GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Human Rights Watch Criticizes U.S. More than Iran, North Korea and Other Tyrannies

by

Today on its front newspage, with the title, “Rights group report calls U.S. abuse deliberate,” Yahoo highlighted an article on a Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2006 which claimed that, “In 2005 it became disturbingly clear that the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.” This AP article seemed more interested in presenting the spin of this group than in telling the truth as it called water-boarding, an interogation technique used by CIA investigations to get information from captured terrorists as “an age-old torture technique.” Other MSM outlets will pick up this group’s report and will continue to promote a distorted view of U.S. policy–given the inherent anti-American bias of HRW.

It is not a report based on solid evidence, but on bias. And its conclusion that the alleged abuse was deliberate is at odds with more serious investigations.

Not only did the report misrepresent the Bush Administration’s record on torture, repeating discredited allegations featured on left-wing web-sites and in the MSM, it also seethed with contempt for policies of a past Republican administration. It reads more like an anti-Republican screed from some left-wing blog than a dispassionate account of a non-partisan human rights watchdog.

Thus, it did not surprise me when I did a google search of Executive Director Kenneth Roth to learn that he had written for the left-wing magazine The Nation, was featured as a speaker on Alternative Radio’s web-site (which, on its right side-bar includes an archive of programs by America-hater Noam Chomsky) and had been named a Pravda Personality of the Week.

While his group does look into some of the serious violations of human rights around the word, notably in the Sudanese province of Darfur, it dwells on those committed in the U.S. Even after the Schlesinger report found that abuses at Abu Ghraib “were not part of authorized interrogations nor were they even directed at intelligence targets“, HRW, like Andrew Sullivan, is obsessed with what happened on one night at that prison.

Indeed, the sexual degradation glimpsed in the Abu Ghraib photos was so outlandish that it made it easier for the Bush administration to deny having had anything to do with it�to pretend that the abuse erupted spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command and could be corrected with the prosecution of a handful of privates and sergeants. 

Um, the abuse there did “erupt spontaneously” as the trials and convictions of those involved prove.

But, non-partisan invtestigations and trials of the perpetrators of those abuses haven’t stopped HRW from condemning the Bush Administration. Indeed, it even blames the U.S. for terrorists groups which target civilians, noting that they “took place in the context of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the ensuing military occupation that resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and sparked the emergence of insurgent groups.” This is absurd. Suggesting the U.S. is responsible for the conduct of its enemies. One would hope that these words would cause most serious reporters to dismiss HRW as a crank outfit. Instead, AP uses the quote in its article.

The U.S. didn’t cause the so-called “insurgent” groups to murder the people for whom they are ostensibly fighting. They themselves chose to target civilians. Most insurgent groups limit themselves to attacking the troops of the “occupying” power. And yet, HRW blames America suggesting that our supposedly nefarious actions somehow excuse terrorists for murdering children.

Thus, so caught up is Human Rights’ Watch with its hatred for America (at least an America governed by a Republican Administration) that, they, like others on the left, blame us for everything. Even the tactics of our enemies. It is as if they believe that America is responsible for most, if not all, of the world’s ills.

And so great is their contempt for Republicans that they even attack Reagan’s successful policies in El Salvador. While that once-troubled Central American nation has enjoyed democracy for more than two decades, HRW sneers that the Reagan Administration misused the concepts of “‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ in places like El Salvador.”

And even when they acknowledge that our policies have achieved some success of the Bush Administration’s policies, they have to qualify theier praise:

The limited pressure it brought to bear helped create more space for some dissidents and genuinely independent political and civic organizations. But its success was circumscribed by its own human rights record. 

HRW makes much of the admistration’s general avoidance of the term “human rights,” yet itself largely ignores the development of democratic instituations, including a free press and free elections, in Iraq.

The very tone of this report suggests an animosity to the U.S. and the policies of not only the current Republican Administration, but also of past Republican Administration, that it is clear its authors, notably Executive Director Kenneth Roth, are more interested in attacking partisan adversaries than in offering a non-partisan analysis of the human rights situation.

Simply put, it is impossible to take seriously a human rights’ group where the Introduction to its annual World Report includes more references to American human rights’ abuses than to those in Zimbabwe, Iran or North Korea. This is not a serious report on human rights, but another attempt for a left-wing outfits to dress up its criticism of the Bush Administration in general and the war in Iraq in particular in noble rhetoric.

There are sound reasons to criticize the war in Iraq. But, when a group relies on long-discredited theories and blames the U.S. for the murderous behavior of its enemies, those who want to engage in a serious debate on the war should dimiss it — and any reports it issues — out of hand. It’s unfortunate that instead of ignoring this very partisan report, the MSM will highlight it. And it will be up to bloggers and others in the alternative media to challenge not only so we can defend the policies of this Adminstration to promote democracy around the world but also so that we can better defend human rights — both at home and abroad.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Comments

  1. As soon as Human Rights Watch decides to put out an in-depth analysis on what life in Iraq under Saddam was really like, then we can talk.

    Of course, hell will freeze over first.

    HRW is a leftist group primarily concerned with bashing the Bush administration. For them to admit what conditions at Abu Ghirab were like under Saddam would invite comparisons of what the US allegedly has done to a REAL system of systematic torture, as ordered and administered by all levels of a government.

    This has been the left and Democrats’ strategy all along — to trump up charges against the United States by deliberately hiding or obscuring conditions under Saddam. For instance, they deliberately hid the full story of Saddam’s imprisonment of children, even as small as toddlers, because doing so wouldn’t help them “deal peace”. They know full well that if this information ever got out, the American public would never buy into the Democrats’ racist rhetoric that conditions in Iraq didn’t justify meaningful action, or that “containment” was keeping Saddam from brutalizing his people.

  4. Oh, and by the way, I find it amazing that the Polish government would allow these “renditions” to gulags on Polish territory. Let’s get something straight–Auschwitz, the largest Vernichtungslager (extermination camp) was in Poland. And they fully cooperated with the Nazis in the Vernichtung. That they would cooperate with the GWBush malAdminisration rendition is amazing.

  5. So, raj, are you suggesting that what W does is akin to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz?

    That you would call U.S. prisons “gulags” is striking and suggests you are less interested in telling the truth than in comparing the president to the worst human violators of the last century.

    Do we even know that there are U.S. prisons in Poland? And if so, do you have evidence that the treatment there violates international treaties?

    Water-boarding has only been used in limited circumstances and has proven a successful means of extracting useful information from captured terrorists. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need it, but in an ideal world, crazed religious fanatics wouldn’t be trying to blow themselves up in order to murder civilians.

  9. The reason left-wing groups don’t criticize brutal regimes like Castro’s or Iran’s is because that would be dangerous. Those tyrants might kill them. On the other, bashing democracies like the US is perfectly safe because despite the left’s demented ravings, Bush really isn’t Hitler.

  10. So true. Thank you. Bush is a very, very safe target for the cheap rage of dysfunctional people who don’t want to be grownups (if indeed they aren’t angry at the process of life itself).

  12. …like Andrew Sullivan, is obsessed with what happened on one night at that prison.

    I hate to do anything so unpopular as to defend Andrew Sullivan, but the above implied statmement that Andrew Sullivan is obsessed with Abu Graib is a bold-faced lie. Andrew has been consistently concerned with much more than just Abu Graib. And he has also consistently provided the links to the evidence, most of it written by government agencies themselves, of the wide-spread abuse, and the legal changes made by this Administration that founded the climate of approval of torture.

    But it’s easier to attack Andrew Sullivan than it is to refute the many, many, documents that he has provided and linked too. Isn’t it? And of course by guilt of association, you also attack and demean the many, many, servicemembers who themselves have stepped forward to make a moral stand and say this is wrong. You are unworthy of their honor and sacrifice.

    Congratulations, you are now an official Republican Noise Machine. You are more interested in creating political noise to give cover to this Administration than you are in facts, or honor or moral decency.

    And as for:

    Water-boarding is also used to train our Marines. If they can take it, I think those plotting the murders of Americans by the thousands should be able to take it, too.

    You are just fucking sick. And what the Marines go through btw, is simulated water boarding, not the actual practice.

    If you are willing to countenance the torture of terrorist suspects without mercy or any check, then you lose the moral authority to call them terrorists in the first place. Call them brothers, because you just became the same. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t blown up and killed thousands of innocent civilians. The mindset, the moral equivalency and justification for your “cause” is there. It’s just a matter of degree. You have just sat your bare ass on the beginning of a nasty, slippery slope. You can follow the same slime-trail of those that have gone before you, such as Osama Bin Laden, who once was a “freedom fighter”, a hero, not a terrorist, and who now justifies any atrocity in the name of his “cause”. You may not be willing at this time to justify “any atrocity”, but you are perfectly willing to at least countenance “some atrocity” if it gets you what you want. Even if its against people who are innocent. Just like Osama, you make no distinction between those free of guilt or the dammed.

    And don’t even think about calling me “soft on terror”. It’s just that I’d rather a Jihadist cut my head off slowly with a rusty knife than give up what it means to be an American. Its not safety and security at any price. If you don’t have moral decency, honor, and values, then what have you got? Bestial hunger and savagery. You become nothing but a stupid thug.

  13. Patrick in #12, funny, you should mention that reference to Andrew which I put in more for rhetorical purposes than anything else. I had considered not including it, but ran it by another blogger. Because he thought it was fine, I kept it in. Yes, I know that Andrew is interested in more than Abu Ghraib, but the last time I read his blog regularly, he was bloviating on it as it this were worse that Srebenica. The line is thus accurate.

    I don’t need to refute Andrew as he has been refuted by so many, notably Heather McDonald. Perhaps, I shouldn’t have included that line, but I put it there, so I’ll leave it and stand by it. That’s only one line in a rather long post — and an expression not integral to its theme.

    And no, I am not willing to countenance the torture of terrorist suspects — and never advocated as much in this piece — or any piece I have written. I agree that there need to be safeguards in place and that’s why there’s no “nasty, slippery slope.” I favor only such intense interrogation techniques when they’re closely monitored and in situations where we believe we can extract evidence which will prevent future terrorist attacks and so save lives — a position Andrew Sullivan held before 02/24/04.

    I do make a distinction between those free of guilt & the damned as does the Bush Administration. To say otherwise is to dismiss so many facts. For example, four months before CBS News “broke” the Abu Ghraib story, the Defense Department had already launched an investigation. All those found to be involved were tried and I believe they were all convicted and sentenced to prison.

    Why would I call you soft on terror? I hadn’t intended to. I would consider that you are rushing to conclusions here.

    And where did I say safety and security at any price? It’s sad that you who normally offer such even-handed criticism have flown off the handle on this one. You call me a thug for a post where I fault HRW for misrepresenting U.S. policies, ignoring evidence dismissing the Administration of wrongdoing on the “torture” issue and dwelling on alleged U.S. wrongdoing while devoting less time to more significant human rights violations in nations unfriendly to the U.S.

    As to your question about moral decency, honor and values, where in my post (or anywhere in the blog) suggest that we should conduct such interrogation techniques without scruples or supervision? Instead of calling me a thug, perhaps you should have questioned where I stood on such things. And let me repeat what I said earlier in this comment (about when I favor intense interrogation techniques): when they’re closely monitored and in situations where we believe we can extract evidence which will prevent future terrorist attacks and so save lives. We should not use them randomly and should consider first the situation. So that means that I believe there should be a check on the interrogation of terror suspects. I believe that. And the Bush Administration has, by and large, acted according to similar philosophy.

    When charges of torture have been raised, they have been investigated. In many cases, investigators find they are nothing more than allegations) as was the case in the Guantanamo example Dick Durbin used this past summer) or bad reporting (as was the case in Newsweek and the Koran flushing). And when the government has found inappropriate behavior, they have prosecuted those responsible, as was the case in Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

    I didn’t read the whole HRW report because the Introduction was so anti-American. (And my post is based on that.) Judging by its tone and the space used to attack the U.S., one would assume (just from reading that) that the U.S. is the world’s worst violator of human rights — and the other nations included just sideshows. Perhaps, they did not the extent to which the government it so readily attacks investigates allegations of abuse. But, given the tone of the introduction, I highly doubt it.

    Alas, Patrick, you seem to be repeating the pattern of critics from whom, in general, you have distinguished yourself in the past. You make allegations about us that are simply not true. We did not set ourselves on a slippery slope. I merely took issue with a biased report. Had you asked me what I felt about a number of related issues, I would have answered as I have above and not as you allege. I’m not comfortable with some of the interrogation techniques our military and the CIA uses. But, many have proven to be effective in the War on Terror.

    In an ideal world, they wouldn’t use them. But, this is, alas, not an ideal world. Given the threat of global terrorism, some of these techniques are necessary. But, they must be used with caution and with adequate safeguards. To suggest I said otherwise is to misrepresent the post to which you attach your comments — and to dismiss the time I have spent considering the situation.

  16. Snap, snap, Gryph.

    I’ve been visiting this site the last week or two and it has shocked me to see how often the hosts and participants regurgitate talking points and ignore facts because they don’t like the source.

    Here, we have GPW regurgitating the claims of a WSJ opinion piece — that’s what it is, GPW, an opinion piece, not a news article — as fact while standing back in shock that Kenneth Roth has written for the Nation. The bias of a publication on the left apparently is supposed to blind us to the bias of a publication on the right and we are supposed to swallow opinion as fact.

    I am no fan of Andrew Sullivan, either, but his coverage of the torture scandal has been thoroughly documented to the point of being torturous itself (just like his row with the NROers over gay marriage).

    Sullivan is here treated like anyone else of an even slightly leftward position. Look at posts 8-11 above. They generalize fanaticism to anyone who disagrees with them and, of course, any reply in kind will be greeted with an accusation of “name calling.”

    A Republican noise machine indeed. Well, actually, they are piling on concerned Republicans — people, shudder, like Norquist and Barr — now too.

  18. Um, no, PeaceOut, Andrew’s allegations have not been thoroughly documented, but thoroughly discredited.

    And not just that. I offer one quote from a WSJ opinion piece which quotes the actual text of the Schlesinger report. Even if it were just an opinion, you don’t take issue with it, instead you claim that I regurgitate talking points. And since I read only that piece, the AP article and the HRW Introduction itself when I wrote this, I must have a really good memory if I’m doing as you claim.

    And even if I’m regurgitating talking points, as you claim, you should have an easier job rebutting them, but you don’t even make an effort as a rebuttal, more content are you to make allegations against me than to take issue with my arguments.

    In short, in your comment, you don’t once address any of the points I raise in this post.

  19. Um, as you love to say GPW (as though what follows were self-evident), “snap snap” is gay parlance for “what he said,” which means: I second that. In other words I was seconding Gryph’s rebuttal.

    In any case: I haven’t read the documents cited in the WSJ piece, nor the HRW report. My point is that you present opinion as fact and when that’s observed, you demand a rebuttal. Hey, dude, the sky is green. I read it in the WSJ and that’s what a bipartisan committee of politicos decided, so it must be true. Got a problem with that? Let’s hear your rebuttal.

    Haven’t read Heather’s stuff about Andrew. Gimme a link. I’d like to see it.

    Now, since bipartisan committes have SUCH credibility, I’m sure you’ll be swayed by this report in today’s Times:

    Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By SCOTT SHANE
    Published: January 19, 2006

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 – A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are “inconsistent with the law.”

    Please read and rebut.

  20. Er, PeaceOut (#19), if I present opinion as fact, it should be easy for you to rebut. If you’re going to make a comment to this post and say I’m wrong, then show me where I am. I welcome such challenges.

    And there’s no need for me to rebut that article. It does not address the point of this post. You bring it up as a distraction perhaps so that others won’t realize your unwillingness to challenge me on the points I raised in this post.

    So you can play your silly games all you want. But, you gave your “snap snap” of assent to Patrick’s rebuttal in your comment #16 whereas I had already replied to Patrick’s comments in my comment #13.

    Since you’re not willing to take issue with the points I have raised (in this post), I see no point in taking on additional points you raise which are unrelated to the post to which you attach them. In all your comments (on this post as well as others, instead of contesting my points, you attack me. If I bring up arguments which you don’t want to address, you move on and bring up a new issue. Given your pattern, if I were to rebut your article by making arguments you may not feel like addressing, you would just move on to another point. You’re not interested in debate; you’re here to bait.

    And it amuses me to no end that you accuse me of regurgitating talking points when you merely offer standard left-wing pablum or links to other left-leaning sites without making any arguments yourself.

  22. ThatGayConservative — January 18, 2006 @ 7:08 pm – January 18, 2006

    Pardon me, but wasn’t Poland occupied at the time? And if I’m not mistaken, weren’t there Pols in residence at Auschwitz?

    There probably were a few Pols imprisoned at Auschwitz. I don’t know how many of them were Jews. My partner’s grandfather was imprisoned at the Dachauer concentration camp, which was near his (and now our) home west of Munich. He was not a Jew. And fortunately (for us) he was not exterminated.

    Poland was, indeed, occupied by Nazis at the time. But there is no indication that any substantial portion of them tried to resist the extermination of Jews who were shipped in from elsewhere–other than Jews, of course. Just as, there is no indication that any substantial portion of them have tried to resist the recent “extraordinary rendition” of people to Polish gulags for the purpose of torture.

    Connect the dots.

  23. From the post

    Thus, it did not surprise me when I did a google search of Executive Director Kenneth Roth to learn that he had written for the left-wing magazine The Nation, was featured as a speaker on Alternative Radio’s web-site (which, on its right side-bar includes an archive of programs by America-hater Noam Chomsky) and had been named a Pravda Personality of the Week.

    It appears that Mr. GayPatriotWest is engaging in the same guilt by association and name-calling that I was accused of engaging in (the “ChickenHawk” issue) downstream.

    Oh, and, by the way, from the Alternative Radio web site:

    Kenneth Roth is the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, the New York-based organization that investigates and reports on human rights abuses. A graduate of Yale and Brown, he was a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for New York and the Iran-Contra investigation in Washington.

    http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/ROTK001.shtml

    He doesn’t sound to me like a flaming liberal. A federal prosecutor?

    I presume that the Nation article that you are referring to is http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040920/roth One of the duties of the executive director of any organization is is to try to get contributions. I learned that a long time ago, when I was involved with a professional association. It is highly unlikely that people who subscribe to National Review are going to contribute to HRW, but people who subscribe to The Nation just might. It is fairly obvious that he was posting there to try to maximize their possibility of obtaining contributions. It was subtle advertising, in other words.

    Finally, regarding Pravda, it is doubtful that Mr. Roth had much control over that. Newspapers will do what they want to do. You should know that from some of the idiotic anti-gay ravings on the WSJ idiotorial page in the last dozen years or so.

    You would be well-served to cite to sources. And to learn something about how the world works.

  24. I’d rather a Jihadist cut my head off slowly with a rusty knife than give up what it means to be an American.

    This is a silly bit of self-righteous grandstanding combined with more than a little drama queen. Gryph is in very little danger of getting his own head cut off by Islamofascist headchoppers. Our soldiers in the field, however, face the very real threat of dying from insurgents. The coercive interrogation techniques that give Gryph and Andrianna Sullington the vapors are not undertaken just for the hell of it, but to provide tactical information that saves soldiers’ lives. But, hey, I guess it’s more important that liberals feel self-righteous in posturing about “torture” than it is to save the lives of men and women in a genuinely dangerous situation.

  25. The Left hates soldiers, V the K. Just because they sold their souls last election in a desperate dream of winning the White House doesn’t mean they actually meant the things they said about military service. That is why they never talk about the terrorists in Iraq. They don’t care what they are doing or who they hurt. The blatant bombings and wanton murder of the insurgents don’t bother them a bit. There are victims and people who “deserve what they get”. Guess which side American soldiers and our allies in Iraq are on in the mind of a Leftist.

  26. You would be well-served to cite to sources. And to learn something about how the world works.

    There’s an excellent example of “do as I say, not as I do“.

    GPW, Raj, does a much better job of reading his sources and linking to them before he comments than you do. You make assumptions based on your preconceived notions and then ignore facts that fail to support your case, as I demonstrated.

  27. OT: I have to disagree with today’s Day-By-Day cartoon (bottom of page), which seems to suggest that Hillary drives a large luxury automobile. I don’t think Her Highness has touched a steering wheel since Billy Bob’s first term as Governor. (There’s a reason we call ’em limousine leftists).

  29. And where did I say safety and security at any price? It’s sad that you who normally offer such even-handed criticism have flown off the handle on this one. You call me a thug for a post where I fault HRW for misrepresenting U.S. policies, ignoring evidence dismissing the Administration of wrongdoing on the “torture” issue and dwelling on alleged U.S. wrongdoing while devoting less time to more significant human rights violations in nations unfriendly to the U.S.

    Actually, you didn’t. I was not clear in my post. Anything below the quote of GP’s comment about waterboarding is directed toward him, not GPW. And it’s based on other comments of his over the year about the torture issue.

    I dated a Marine. Waterboarding ISN’T simulated.

    Comment by Queer Conservative — January 18, 2006 @ 10:46 pm – January 18, 2006

    Unless the Marine you dated was in legitimate fear of his life, waterboarding or any other torture “simulation” is exactly that, simulation.

    The coercive interrogation techniques that give Gryph and Andrianna Sullington the vapors are not undertaken just for the hell of it, but to provide tactical information that saves soldiers’ lives. But, hey, I guess it’s more important that liberals feel self-righteous in posturing about “torture” than it is to save the lives of men and women in a genuinely dangerous situation.

    And of course, right on schedule here is V the K’s accusations of me being soft on terrorists and hating the military etc. Since most of the documentation of torture that I have seen involving the military was reported by soldiers themselves your point is meaningless. Unless you want to call those same soldiers traitors, liars etc., which is of course a now standard GOP tactic. It will be used again in the next election. There are a lot of soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan that have come back and are running for Congress and other elected positions. Surprise, surprise, most of them are Democrats.

    And for the record, I don’t hate the military or the men in it, if I did, I wouldn’t have slept with so many them over the years.

    So does this mean that Gryph and Snap Fag there are going away, never to return?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 19, 2006 @ 2:20 am – January 19, 2006

    I think I will take a sabbatical for a while from this blog. Basically for the same reasons I quit watching Fox News on cable. Every time I had it on someone was outraged and screaming on it. It’s a one-note tune that I tire of easily. GP admitted in his post on treason he was being deliberately provocative. I’m sure that will bring in more “hits”, and thats the point isn’t it? Like I said before, welcome to the Noise Machine. Or a more apt description might be the GOP version of Moveon.org or Daily KOS. Well a little of that goes a long way. Time for me to switch the channel.

  30. I’ll agree that the HRC is over the top with this one. I mean, even though we don’t give prisoners habeas corpus, we spy on fellow citizens, imprison people without charges, deny people their right to property, etc., at least we are a theocracy. So who cares that we send military folk to fight without sufficient armor; they’re American’s after all. And who cares that this Administration outs one of its CIA agents, what’s one little mishap? And who the hell cares about those black folk who didn’t heed the warnings to leave New Orleans before FEMA struck? We are, after all, a god-fearing nation, and Providence has called our name. It’s time these looney leftists learn that Our Leader is gawd’s “anointed.” And once we round up all those queers and send them to Canada, all will be at peace in GWB’s Amerika. We are, after all, god’s chosen ones, and it’s stupid to think that we “owe” anyone else an explanation. Gawd is on our side. The Patriots say so.

  31. Raj, how dare you compare GWB to fascist Hitler. Hitler was a German, GWB is one of us. GITMO is not a concentration camp; it’s a place for prisoner recreation. Besides, Hitler was after Jews; we’re after Arabs. Yes, I know, they’re both Semites, which proves my point. All hail the conquering Judas (not to be confused with them Jews). Our aim is to make them Arabs just like us. Once they accept J.C. as their personal lord and savior, all will be well. Mark my words! We’ll make them just like us if it kills them. Glory, hallelujah. Armaggedon is at hand.

  32. Queer Conservative: You actually dated someone? Or, more apropos, someone dated you? A marine, no less. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Glory hallelujah. (Not glory “hole.”) Suggestion: Don’t get serious with the marine. Otherwise, you’ll soon want homo-inclusive marriage, and GWB is perfectly clear that he won’t permit that. I get chills when Our Leader speaks, don’t you? No FAG weddings in our lifetime. My body tremors at the thought. Righteousness has done us Wright, and sanctified by the jizz, let your body, soul, and mind soar free. Just don’t do it where you might get caught. I’d suggest “condoms,” but GWB says we can’t do that. No one can. That’s gawd’s revelation to GWB. No mention of “condom,” or else the silence might break.

  33. Thank you for proving, Stephen, that the only coherent point in your argument is your irrational hatred of Bush.

    Here’s something for you: Bush opposes drinking drain cleaner.

    Now go demonstrate how much you will hate and disobey George Bush, since you insist that nothing, absolutely nothing, he has ever said or done is right. Everybody knows that since Bush said it, it’s a lie; you can drink drain cleaner without any problems. It’s just fake, another one of gawd’s revelations.

    Will you stand up for your beliefs, Stephen, or will you collapse your own arguments?

    Go to it.

  34. Let’s see here. Apparently Raj thinks that only Jews were imprisoned by the Nazis since he said this:

    There probably were a few Pols imprisoned at Auschwitz. I don’t know how many of them were Jews.

    Last I checked, it didn’t matter if they were Jews or not. Were all prisoners of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblenka etc. Jews? Hardly. The point of my question was that since Poland was “annexed” by Germany, did they have a whole hell of a lot of say in the matter of establishing labor and death camps in their country.

    Connect the dots, arsehole.

    And to whiney little Patricia. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Bruce & Dan don’t want ass prints on their door. Enjoy your little Soros funded lie machines. BTW, I doubt you’ll be benefitting from his cash.

    And who can forget Stephen? Could you possibly be more offensive? I thought liberals were supposed to be more compassionate and tolerant than everybody else. You’re supposed to care more for people’s feelings than everybody else.

  35. GayPatriotWest — January 18, 2006 @ 6:50 pm – January 18, 2006

    So, raj, are you suggesting that what W does is akin to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz?

    Read what I wrote. I did not compare GWBush to the Nazis. I was comparing the complicity of Poles with the Nazis with the complicity of Poles with the GW administration “extraordinary rendition” procedure for purposes of torture. Germans apparently learned from and are ashamed of their Nazi Zeit, Poles apparently did not and are not. I would find it surprising that the government of Poland is not complicit in the establishment and maintenance of these gulags, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

  36. ThatGayConservative — January 20, 2006 @ 4:00 am – January 20, 2006

    Last I checked, it didn’t matter if they were Jews or not. Were all prisoners of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblenka etc. Jews? Hardly.

    Apparently you need to get your eyeglasses fixed. You seem to have missed my subsequent comment that my partner’s grandfather was an inmate at Dachau, and that he was not a Jew. He was also subjected to Mengele’s horrific “medical” experiments. The Nazis imprisoned a number of categories of people in concentration camps, as should be obvious from http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-dach-early.htm

    I also know that the Nazis imprisoned and tortured many gay people in the concentration camps, see, for example,

    James Steakley: Homosexuals and the Third Reich, The Body Politic 11, January/February 1974, at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/steakley-nazis.html and

    Pierre Seel: The Death of His Lover http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/seel.html

    My point, which you appear to have missed, is that I don’t know the percentage of Poles who may have been inmates at Auschwitz were Jews versus non-Jews. It is unlikely that you know that, either.

  37. Ah, the whole lefty brain-trust has turned out. We got Gryph, alluding to the great moonbat war hero Paul Hackett, whose credentials as a public relations desk jockey in Iraq gives him the moral stature to compare GWB to OBL and Christian conservatives to the Taliban.

    Then, Stephen shows up and robotically spews a bunch of talking points he picked up in Kostardistan, which is all he ever “contributes” to the discussion here.

    And then Raj says compares the rendition of terrorists to countries without the ACLU to Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Ah, moral equivalence from the left again. Bloody terrorists are morally equivalent to innocent Jews. Temporary discomfort is equal to torture. And, of course, the foundation of all lefty argument, Bush is equal to Hitler.

    Coming up with 10 fart jokes a day for my own blog is more challenging than arguing with these people.

  38. V the K — January 20, 2006 @ 5:46 am – January 20, 2006

    And then Raj says compares the rendition of terrorists to countries without the ACLU …

    Oh, so you are assuming that the man, who was restrained in on a flight into NYC, who and who held dual citizenship of Canada and Syria, and who was subsequently “extrraordinally rentioned” to Syria for torturous interrogation, was a terrorist.

    Typical clap-trap from posters like V the K.

  39. V the K — January 20, 2006 @ 5:46 am – January 20, 2006

    And then Raj says compares the rendition of terrorists to countries without the ACLU to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

    BTW, you really should do some research. Buchenwald was in Germany (near Weimar, which at the time was in central Germany, not in Poland. There is no evidence that I have seen that these GWBush’s “extraordinary retention” centers (aka “gulags”) are in Germany.

    Irrespective of that, what is your evidence that the renditioned persons are actually terrists? Because your Fuehrer GWBush and Cheney tells you that they are? Sieg Heil! BTW, some of us have relatives who lived in Germany during the Nazi Zeit. (I could go on and on about how life was like then) I’m sure that you are not interested in reading background material, but some may be interested in Herman Goering’s famous comment

    “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

    Much more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

    Sounds exactly like what GWBush and his malAdministration are doing in regards their war on Iraq and their saber-rattling against Iran.

    BTW, one might seriously ask, why have you, a member of the 101st Keyboard Brigade, not signed up for service in the US military in Iraq?

  41. V the K — January 20, 2006 @ 8:56 am – January 20, 2006

    This is a joke, right? You tell me, who is nothing more than a member of the 101st KeyBoard Brigade, have signed up for service in Iraq.

  42. V the K — January 20, 2006 @ 8:56 am – January 20, 2006

    BTW, you really should stop whining about “name-calling.” You conservatives do that quite often. The “leftist” epithet (which merely means “I don’t like”) is merely another manifestation of it.

  44. Honestly, V, I don’t know wny they bother. They aren’t here to listen or learn. Neither are they here to teach or think – because, as we’ve seen so often, they post the moral and logical equivalent of a 1-year-old playing with a baby rattle. So what is it about?

  45. Why does a liberal do anything, Calarato? They do it because getting “in your face” to conservatives makes them feel good about themselves, regardless of the fact that they are completely ineffectual and look like fools; again, all-too-typical of the liberal stripe.

  46. Amusing how my critics have brought out that old left-wing trope that Bush = Hitler, thus showing themselves like Mr. Roth, more obsessed with attacking President Bush (& his policies) than surveying the real state of human rights around the world. And they have yet to take serious issue with the points I have raised in this post. Alas. I had hoped blogging would lead to a good discussion, as it often has. But not in this case.

    I guess it’s because so many on the left, like Mr. Roth, are so blinded by their hatred of President Bush that they give short shrift to problems in the world not of his making. Or they suggest that W is responsible for such problems.

  47. #45 – Yeah, I guess it’s all about making themselves feel good. Or superior (the same thing to them).

    It’s so funny, because they really are anything but. I mean, with raj, Stephen, and sometimes even Gryph, it really is like watching a 1 or 2 year old throw a tantrum about what a big grownup they are. 🙂

    raj tries to role out the chickenh*wk slur – so pathetic! raj, in case you hadn’t noticed, you nitwit (a very rare act of name-calling for me), only 130,000 U.S. people get to be in Iraq (and it’s dropping).

    That’s .043 percent (or .00043 rate) of the U.S. population. In other words, the military doesn’t need and wouldn’t take most everybody. I wanted to sign up once and was advised (by active military people) not to pursue it. No problem; I can help in other ways. And do. And so should you; do you, raj?? Start by checking out http://www.anysoldier.com

  48. #47 — More than that. Suppose you apply the chickenhawk slur to, say, cancer research. You could say that if you don’t become a cancer research scientist, or alternately, if you don’t donate every cent that you earn beyond basic needs to cancer research, then you obviously don’t really think cancer research is worthwhile and your opinion about the value of cancer research doesn’t mean anything.

    The chickenhawk slur is just a scheme by which lefties want to exclude from debate opinions that don’t agree with theirs.

  50. Calarato — January 20, 2006 @ 1:16 pm – January 20, 2006

    raj tries to role out the chickenh*wk slur – so pathetic! raj, in case you hadn’t noticed, you nitwit (a very rare act of name-calling for me), only 130,000 U.S. people get to be in Iraq (and it’s dropping).

    We’ll see. Apparently more than a few Americans over in Iraq are mercenaries (aka “contractors”) The are not counted in the 130 000. The mercenaries/contractors are paid several times what gov’t employees are paid, which is why the high muckti-mucks like it. They retire into the mercenary/contractor corps and are paid a fortune, by the US gov’t.

    Something like former general Alexander Haig (remember him?) who retired and went to work for government contractor United Technologies (basically Sikorski Helicopters) in the early 1980s. He was paid a cool US$500K. His only claim to fame was that he could provide Sikorski with access to the Pentagon. The corruption of the military-industrial complex is horrendous, as President Eisenhower predicted.

    Elsewhere here, someone justified the huge military budget on the basis that it is not as high as a proportion of GNP as it was at other times. That is a false comparison. The military budget should be in relation to the reasonable threats to the US from external sources. The military budget should be going down, not up. And, btw, the “official” US military budget doesn’t include the massive expenditures for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

  52. Dan, you know the answer.

    Raising the same, tired criticisms of President Bush is so much easier – all they have to do is re-type from their Kos, DNC or MoveOn talking point e-mails.

  56. Calarato — January 20, 2006 @ 1:16 pm – January 20, 2006

    For instance, notice raj didn’t even attempt a token dismissive answer of my question…

    You presented a question to me? If so, it was rather obscure. I’m not going to speculate as to what it was. Re-present it and I will respond.

    Regarding Polish complicity in the Holocaust, that is beyond dispute. The Ustasha’s (Roman Catholics) complicity in the Holocaust against the Serbs is beyond dispute, too. With the complicity of the Vatican.

  58. “This is absurd. Suggesting the U.S. is responsible for the conduct of its enemies.”

    That’s good to hear you think this is absurd–I hope you are therefore very critical of those who say that the news media is responsible for people who get angry about the torture the news media has reported on.

  59. “HRW makes much of the admistration’s general avoidance of the term ‘human rights,’ yet itself largely ignores the development of democratic instituations, including a free press and free elections, in Iraq.”

    How is torturing innocent people a sign of a democratic institution, exactly?

  60. North Dallas Thirty wrote:

    “As soon as Human Rights Watch decides to put out an in-depth analysis on what life in Iraq under Saddam was really like, then we can talk.

    Of course, hell will freeze over first.”

    This is, of course, complete hogwash—unless North Dallas Thirty means to say that Hell has already frozen over!–because Human Rights Watch already has condemned Saddam Hussein and tried to have something done about it… An example:

    “Several thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed, forcing residents to live in appalling camps. In at least 40 cases, Iraqi forces under Saddam’s cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, used chemical weapons to kill and chase Kurds from their villages. Then, during the Anfal campaign from February to September 1988, Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared “prohibited zones.” Some 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed. Only seven are known to have escaped.

    The full scope of the Anfal horror became known only after Saddam’s defeat in the Gulf War. The Iraqi military’s withdrawal from the region in October 1991 after the imposition of a no-fly zone made it feasible for the first time in years for outsiders to reach the area.

    Human Rights Watch investigators took advantage of this opening to enter northern Iraq and document Saddam’s crimes. Some 350 witnesses and survivors were interviewed. Mass graves were exhumed. And Kurdish rebels were convinced to hand over some 18 tons of documents that they had seized during the brief post-war uprising from Iraqi police stations. These documents were airlifted to Washington, where Human Rights Watch researchers poured through this treasure trove of information about the inner workings of a ruthless regime.”

    http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm

    Please stop without knowing a single thing you’re talking about. It hurts.