuasive questioning to the level of the head-chopping sadists.

We will agree to disagree.

Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/13/2009 @ 6:30 pm

NK: I think I get what you’re saying. Partisan cheap shots are tiresome.

I wonder if you can admit, though, how wildly biased and out of context it is to criticize me for that on a thread about a video making fun of torture victims.

What could be cheaper, more partisan and more dishonest than laughing at the expense of torture victims?

Ad hominem? Yeah, there is an element of that in some of what I write here, but far less than the average for this blog. And if you take it as a ratio of overall content, there’s hardly any at all, versus the Whine Club, which is all ad hominem, all the time.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 6:32 pm

Crowder does a great job in that video mocking the hysteria of the international human rights community over the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. The risible RU Commission report trfrtrncrd by Hax on earlier threads here was published by people who had never visited the facilities. Other reports consist of descriptions of torture so far from definitions in international accords as to be meaningless. The terrorists themselves are trained to automatically say they were tortured to make the U.S. look bad. That leftists and useless idiots like Hax automatically parrot back their propaganda says more about them than it does about the U.S.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:00 pm

I thought we were laughing at liberals and how they “portray” how we treat terrorists?

That video speaks for itself, if you can follow along?

ML (14488c) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:04 pm

HV #24,

I happen to think that once you deprive a person of his liberty you become like a parent to him, fully as responsible for his health, safety and general well-being as he would provide for himself were he free. I also happen to believe that our CIA interrogators at Gitmo are freaks whom I would not want anywhere around me and a disgrace to our soldiers who guard them while they do their dirty work. I said it once, I said twice, here, three or four years ago, then I shut up about it, because I respect our host and my fellow commenters, and I want to keep engaging them in conversation and not a bitch-hair-pull.

nk (31b2d3) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:13 pm

“Yeah, there is an element of that in some of what I write here, but far less than the average for this blog. ”

Just more tu quoque fallacies from Hack.

SPQR (26be8b) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:21 pm

NK: You’ve set up a nice little experiment here. The results are almost certain to be interesting.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:36 pm

Don’t do anything you don’t want to do, HV.

nk (31b2d3) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:41 pm

Andrew, thanks for posting that link – however, Hersh has been discredited for years at this point; the Fisking he receives daily is beyond parody –

http://reason.com/blog/show/132236.html

He made his bones during the Pentagon Papers era of journalism – but like his disgraced colleague “Bahgdad Pete” Arnett, no one seriously listens to him anymore.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/13/2009 @ 7:51 pm

The risible RU Commission report trfrtrncrd

The risible EU Commission report referenced

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:00 pm

Comment by nk — 3/13/2009 @ 7:13 pm

I agree with taking responsibility for depriving someone of their liberty and their subsequent treatment. Whether that deprivation is just (imprisonment following conviction at trial) or unjust (kidnapping) is irrelevant to that responsibility.

I don’t agree with painting all CIA interrogators with such a broad brush, even if you grant that some crossed the line into unAmerican behavior (torture). I don’t know if any did so, but can’t assert with any confidence whether they did or didn’t… I lean towards not, but would listen to anything you have that makes you believe differently. Given your first point, any who did participate in actual torture should be prosecuted.

Of course, dropping it is also an option if you would rather not get into it again… I don’t think I was around here during the time you discussed it previously.

Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:13 pm

No, Stashiu, I don’t want to go into it again. HV should, if he wants to. He’ll have at least one listener if he stays on subject and does not veer into personal attacks.

nk (31b2d3) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:21 pm

No problem nk, but unless you’re the listener you speak of, he won’t. On my part, consider it dropped. Take care.

Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:28 pm

Funny Andrew should mention Seymour Hersh. Right on cue, a story about how he justifies lies to portray the “larger truth.”

Cheney and his Ring of Assassins!

Patricia (2183bb) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:33 pm

I’ll hate myself in the morning but Hax, if you squint really hard you won’t miss the similarities threading from 9th century to Islam today. Funny that.

Muhammad al-Mahdi becomes Imam and has gone into hiding by the order of Allmighty Allah and will emerge to save mankind and establish Islamic Law all over the world.

Dana (137151) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:49 pm

Andrew @ 4:56 pm

Your link is a good reminder of how amazing it is to now see Iraqi women, young and old no longer having to fear Saddam’s sons and the unspeakable atrocities committed against them in those nightmarish rape rooms. To have to have had to live with that terror is incomprehensible.

Dana (137151) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:58 pm

Patricia @ 8:33 p.m.

That really does belong under a Fun Links post!

Dana (137151) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:07 pm

I Hope this blog fails.

Rush Limbaugh (0c8c2c) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:10 pm

Lovey – I know it’s truly hard for you to believe, but many of us do not worship President Obama, Pbuh, as you do and do not feel we are wedded to him. I feel no tingles up and down my leg or in other parts of my body when I hear him speak or contemplate his plans for this country. Your inability to accept that others have different feelings from you about the least qualified and least vetted President in our nation’s history once again illustrates that you are a truly small and deeply flawed individual.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:24 pm

I hope you fail, Daley.

Rush Limbaugh (0c8c2c) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:33 pm

Hey Daley, Do you still torture your cat with a hot iron? Do you still poop in front of neighbors’ doors?

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:43 pm

Tell me Daley. Do you still walk around the house in your wife’s undies and high heels?

Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 3/13/2009 @ 9:51 pm

by Hax V.
Hersh is irrelevant. No one’s accusing him of raping or torturing anyone. His record of exaggeration has nothing whatsoever to do with the record of abuses at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo and elsewhere.

We often hear it mentioned that the U.S. military itself was the first to uncover the sadism at AG, yet, somehow, the same people who spin that into a claim that there was no attempt to cover it up, then proceed to conveniently revert to the idea that the photos and testimony showing what happened are a journalists’ exaggerations.

From Andrew’s link:

“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

“Taguba also found evidence of a “male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.”

“In another incident, Taguba found that “I am a rapest” [sic] was written on the “leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year-old fellow detainee.” The older detainee was then photographed naked.

(Gotta admit the language there’s a little weird. “Forcibly” raped? Is there any other kind, or is the point that the rapist was forced? And, indeed, there is a physiological question about how plausible it is that one person can be forced to rape another, at least in the conventional coital sense. At any rate, it sounds like the guards at Abu Ghraib were working with imaginations that were strikingly similar to the Whine Club’s.)

“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts “that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.”

Who knew? Rumsfeld’s a “troll” and Maj. Gen. Taguba: total moonbat.

Viv writes of the video: “No, HV, it’s making fun of the people who elevate persuasive questioning to the level of the head-chopping sadists.”

Then it’s making fun of no one. No one I’m aware of has asserted the kind abuses so far revealed at Gitmo are at the level of head chopping — no one. Surely there are some lone nut cases, but no mainstream liberal or leftist in America has ever said that.
Secondly, you describe the abuses at Gitmo as “persuasive” questioning, but the whole point of the video is that, in Crowder’s mind, its hilariously UNPERSUASIVE, i.e. child’s play more like tickling than torture.

Viv adds: “We will agree to disagree.”

I guess you didn’t notice how weirdly presumptive it is for you to speak for me on this, but there you have it. I certainly assumed from the start that I wouldn’t be persuading you of anything. Rather, I want to see if you’ve got anything else on this and, then, to persuade other readers of why your view is neither factual nor logical.

I’m not familiar enough with Crowder to credibly surmise all of this motives here, but we do have it demonstrated here that his comedy facilitated some whopping false assertions.

The first is that the main objection to Gitmo is that detainees were tortured there. In fact, the primary objection to Gitmo is that detainees were held there without trial and/or without the rights afforded to POWs. This is profoundly unAmerican and, surely, the main reason one of Obama’s very first moves was to declare an end to that.

Everyone knows the kind of abuses at Gitmo revealed so far were minor, relative to the fatal torture that has gone on at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and secret “rendition” torture dens.

The U.S. military itself has admitted that at least one detainee was tortured to death at Bagram air base. We also have information from a broad range of sources that detainees held by the U.S. were later “rendered” to countries like Syria, where they were tortured and not in any of the ways depicted in Crowder’s moral pornography for bigots.

I do at least give Crowder credit for a kind of dumb courage. He seems to be a talented comedian, though I suspect as the years go by and more of the evidence emerges, his moral torture porn will be viewed as on par with Holocaust denial.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 10:01 pm

by HV
Preemptively:
Not saying the torture incidents are equivalent to the Holocaust.

The similarities are in the methods used by historical revisionist deniers.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/13/2009 @ 11:04 pm

I guess you didn’t notice how weirdly presumptive it is for you to speak for me on this, but there you have it. I certainly assumed from the start that I wouldn’t be persuading you of anything. Rather, I want to see if you’ve got anything else on this and, then, to persuade other readers of why your view is neither factual nor logical.

Weirdly presumptive? Okay. Whatever. *insert rolled eye smilie*

Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:40 am

VL – That one just argues, asserts, pulls shite from its arse, and accuses people of having murderous intentions, and now in this thread, sharing thought processes with alleged rapists. It is as dishonest as the Cubs are bad.

JD (0be158) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:27 am

Patricia and Dmac mention Hersh, but not Rumsfeld’s word, which were the subject of the llink Dmac requested.

What did Rumsfeld mean by “blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane?

Andrew (8ef6ed) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:45 am

Vivian, if you want to feel what’s it’s like to argue with a gelatinous entity that neither comprehends nor understands plain language, keep attempting to debate the Ocelot – owner. Alternatively, you could also pound your head against a brick wall – either way, the results will be the same.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:47 am

What did Rumsfeld mean by “blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane?

What he meant was that two guards were found by the Army internal affairs investigators to have conducted activites not in accordance with the laws for enemy combatants held in captivity by the US Armed Forces. Hersh didn’t “uncover” anything regarding the prisoner abuse – the Army did, and published it’s findings to the general public ASAP. Not a peep was heard among any major news outlets, until 60 Minutes got ahold of the footage almost a year later – then the story got more widespread attention.

You need to understand how this case came to light in the first place, Andrew – and you have failed in that regard. You also have failed to make any kind of point, whatever it was in the first place.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:52 am

Dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

JD (0be158) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:08 am

What did Rumsfeld mean by “blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane?

Since you raised the issue, why don’t you tell us ?

Raising some side issue that you refuse to prove is classic trollery.

Patricia (2183bb) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:11 am

Yes, and that’s why I always took Andrew to be JAT (just another Troll) until recently, when I thought he deserved another chance. EPIC FAIL.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:15 am

I can’t believe that Andrew is rehashing this nonsense and still can’t get basic facts right.

I take that back, I believe it.

SPQR (72771e) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:48 am

Why doesn’t Andrew express his own sense of disgust at the blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane treatment women received under Saddam and his sons? The small matter that has been taken care of. And how was it taken care of? Oh yeah. Something to do with the U. S. military….

Then I would believe he wasn’t a baiting troll.

Dana (137151) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:17 am

Raising some side issue that you refuse to prove is classic trollery.

No, Patricia. Sadistic, cruel and inhumane treatment is exactly the issue in this thread. But you don’t want to think about what Rumsfeld could have meant and why he doesn’t want these photos and videos released.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:23 am

Another thing. The guy in the video says “liberals” say “we are torturing people,” but wasn’t it a Bush administration appointee named Susan Crawford (who also worked for George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan) who told the Washington Post a couple of months ago

“We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case [for prosecution”

That’s a strange resume for a liberal.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:29 am

I don’t think we should conflate Abu Ghraib with Gitmo.

Abu Ghraib was a cluster-fuck going from sadistic, rear-echelon gold bricks at the bottom, who are now in prison, to some man-hating lady general at the top, who is now out of a job.

Gitmo is an Orwellian situation.

nk (0a1ba0) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:39 am

Andrew – Please spell out exactly what was done to Qahtani for the edification of the audience here. Then compare it to the definition of torture in the international accord governing the treatment of prisoners – what’s that one called?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:49 am

I see my comment #58 but I wonder whether anybody else can. Moderation?

nk (0a1ba0) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:51 am

Dummerer than a sack of Andrews, or a Hacks of sacks.

More people died in Teddy Kennedy’s cars than did at Abu Ghraib.

JD (2ed087) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:53 am

Can’t see your 58 nk.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:54 am

Let me try it without words that trip the you-know-what.

I don’t think we should conflate Abu Ghraib with Gitmo.

Abu Ghraib was a cluster-____ going from s_______c, rear-echelon gold bricks at the bottom, who are now in prison, to some man-hating lady general at the top, who is now out of a job.

Gitmo is an Orwellian situation.

nk (0a1ba0) — 3/14/2009 @ 11:59 am

Nk – you are deliberately trying to confuse it. We all know that President Bush ordered the guards @ Abu Ghraib to “torture” those prisoners.

JD (2ed087) — 3/14/2009 @ 12:26 pm

Careful JD, Dick Cheney might send his secret assassination squad after you if you keep talking like that. They’re some bad dudes! Ask Sy Hersh if you don’t believe me. Heh.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 12:44 pm

Some people, no matter how many chances they are given to “get their mind straight”,
are constantly “Stuck on Stupid”.

Was AbuGraib a disgrace to the professionalism instilled in the U.S.Military: Absolutely!
Was there a coverup of the activities at AbuGraib: Not in the slightest.
The wrong-doing was discovered, and reported, by the Army, and the individuals involved received punishment, both non-judicial and judicial, as neccessary for the maintanance of discipline and responsibility within the ranks.

AD - RtR/OS (80cdf5) — 3/14/2009 @ 12:54 pm

But you don’t want to think about what Rumsfeld could have meant

You were given a final chance here Andy, and blew it, big – time. From now on, your beclowning will continue apace. Mocking and scorn are all you deserve at this point.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:10 pm

Always easiest to believe the things we want rather than the things that are true.

International groups and the ACLU have documented numerous deaths at Anu Garib, especially amongst the “unregistered detainees.”

U.S. officials have formally disclosed the death of only one person interrogated by the CIA in Iraq — Manadel al-Jamadi, an unregistered “ghost” prisoner at Abu Ghraib who died Nov. 4, 2003, while handcuffed in a prison shower room.

Ivan Frederick, the highest ranking non-com at the prison confessed to his role and mentioned in his video diary (prior to the scandal)

In the diary are listed detailed, dated entries that chronicle abuse and names, for example,

They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. The next day the medics came in and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake I.V. in his arm [to suggest he died under medical care] and took him away. This OGA (other governmental agency) [prisoner] was never processed and therefore never had a number.
—Ivan Frederick

Believe what you want, folks, but try to believe things that are somewhat near the truth, i.e. when you torture people, whether at the behest of official policy or because you’re a bad apple, people die. Go watch “Taxi to the Dark Side.”

The entire list of FOIA documents and court filings from the ACLU can be found here.

One needn’t believe that America is evil to know what we did and hope that we learned a lesson. Hopefully, we did. One needn’t know that just because some people screwed up (and as the Senate report concluded, the “some” included Don Rumsfeld), doesn’t mean the terrorists are worse. They are obviously much worse. But, the truth is important. When we look at what happened, it’s important to make sure we stop it from happening. Obama should shine a light on Bagram, for instance, and his continuing disinterest in doing so is a disgrace.

Nonetheless, this disconnect some right wingers have from common sense and documents/facts in an attempt to whitewash history in service of ideology is contemptible.

timb (8f04c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:23 pm

Can we ever get back to this type of leadership?

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:31 pm

I see my comment #58 but I wonder whether anybody else can. Moderation?

Strange things have happened with my own comments at times. Usually, they appear immediately, but for about an hour I couldn’t post at all — I was chided by the software for posting too fast, even though I wasn’t.

And at times, a link to my comment would appear in the right-hand corner listing recent comments, but not appear in the thread. Strange.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:33 pm

Timmy, I have nothing but scorn for the American Communist Liberal Union. If they’re for it, chances are I’m against it. They have no standing in my mind.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:34 pm

Just remember that when the Left takes out after all of the “abuses” at Bagram, they will be attacking the practices of the Obama Administration, which is denying Bagram detainees Habeas Corpus, and other Constitutional protections guaranteed to American citizens…Oh wait.

AD - RtR/OS (80cdf5) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:39 pm

International groups and the ACLU

Yeah, and we all know how accurate and objective the ACLU is concerning anything relating to the GOP. Pray tell us, what other “international groups” are you referencing here? Amnesty International? All they do is screech about imagined wrongs at GITMO, yet they’re strangely silent about imprisoned democracy activists in Cuba, Syria, Iran, China, Russia – the list is endless. Wonder why?

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:16 pm

Wait, what about Lancet? That’s a crack outfit, regardless of their death estimates in Iraq being off by only half a bloody million.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:17 pm

Whereas in the United States, they can criticize the government until the cows come home, in the above mentioned countries, they might be guests of the government for an indeterminate length of time.

AD - RtR/OS (80cdf5) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:19 pm

You’re assuming they live long enough to qualify for the frequent visitor points, AD.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:29 pm

But you don’t want to think about what Rumsfeld could have meant and why he doesn’t want these photos and videos released.

Correct. I do not read minds or receive messages through a tin foil hat. Perhaps you do. So I repeat: you raised the issue, you substantiate it.

Or just admit that you’re an idiot/troll.

Patricia (2183bb) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:36 pm

Patricia, troll Andrew will never admit troll Andrew is a troll.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:41 pm

Correct. I do not read minds or receive messages through a tin foil hat. Perhaps you do. So I repeat: you raised the issue, you substantiate it

I can’t substantite that unless the photos are released, which they aren’t because people like Rumsfeld think they are too cruel to be shown.
Since Rummy and you share the same ideology, I was hoping you enlightened me as of what a Republican considers cruel, sadistic and inhumane treatment.

Patricia, do you want these photos and videos removed? I think you do, based on your curiosity to know what’s in the photos. At least we have something in common.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 2:57 pm

Andrew, I consider the Holocaust cruel and sadistic. I consider beheadings by Holocaust deniers cruel and sadistic. I consider sending women (sub-humans, doncha know) in to be suicide bombers so as to kill innocent women and children to be cruel and sadistic. What do you consider to be equivalent in our approach to these people?

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:08 pm

Look guys (and girls), this is funny. Several US soldiers beat an Afghan prisoner to death in 2002. Tee-hee-hee. I should make a Youtube video out of it.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/346304

“Dilawar died when his heart stopped as a result of “blunt force injuries to the lower extremities,” according to his autopsy report. He had been chained by his wrists to the top of his cell for days.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:14 pm

Andrew, I consider the Holocaust cruel and sadistic. I consider beheadings by Holocaust deniers cruel and sadistic. I consider sending women (sub-humans, doncha know) in to be suicide bombers so as to kill innocent women and children to be cruel and sadistic. What do you consider to be equivalent in our approach to these people?

Hersh’s allegations would be an equivalent, since he speaks about children being sodomized and women raped. That’s why I’m wondering if that’s what Rumsfeld is describing as cruel, sadistic and inhumane. We don’t know if it’s true but we want to know if it’s true. Right? So let’s just hope that the ACLU lawsuit to release the 87 photos (I think there are videos, not sure) is successful, so that you and I can comment on how sadistic whatever is shown there is.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:18 pm

Anti-American Communist Liberal Union should be banished. They do everything in their power to subvert the Constitution and defeat the purpose of the founding fathers. Let’s hope that organization fails every lawsuit it makes.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:20 pm

@John Hitchcock: Let’s hope that organization fails every lawsuit it makes.

But there’s nothing bad in those tapes and photos. What’s to fear?

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:40 pm

There’s nothing illegal in your every move and communication effort. What’s to fear in recording and rebroadcasting it?

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 3:47 pm

Let’s hope that organization fails every lawsuit it makes.

But there were many Abu Ghraib photos released, but can’t these particular ones be released?

And note that Rumsfeld is not using the privacy argument. He is using the sadism, “too cruel” argument. That’s the reason why Rumsfeld said the material can’t be made public.

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:06 pm

Dummerer than a sack of Andrews takes on an all new meaning today. It is like he wants our soliders to be sadistic. It would reinforce his view of them. He has absolutely refused to consider the fact that this was an anomoly, and believes it to be the way things work. He bought Teh Narrative that Abu Ghraib was a cover-up. There is no debating anything with a believer, especially a mental midget like this one.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:07 pm

I vote we send Andrew on a 13-week vacation to “Paradise Island.” He just might wake up a little bit.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:12 pm

For fuck’s sake, we already know that any pictures will cause a shitstorm of a circus for the Left, look what the pictures did last time. It would be a Leftist circle-jerk of the highest order, taking the actions of a few rogues and tarring everyone they disagree with with the actions of same, all whilst wailing TORTURE in every breath. You are so transparent in your overt partisan hackery that we can see right through you and your ilk, Andy. Unfortunately, you are shameless, as you appear to want this to be true, you hope it to be true, and you want to smear people with the actions of others. As we have known all along, you are a pathetic little person, belonging in the same shit-bin as Hacks, timmah, Mario and the rest.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:12 pm

“But there were many Abu Ghraib photos released, but can’t these particular ones be released?”

Andrew – Was the government doing the bulk of the releasing or private individuals?

Since the left was claiming that Abu Ghraib inflamed the muslim world, what is your interest in releasing more pictures? What specifically will having more pictures in your possession allow you do do? What are your motives here?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:16 pm

daley – You know damn good and well what its vile little motives are.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:17 pm

Andrew – Do you have some strange psycho sexual fetish about these pictures you want to tell everybody about? Seriously, what is behind your desire fot yhe release of additional pictures? Please explain.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:19 pm

JD – I want Andrew to explain it or spin it if he can.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:21 pm

daley, if you know another way to find out what Rumsfeld meant by sadistic, cruel and inhumane share it with us. I’d love to use another method other than seeing the tapes, IF there is another method at all. What is your proposal?

Andrew (73c46e) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:24 pm

It will get too dizzy and maybe fall down and I will hold you responsible, daley.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:25 pm

Nope, Andrew. Your assertions. Your burden. You already “know” all of your fevered rantings to be true. What more will pictures add, what do you think should be done with them, and to what ends? Remember, you and your fellow travelers screamed in high dudgeon how Abu Ghraib inflamed the Arab world, and then proceeded to pimp out those photos like the goat porn stash in the back of your closet.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:28 pm

“daley, if you know another way to find out what Rumsfeld meant by sadistic, cruel and inhumane share it with us.”

Andrew – I have no compelling need yo find out more about Abu Ghraib. My understanding is that the guilty have been punished. If you have information to the contrary, present it. You have not done anything of the kind yet and seem to be merely playing with yourself.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 4:58 pm

Andrew – You can also look up those words in the dictionary if you are unclear on their meaning.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 5:00 pm

You have not done anything of the kind yet and seem to be merely playing with yourself.

Andrew’s running out of Jergen’s again, apparently.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 5:34 pm

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 6:17 pm

JD, you made that up, about me having said that I “know” that these things are true.

If I knew I would not want to see the tapes.

Andrew (6cf219) — 3/14/2009 @ 7:19 pm

No, that is my interpretation of your statements, based on your words, and your history. It is an entirely reasonable position to take. Given your bastardization of history displayed in this thread and others, your anticipated claim of a desire to find and expose the TWOOF is laughable.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 7:25 pm

The saddest part of wingnut historical revisionism/denial about Abu Ghraib is that the sadism there — the stuff Rush Limbaugh likened to “fraternity pranks” — is one of the biggest reasons we lost the war in Iraq.

Those who argue in favor of historical denial of the incident, or make light of it a la Crowder, give much credence to the claim that the perpetrators weren’t “bad apples” acting without sanction, but were operating under the assumption that had permission, a rational extension of the logic that says 9/11 gave America a moral blank check to invade Iraq in the first place.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/14/2009 @ 7:49 pm

If I knew I would not want to see the tapes.

And yet you can’t seem to shut the f-ck up about them, 24/7 – so why not shut your blowhole about it, right?

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:13 pm

Annnnndwwuuuu’s just asking questions, you understand.

Dmac (49b16c) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:15 pm

“or make light of it a la Crowder”

Crowder is not making lisght of it. Try watching it again. The only revisionism going on is from the left here.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:26 pm

The saddest part of wingnut historical revisionism/denial about Abu Ghraib is that the sadism there — the stuff Rush Limbaugh likened to “fraternity pranks” — is one of the biggest reasons we lost the war in Iraq.

We did?

Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/14/2009 @ 8:43 pm

They love to claim that we lost in Iraq, Patterico. They were hoping for us to lose, therefore, we lost.

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:04 pm

Hacks complaining about historical revisionism while engaging in same is rich, huh?

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:06 pm

Countdown ’til Hacks says we did not lose, just left it un-won … 3 … 2 … 1 …

JD (ba27e7) — 3/14/2009 @ 9:08 pm

If we had won, the Iraqi people would not [object].

If we had won, Iraq would have a government that isn’t [object].

If we had won, there would not be an estimated [object](1.5 million outside Iraq, 2.7 million within) afraid to return to their homes or, indeed, without any homes to return to, now that the Shi’a and Sunni areas have been “cleansed” of each group.

If we had won, Iran would not have dramatically expanded its influence in Iraq and the region, nor would Iran be in a position to support Islamic radicalism within Iraq as a sponsor of the nation’s most powerful political party.

If we had won, we would have never been left to pursue a policy of abject appeasement of tribal groups formerly labeled “terrorists” by our own government. These militia, with American blood on their hands, now have taxpayers dollars in their pockets, because the U.S. failed to rout Al Qaeda elements that infiltrated after the invasion, so it had to pay these militia to do the job. The Iraqi government is not looking forward to disarming these militia, who will be getting their pay by extorting it from locals the moment the U.S. taxpayer dollars stop flowing.

We went to war, ostensibly, to remove WMD that could have been used in a terror attack. There were no such weapons, so the invasion can only be rationalized via the secondary motive: to bring democracy to the Iraq people and, thereby, set off a chain reaction in the region.

We cannot, then, claim victory when the country still does not have a functioning democracy worthy of the name, but is instead, a loose federation of three ethnic and religious-based states that are almost certain to remain at odds, retarding, rather than assisting the development of democratic institutions.

Had the stakes of this war been simple: remove the WMD and Saddam, then, yes, it would have been won, even with the non-existent WMD removal.

Had those been the stakes, we would have declared victory withdrawn years ago and our beautiful men and women who fought there would have been welcomed home in a huge parade and would by now be back at work rebuilding the economy.

Instead,the stakes were broadly geopolitical, meaning that the U.S. could never declare victory without repairing the social fabric, political institutions and infrastructure it destroyed.

Instead of demonstrating that the U.S. can bring democracy to third world countries at the point of a gun, the invasion showed that even a force as deeply divided, poorly funded and untrained as the Iraqi insurgency could hold a superpower at bay indefinitely.

Worse, the war laid bare the bombastically shameful hypocrisy of latter-day neoconservative militarists. When it became clear that the war’s loudest cheerleaders had no of volunteering to fight in the war, or even of raising taxes to pay for it, the credibility of the U.S. military took a mortal wound.

Time is always on an indigenous insurgency’s side. If an invading force and its local allies are not neutralizing an insurgency, they are losing. While if an insurgency is surviving, it’s winning.

Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/15/2009 @ 5:10 am

Dmac, JD, et al – do we really want the imagery of Andrew Sullivating in anticipation of what he seems to hope the photos/video/tapes might show ?

Alasdair (6b086e) — 3/15/2009 @ 2:24 pm

Hax #114 – even for you, that would grow some prize-winning produce for a county fair !

Just to take one example – refugees …

Last time I looked, the Religion of Peace seems to be the only one that purposefully ‘farms’ its refugees …

At the time of the founding of Israel, approximately an equivalent number of Jewish refugees and Muslim refugees were ‘created’ by the associated conflict … Jewish countries took in the Jewish refugees for the most part … Muslim countries set up camps and have been ‘farming’ the refugees and their descendents since 1948 …

See if you can find a source less crystal-clear-biased, next time, if you can, please …

Alasdair (6b086e) — 3/15/2009 @ 2:35 pm

Hax – Here’s a summary of the 2002 AUMF in Iraq. It doesn’t bear any resemblance to your comment #114. Please try again with less revisionist history.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/15/2009 @ 3:27 pm

Since Rummy and you share the same ideology…

Oh, I’m so hurt! And neener neener on you too, you big poopy face!

Patricia (2183bb) — 3/15/2009 @ 11:58 pm

“While if an insurgency is surviving, it’s winning.”

Patricia – According to Hax, the Republicans are winning.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/16/2009 @ 12:15 am

If I knew I would not want to see the tapes.

And yet you can’t seem to shut the f-ck up about them, 24/7 – so why not shut your blowhole about it, right?

When you tell me why the tapes can’t be released I’l shut up. I want to know if rape took place. You want to know that too.

Andrew (7e4b75) — 3/16/2009 @ 6:34 am

3/13/2009

Fun Links

120 Responses to “Fun Links”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out