I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior -
our *principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And
when we violate our own principles, we need to call those who
do it on the carpet.


We do. And did.

The second you cite "their" behavior as mitigating, you betray
yourself.

Where did I cite "their" behavior at all? Based on your recent flurry of
posts, I'm curious as to what you're reading!

Mark Hickey wrote:
Of course not - and I'm very happy that the guards responsible for the
mistreatment are being punished. My point is that it's disingenuous
(at best) for someone to be horrified by those abuses without making a
sound about the much, much greater ones being performed by those we're
at war with.

Why? Is there any danger (really) in being confused for a supporter of
terrorists like Al Zaqari or Osama bin Forgotten?

I don't need to hate him/it to want it dead ASAP. I give no more thought
to Al Zaqari than I do to a cougar who dined recently on human. It's a
creature that must be destroyed ASAP, nothing more. I'm not a violent
person, but put either a man-eating cat OR bin Laden in front of me, and
I'll kill it out of a simple sense of duty. The repugnance I'd feel for
killing a fellow human (or beautiful, vicious wild animal) would be
dealt with, assuming I felt any.

Because we've seen it too often in the past, and because we prize the
ideals that our nation stands for - or we WANT it to stand for - there
IS a danger for you of being confused for someone who condones prisoner
abuse, when you fail to oppose it without reservation.

OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.

That's because they are rightly judging our own by the high standards
we have set for ourselves.


And we ARE living up to that. We're punishing those who stray from
those "high standards" and in fact are staying well below the
internationally accepted limits (contrary to what some would have you
believe).

In fact, we are NOT living up to our own standards. We voters have in
fact subjected ourselves to an administration that actively attempts to
circumvent the Geneva Conventions.

I expect barbarians to do barbaric acts. I do not expect Americans to
do barbaric acts. That is why we are different from them. And better.


It's a step in the right direction to admit that we're not as bad as
the bad guys in the play I suppose...

Where exactly is this "right direction" you're talking about? I think it
is you who have strayed.

Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our
*principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when
we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the
carpet.


The problem is, to a large group of people "we" means "any individual
remotely connected with the US" can bring their hasty condemnation.
Witness the backlash over a few idiot guards in one prison. They've
extrapolated that to "the US government is corrupt and evil and
condone torture".

Those idiot guards (and their military or contractor superiors)
represent the US. They represent US.

And keep in mind one thing: the worst of what we do to our prisoners
is the *best* that can be expected if our boys/girls ever get taken
prisoner. So we'd better make sure our worst is principled. Since I
have family members on the ground over there, this is personal for me.


I couldn't agree more with you which is why (again) I'm so glad to see
those responsible for the prison abuse punished. It's horrible to
think that their selfish, twisted acts put other military personnel in
more danger. But in the end, those we're fighting are just sick
*******s - we could put all prisoners in a five-star hotel with daily
massage and it wouldn't change how they treat their prisoners.

Not all responsible have been or are being punished. Responsibility is
shared by the entire chain of command. To the extent this punishment is
withheld, responsibility extends to all involved, ending ultimately with
the individual voter.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

cc wrote:
I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media
is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects
the interests of its owners.

It would be instructive for some to research the organization backing
the Sean Hannity radio show.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL


Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With that
kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?

Greg

G.T. wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at
the available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL


Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With
that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?

So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see
through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
could.

The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome. Only a
premature withdrawal can accomplish that.

"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
G.T. wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at
the available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL


Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With
that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?

So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to
see
through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources

When his staff was driving those reports? Yes, he did see through it.

(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
could.

The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
doesn't change the initial reasons

Oil? Or for Halliburton to make a lot of money getting alot of their
contractors killed in the process?

I met GW* today and he admitted it was all for oil and Cheney's cronies.






















* Actually it was a guy who looks just like him and plays the prez on TV,
funny guy and probably would be a better president than the real one.

Greg

G.T. wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...
G.T. wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at
the available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL


Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US.
With that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?

So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was
supposed to see through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence
from multiple sources

When his staff was driving those reports? Yes, he did see through it.

You should inform the investigators who found no evidence of that.

(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one
else could.

The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone
would be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just
because it's turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome
than anticipated doesn't change the initial reasons

Oil? Or for Halliburton to make a lot of money getting alot of their
contractors killed in the process?

That's why it's so damned cheap nowadays! (Actually, it IS time Iraq
started paying for its liberation; give us some barrels...and put a head on
'em!) (No, not THAT kind of head.)

I met GW* today and he admitted it was all for oil and Cheney's
cronies.

Good for them!






















* Actually it was a guy who looks just like him and plays the prez on
TV, funny guy and probably would be a better president than the real
one.

Funny, I talked to W about /you/ and he had only nice things to say ;-)

Weren't you and JD supposed to be in NoCal today (I wasn't invited...again)?
Er, yesterday now...

Bedtime Billy

"G.T." wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote

Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL

Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With that
kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?

Two thoughts...

1) I'll bet you can't find a link that supports your ICBM claim (why
do you have to embellish the facts to make your point?)

2) Are you suggesting that GWB is a LOT smarter than Hillary, Kerry
and Edwards (and Clinton and Allbright and....)? Apparently so, since
they all received the same intel - but (to you) it's obvious that GWB
was the only one smart enough to properly analyze it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"cc" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote
"cc" wrote:

How about when WE kill innocents - e.g. Iraqi civilians - by the dozen?
Covered? No.

It got lots of coverage. Where do you get your news?

Not enough, and not as much as our "noble cause"

The one constant refrain I hear from everyone who's actually on the
ground in Iraq is that there is FAR too little coverage of the good
things happening there. The military personnel are frustrated that a
bomb trumps schools and hospitals reopening.

The displacement of millions of Palestinians with the use of US funds?
Funny
how in the media the Israelis are the poor displaced ones, isn't it? Not
really. Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid in the world,
thanks
to us.

So? Why wouldn't we prop up the one real democracy in the middle
east?

At what cost?

What cost do you put on principle? Do you believe that we SHOULD let
the neighboring countries destroy Israel?

As has been pointed out previously, we need to set a standard. We are not
doing so. In any case, the blatant disrespect that the actions at AG showed
is just unacceptable, pointless, and not good for anyone.

A reasonable person could distinguish between the stated goals of a
nation, and the actions of a few numbskull prison guards. The fact
that those guards are now serving time should make that distinction
even easier.

I also find it
hard to believe that it was a few "renegade guards." This sounds too
familiar to the "bad apple" argument pushed so long about corporate fraud.
Not buying it.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see (or perhaps, read
about the trials for those "renegade guards"). It's not difficult
logic to process - the prisoners in question were not important
intelligence targets, but common criminals. You'd suggest that the
White House issued secret orders to have a group of obvioulsy
not-too-bright guards mentally abuse a bunch of common criminals, and
to take photos of the process? You'd REALLY suggest that?

Are you living on some other planet?

Than you? Probably.

I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media
is biased toward the left wing.

It's easy. Just look at what IS and what ISN'T reported. It's
patently obvious that the mainstream media tends to underreport news
items that support Bush and the war in Iraq, and overreport items that
are damaging (do I have to remind you about Rathergate, which is
really only one glaring example)?

It is owned by transnational corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects
the interests of its owners.

Uh huh... I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't hold water.
You have the same corporation "owning" Fox News Network and Howard
Stern (or at least they did - not sure now). Exactly which of those
"reflects the interest of the owners"?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Raptor wrote:

cc wrote:
I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media
is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects
the interests of its owners.

It would be instructive for some to research the organization backing
the Sean Hannity radio show.

Ummmm, that would be the sponsors. It would be easier to research the
sponsors of Air America though (since it's such a small group). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame