The first post I wrote which got a lot of attention in the blogopshere was one where I saluted Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank for pressing then-CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan when the latter claimed that”the American military was deliberately killing journalists in Iraq.” In that post, I gave credit to a liberal Democrat of whom I’m “no fan.” And today, I’ve got to give credit to another outspoken gay man of whom I have been quite critical — Andrew Sullivan.
Just over a week ago, despite his gratuitous Bush-bashing, I agreed with Andrew’s latest column for the Advocate. He drew attention to American gay groups’ silence about the persecution of gay people in certain repressive Muslim lands. I just learned today that he has urged those who “care about freedom of expression” to boycott of Borders and Waldenbooks since that chain will not carry the latest issue of Free Inquiry magazine as it “contains four of the Danish cartoons.” As Andrew puts it, “if you want to draw a lesson from the entire episode, it’s obvious: violence against free writers and artists gets results. We have all but invited more.” Exactly. (Indirectly via Instapundit.)
And despite his past grandstanding on allegations of torture at Guantanmo, Andrew does acknowledge that the treatment of minors there has been “humane.” (Directly via Instapundit.) It’s too bad Andrew uses that post to make a cheap shot at Donald Rumsfeld. Like me, Glenn remains “rather skeptical, in the interim, of accounts that Guantanamo was some sort of torture-house.“
Andrew’s stuff on Bush still remains a tad too emotional and often reads as it has been culled from Bush-hating blogs, but every now and again (as on the Borders bookstore issue), Andrew shows the stuff which helped him gain his fame (and perhaps fortune) as an articulate and intelligent independent voice. If he could just let go of his loathing for President Bush and his top advisors, he might once again emerge as a truly unique voice — and perhaps even a sensible critic of the president and his policies.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Agree, agree, agree!
Now, Andrew having given us a little taste of “good Andrew”, let’s expect “bad Andrew” back in five, four, three, two…
Off Topic – and a couple weeks old now – but I thought people should see –
It looks like a few more people are starting to ‘get it’ that Pim Fortuyn, the openly gay and relatively right-ish Dutch politician assassinated by Islamic bigots a few years back, was a hero and prophet – not himself a “racist” or “bigot”, as European elites had tried to allege at the time.
I love Rosendall’s deft use of these quotes from Bruce Bawer:
“Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me…Fortuyn’s opponents claimed that he called for an end to immigration and the expulsion of Muslims…What he proposed, in fact, was a firm policy of education, emancipation, and integration.”
Circling back to Andrew: I wonder if he was at all influenced by Bawer’s increasingly popular book on these topics.
Profound disappointment doesn’t necessarily translate into “loathing.”
Agape.
No, but bashing one person over wanting to ban gay marriage, then signing up and endorsing as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” another who wants to ban gay marriage, does.
Gene, Andrew himself wrote another article very recently where he himself chose the word “loathe” to describe his feelings.
I think that’s the basis of GPW’s attribution (and it’s rational).
#2 Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 11:45 pm – April 9, 2006
I was paying attention to Pim Fortuyn at the time through some German media (Der Spiegel, the Sueddeutscher Zeitung and the FAZ–Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). They did report Fortuyn accurately, but the political “elites” did indeed try to make him appear to be a right wing nut.
I would differ from Bawer–as quoted by Rosendall–in one nit. While Fortuyn did not call for an expulsion of Muslims, he did call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration pending their assimilation into Dutch society. It wasn’t clear how long it might for there to be an assimilation–and, presumably, how long the moratorium might last. Nor was it clear what Fortuyn would have suggested be done with Muslims who refused to assimilate.
It looks like a few more people are starting to ‘get it’ that Pim Fortuyn, the openly gay and relatively right-ish Dutch politician assassinated by Islamic bigots a few years back, was a hero and prophet …
Also something of a chickenhawk, I understand. Not in the “generic left-wing namecalling of people who support Arab democracy” sense, but in the “predatory older gay man with an unseemly interest in underage dudes” sense.
Yuck. Well as I said, “relatively” right-ish…it’s the Dutch, after all.
GPW, not that I don’t give you credit for supporting Andrew, I really do, but, (and you know there had to be a “but” didn’t you?) I will challenge you on:
GPW, I think you are simply wrong to dismiss the widespread casual use of torture carried out by our government all over the world, including Guantanamo, as mere “allegations”. These are eyewitness reported and documented facts. I challenge you to really look at the data, specifically the documents released by our own Government, and the testimonials of those within the Administration who opposed it.
It’s difficult to see how you can come to any other conclusion that post-9-11 a policy of permitting torture was formulated and approved by this President’s Administration. It originated in the Vice-Presidents office, was approved by Bush, and promulgated by the DOD. We have routinely tortured and murdered in both Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. We have also engaged in the practice of rendition of prisoners to countries that torture and once the torture was done, returned them to our custody. We have kidnapped innocent citizens of other countries. Rice was forced to apologize to the German Chancellor a few months ago about a specific instance of this.
And please note that I am not referring to Abu Graib specifically, nor am I depending on the testimonials of prisoners who were tortured or who allege that it took place. Nor am I referring to torture carried out in the name of a”ticking bomb” kind of situation.
Most of the evidence that I have looked at consisted of internal reports, memorandums, and other documents from the military, FBI and CIA. And from the President’s Administration itself.
The data is out there, and it is readily accessible. And it is why, BTW, I now gladly identify myself as a “Bush-hater”. I did not formerly hate him, not even after his endorsement of the anti-gay Amendment. But its not wrong to hate evil, and this Presidents Administration, either with his complicit or unknowing assent, has done a great deal of evil.
First you have to define “torture”. That’s the whole problem, Gryph.
Judging from his hysterical writings, Andrew would appear to define it as: ANY discomfort experienced by a terrorist in our capture. I find Andrew’s writings about Guantanamo, etc., exercises in the theater of the absurd.
I define “torture” as: the intentional infliction of physical pain and/or permanent physical damage. And I challenge you, or Andrew or whoever, to cite even one example of the U.S. doing something like that the U.S. doesn’t directly investigate and punish (since such behaviors, on the rare occasions when someone does them, are very much against policy).
P.S. Also remember that al Qaeda are trained, in their manuals and doctrine, to allege torture falsely, whenever possible. And they do.
Wait a minute – You know, as I read deeper into your post, it’s clear I just challenged the wind. Foolish of me.
You have already made up your mind that the U.S. tortures and murders as a matter of policy, so that- no discussion would alter your self-admitted moonbat Bush-hating and America-hating, Gryph.
Note the caveats:
And please note that I am not referring to Abu Graib specifically, nor am I depending on the testimonials of prisoners who were tortured or who allege that it took place. Nor am I referring to torture carried out in the name of a”ticking bomb” kind of situation.
Why not? You and Andrew cited them so freely before as “proof” of your allegations that the government was systematically carrying out torture.
What you’re doing, Gryph, is trying to backpedal into rationality after having proven that your allegations are anything but. Indeed, if you ignore what you stated above, it neatly destroys your theory that a) torture is a systematic policy, b) that it is never investigated and punished, c) that all allegations of it are true, and d) that it is never justified.
#12 P.S. – And here is why Gryph in #9 is an America-hater:
– In reality, torture (meaningfully defined) is against U.S. policy, and the U.S. is a force for good in the world.
– In #9, Gryph not only affirms his complete belief in the opposite: he also expresses his essentially emotional commitment to, or emotional pleasure in, such beliefs – choosing to say “hate” 3 times, and telling us that he does it with pleasure, or “gladly” as he put it.
Gryph, I hereby take a stand against YOUR moral evil.
Calarato, GrampaGryph has never passed by an opportunity to piss, demean, or bash Bush, anything Republican, this blog, or even America of late –it comes to those who get their news from the Daily Kos.
The tinfoil hats work very, very well for them. That’s why they wear ’em –tipped askance in the neo-French style…. viva la gauche!
#15 – I don’t mind people ripping on Republicans or Bush when it’s connected to reality.
Lack of connection to reality, and emotions of hate, put them a definite step down.
Doing the above on America (blaming America first, with sloppy and irresponsible accusations) is lowest of all.
NDT in # 13 says:
GPW should feel free to look into Abu Graib as much as he wants. I said I was leaving it out because whenever the subject of torture is brought up, everyone here insists that it only occurred at Abu Ghraib and was prosecuted and was only a singular occurrence. “A few bad apples”. I know that that is simply not true. It’s been happening in a lot of places around the globe for some time now.
As for your points:
a) “torture is a systematic policy”,
Yes, I believe the evidence supports this view.
b) “that it is never investigated and punished”,
I never made such a claim and I challenge you to prove it.
c) “that all allegations of it are true”,…
Nor did I make this claim either.
d) “that it is never justified.”
I never said that either.
In fact, if someone knows the location of a bomb somewhere that is due to go off in the next 10 minutes. Then by all means, torture if needed. And pay the penalty for it, as an honorable man would do. But thats not what is taking place in our Government today.
E) And when is that nude calendar of you coming out?
#11
Since I said that I was looking at evidence not given by prisoners, this does not apply.
____________________________
Let see, I make one post, Caralato makes five in response. Two attempt to make some actual point (however poorly), the other three are simple personal attacks thrown my way. Obsession perhaps? You so want me. And no, I still won’t go out with you.
At least Matt-Michigan is straight up and forward with his personal attacks, no false claim of sanity there.
Gramps, get the meds right… your hospital gown is showing more than you bargained for… please recall your promise not to read comments here?
The problem is you don’t debate policy, Gramps, you’ve always elected to attack with re-chummed GayLeft talking points while dressing it like a nonpartisan debate… your comments here and the issues you CHOOSE to highlight on your own blog underscore you’ve been a Bush hating, GP baiting Lefitst long before your self-serving acknowledgement in this thread. Oh, and right, you don’t read comments… LOL.
If the Administration’s purported record on torture is what turned you into a self professed Bush hater, it’s a thin item to turn on since you’ve been arguing that very point for more than year. Sorry Gramps, your record exists and your best effort to spin it out of the light of scrutiny or accountability won’t work any better than that last dance of yours in March to deny your patent religious bigotry.
The part I don’t get is why the GayLeft and Gramps continue to deny the obvious –their short term partisan interests are served by demeaning America, the majority in govt, the military, the WOT and the battle to save our culture?
I love it that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t seem to really care about whether or not people approve of his more independent thinking.
I disagree, jimmy. I would expect he cares a great deal indeed about what certain people (not us; more likely some among the gay-left establishment types) think or say about him.
Gryph said…
“Glad you can get something on target MM, if only by sheerest chance.’
If your smarmy, holier-than-thou comment is meant to reflect some horseshit fantasy that somehow, Nick Berg’s beheading is on par with putting some piece-of-shit islamofascist on a dog leash, then perhaps it’s time to reflect upon just exactly what it is you DO stand for, Patrick.
Do me a favor, sir, and don’t even THINK about equating the barbaric fate the befell Nick Berg with the assholes that we plan similar fates for us, and that presently occupy the suites at Gitmo.
Do that, and we’ll all have a really good sense as to what you’re true worldview consists of.
Eric in Hollywood
Pardon the crappy syntax…
I just couldn’t wait to hear how Gryph equates having your head sawed off with US wartime philosophy.
This oughta be real good…
Eric in Hollywood
Well, Gryph apparently believes that the US follows a “systematic” torture policy.
“Systematic”, by definition, means that it applies to EVERYONE that the US detains.
That would be the Islamofascists, NOT the United States.
Andrianna Sullington has previously argued that loud music and sleep deprivation are equivalent to torture (which means every college residence hall is now a torture chamber). He also said that Dick Durbin was right when he called our soldiers at GITMO Nazis. So, if Gryph and jimmy want to throw in their lot with Aunt Sully and Durbin the Turban, hey, at least it shows us who they really are.
I don’t believe our soldiers have committed any real torture, but if strapping a car battery to the testicles of a terrorist would save the life of even one American soldier, all I can say to that is, the red terminal is positive, and the black terminal is negative.
NDXXX, actually to the Left “systematic” means find me two out of a pool of thousands and that proves the pattern is sytematic… as in planned, supported, and engaged deliberately. They say: we forge the necessary documents later… call our media outlet now, though.
Got to love that hand-in-glove relationship between the Left and MSM; it’s been very very effective in the past.
For the record: people may have seen me conduct a short experiment in some other threads, totalling 3 trials, to see if Gryph had any shame (or integrity) as regards his claim to not be reading or responding to these comment threads.
I believe the results show Gryph does not possess that shame (or integrity). Just noting it for the record, as my last action in the matter.
I hate to pile-on to you Gryph, but you’re the one supplying so many reasons to. In addition to your hypocritical behavior mentioned above (and that I’ve seen on other occasions), there is your BDS (Bruce Derangement Syndrome or strange obsession with Bruce in some of your comments/posts), and finally and most important, your moonbat anti-Americanism that you have revealed in this thread (and which requires no more comment from me).
P.S. As for me making dividing my thoughts across multiple smaller posts: That’s how my mind works, Gryph – Kindly grow up and deal with it.
Last P.S. – Someone asked me about Gryph’s crack on not dating or whatever, and it is just that – a crack. Perhaps 2-3 times ever, I’ve e-mailed Gryph brief and formal thanks for his making comments to my posts. Needless to say, I could never want other contact.
# 24 Hollywood Neocon says:
I never said anything remotely like what you insinuate. If you think differently, provide the proof. Otherwise I demand an apology. If you are going to accuse me of being “holier-than-thou” then at least do it on something I’ve actually said rather than your fantasies.
But while I don’t think I’m “holier-than-everyone”, I’m certainly holier than YOU. But then again, you set a such low standard that any cockroach would have no difficulty surpassing it.
#25 NDT:
Oh NDT, go put your clothes on and stop scaring the pets. And I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate where I said any of the things you claimed I did earlier.
#26, V the K says:
Congratulations, you just shamed and pissed on the sacrifices made by that soldier, and any other soldier that has ever died in defense of this country and its values.
Ponder these words:
Do tears come to your eyes every time your read those words? They do to me, yet you and your ilk like to accuse me of being “anti-American”. Well fuck you all.
#28, #29, and #30! (Caralato)
Great, I get it now, you have a split personality. All of those multitudinous posts from you are really each from a separate person in the vast crowd that live in your head.
And for the record:
WE ARE THE GUYS IN THE WHITE HATS! A higher standard of morality is held for we Americans. It is one that we ourselves as Americans have set. Yes, it is a much higher moral code than that of an Islamo-Terrorist. If you can’t grasp why their is a difference between the two, then I think it is you that should be questioning just what side you are on.
Being an American is more than putting a flag out on your porch and a yellow ribbon sticker on your car. It means signing on to a shared set of moral values as well. And it is those values that soldiers vow to protect, and it is those values that the terrorists attacked on 9-11 and continue to attack in Iraq and elsewhere, and it is those values that you apparently think we should throw away in the name of revenge or security.
If you really need a dividing line, then here it is: There are those that believe war must be won at any cost, and there are those that don’t, especially if the cost is our American moral code. On which side of the line do YOU stand? On which side do you think President Bush, regardless of his actual actions, would SAY he stands? And on which side do you think the person that wants to justify strapping a car battery to a terrorists testicles stands?
Gryph, your misunderstandings are so lame and your misunderstandings, even lamer.
And given the plain hatred of America, or how you “gladly” (your word) accuse America of the absolute worst in clear defiance of the evidence, you plainly should not be giving lectures on patriotism, mental health, or morality.
OK? Look in the mirror, buddy. Make your peace with that guy in the mirror.
I continue to condemn the moral evil you’ve shown in this thread.
Sorry, my opening sentence should read “…your misunderstandings are so lame and your OTHER misunderstandings, …”
Yep, that’s an accurate descriptor. Nothing but criticism of the United States, particularly defending our national interests and sovereignty against terrorists, and not a whisper about those poor oppressed little brown terrorists.
You can’t get any more anti-American.
Gryph, I find it interesting that you quote Abraham Lincoln, especially given that he as the President ordered several actions directly against your “code of moral values”, such as the suspension of habeas corpus, the imprisonment without trial of several agitators, the suppression of information, and others.
Why? Because he valued American lives more than some abstract code.
Lincoln knew, for instance, that it was against certain Constitutional rights to imprison Confederate sympathizers. But he also knew that they were more than capable of setting off dynamite charges on trestles when troop trains were passing over them, killing both troops and the campaigns which depended on said troops.
In short, Lincoln realized that, if the North did not win the war, the “moral code” would be meaningless. The Confederates were not going to release the slaves unless they were compelled to do so by force, nor were they going to voluntarily rejoin the Union. They were no longer interested in the “moral code”, nor would that in any way govern their actions.
To that, your statement:
There are those that believe war must be won at any cost, and there are those that don’t, especially if the cost is our American moral code.
Then put it this way, Gryph: “I would rather Osama bin Laden win and the United States be brought to its knees under Islamic domination than in any way compromise my ‘moral code'”.
What is really ironic is that all your attempts to preserve the “moral code” will be for naught when Osama bin Laden strips it from your hands and sends you and Andrew Sullivan off to have walls knocked over on you. What you don’t realize, in your irrational hatred of Bush, is that this is a rock and a hard place situation. Either we compromise our “moral code” when necessary, or we keep it and have what supports it destroyed.
You and Sullivan have made your choice, Gryph; now I challenge you. Since you think your “moral code” will protect you, go to Iraq and tell the al-Qaeda folks there how you have forsworn any use of torture.
They’ll send us the video of what happens.
#31 – “There are those that believe war must be won at any cost, and there are those that don’t, especially if the cost is our American moral code.”
It is always so funny to see liberals try to justify morals – either their own (such as they are) or anyone else’s, let alone “American” morals, of which they do not presently possess.
Funny, these same pantywaists who are throwing such a hissy-fit are the same ones that justified Slick Willie’s IMPEACHABLE offenses because their worldview of “morality” was that it was relative and not absolute.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Gryph.
So shall it be for all liberals and their ilk.
Regards,
Peter H.
“even a sensible critics of the president and his policies.” So does this constitute what a “sensible critic” would say:
“”It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy [Iraq] after June of 2003, …We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
or is the guy who said this just another treacherous moonbat? See here for who it was:
http://tinyurl.com/k9hc2
#31 — So much for Gryph not reading responses.
So, basically, Gryph doesn’t care if subjecting a terrorist scumbag to temporary physical discomfort will prevent an American soldier from being sent home in a body bag. So what if the soldier leaves behind a grieving family and children. I guess it’s more important that Gryph and his left-liberal “ahead of the curve” buddies can feel smug and self-righteous about respecting the human rights of inhuman beings.
Gryph: “I would rather Osama bin Laden win and the United States be brought to its knees under Islamic domination than in any way compromise my ‘moral code’”.
Bingo!
I mean, Gryph could have argued aganst torture by arguing that it didn’t work, or that its use imperiled our soldiers more than it helped them. That’s not where he went. He went to the place where it was okay if our soldiers died when the use of physical duress on the enemy could have saved them, because the thought of using torture made him feel bad. Gryph thinks his feelngs are more important than soldiers’ lives. Excuse the name-calling, but what a self-righteous, fart-smelling twit.
You know gentlemen, feel free to attack me as much as you like, I can take a little bloody nose.
But I will point out that all anyone has to do is to go back and compare the things I have actually written, to the things you accuse me of, to reveal your deceptions and lies.
I’m beginning to understand why it is always the same exact people who comment on this site. Who would want to contribute anything new if they know they are going to be instantly attacked and turned into some kind of Left-Wing Chupacabra by a bunch of third grade schoolyard bullies?
Gryph, in #9, the allegations at Guantanamo have been thoroughly investigated and there has been no evidence of torture.
A while ago, Heather McDonald did a good job of debunking the conclusion that you seem to think is incontestable that these the memos authorized torture.
We have made mistakes, but as in the case that where the Secretary of State apologized we acknowledged those mistakes. And where there has been torture — and yes, murder, those charges have been investigated and, where appropriate, the perpetrators have been prosecuted. So far no one has yet produced any evidence that our government authorized the torture.
Well said, Calarato in #21, Andrew used to not care what others thought. Now he seems obsessed with it. What happened to his even-handed criticism of the Bush Administration before 02/24?
#25 No. “Systematic” and “universal” are two different words for a reason. For example, educational *systems* do not mean that everyone is in the same grade or track.
#35. Oh, the fantasies!! Bin Laden is a man helping to run a terrorist network, not some great imperial army. He will not be stripping anyone of his or her moral code for any time soon, except the stupid fools that sign up to kill themselves on terrorist operations. That you should even think the man could be so powerful speaks volumes about the anime or comic book fantasies that people use to think through this conflict.
#42. What happened to most thinking, reputable conservatives even-handed criticism of Bush in the past couple of years? Turn off the light before the ship sinks.
Gryph, you would do well to recognize that the “deception & lies” you speak of come directly from the sources of your various arguments.
As for anyone here not contributing anything new out of fear is yet another example of the paranoia fostered by most on the left, and is a completely bogus conclusion.
As for being “third grade schoolyard bullies,” I’m afraid it is seldom the right that finds itself completely intolerant of dissent. However, I stand by the notion that while free speech welcomes dissent, it most assuredly does not abide outright bullshit.
Your post reveals your victim mentality, but do not deceive yourself into believing your continued posts here reflect some twisted notion of heroism on your part in the face of the “intolerant rightwingnuts.” You, Patrick, are the intolerant one here.
By the way, do you ever plan on having the courage of your convictions? I seem to recall you making a rather emphatic statement a while back about not bothering to read or post comments anymore.
Whatever happened to that idea?
Who would want to contribute anything new if they know they are going to be instantly attacked and turned into some kind of Left-Wing Chupacabra by a bunch of third grade schoolyard bullies?
I think people like Pat have made it abundantly clear that there is room in this atmosphere for a variety of different opinions.
However, Gryph, you worked the spell that turned you into a “chupacabra”. I have given you a lot of leeway and support, which will still continue and will grow provided it is given reason, but you are way off on this one.
#41 — It’s amusing the way as soon as Gryph loses an argument, he retreats into crybaby “why is everybody picking on me” “you’re all a bunch of bullies mode.”
Grow some grapes. If you’re going to come around sermonizing that it’s better for American soldiers to be killed than for terrorists to be subjected to physical discomfort … which is exactly what your position boils down to in the real world… than you should damn well be prepared to back that up with something more than “Stop picking on me, you big meanies!”
No. “Systematic” and “universal” are two different words for a reason. For example, educational *systems* do not mean that everyone is in the same grade or track.
But it means they are all being educated.
Therefore, since you and yours say that torture is “systematic”, it means everyone is being tortured.
That you should even think the man could be so powerful speaks volumes about the anime or comic book fantasies that people use to think through this conflict.
There are two smoking holes in the ground in New York City, plus one on the side of the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field, that show quite differently. There are thousands of people dead, billions of dollars lost, and economic displacements that prove otherwise.
And that is all, mind you, from one attack.
Underestimating the power of Osama bin Laden, as did the Clinton administration, is what got us into this mess in the first place. The same mistake won’t be made twice.
The same mistake won’t be made twice.
Unless the left-wing appeasers have their way.
Gryph has been trying to “corner” moral language. Let’s unpack that, because it is precisely on the moral level where I condemn him.
Opposing torture is a no-brainer. I always have.
The one proper or essential purpose of morality (or a moral code) is to guide human action. And the one proper or essential purpose of human action is to preserve and enhance human life. (I recognize no other terms.)
There always have been, and always will be, certain actions that one should never do because the action per se destroys the value of life (i.e., the reason for doing the action).
Torture, defined rationally as the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain and/or physical injury on another person, is one such action. Murder (leaving out necessary self-defense, military or police work here) is another. So is sex with children, selling one’s beloved, etc.
Unfortunately, Gryph and Andrew Sullivan do the opposite of defining torture rationally. In their hands, it’s a horribly plastic, shapeless term.
It would be bad enough if they stretched it (wrongly) to encompass appropriate (sometimes) techniques of manipulative or coercive interrogation short-of-torture, and stopped there. But they don’t stop there. They deploy the word, in practice, as if it meant ANY distress or discomfort, however slight, experienced by ANY enemy combatant in custody.
Why do they do it? The answer is above, in this very thread: So they can grandstand absurdly and feel superior, as Gryph has previously admitted he wants to do.
Now, I could ignore it if it were inconsequential. But: it isn’t.
Our troops and our people pay the price, as our enemies (hint: that’s al Qaeda in Iraq and other places) draw strength and encouragement from what Andrew Sullivan’s corrupt rhetoric – carefully echoed by Gryph on a pathetically smaller, but still public scale, and for the same corrupt motives.
I should not have to say this, but say it for the record anyway: In the real world, the United States has no systematic policy of torture. Period.
Gryph, just to showboat and make yourself feel satisfied or superior, you willfully misconstrue U.S. policies and practicies of terrorist interrogation, which are explicitly AGAINST torture. You are one sick puppy.
And I condemn you morally. Get it? Please consider that I have now just gazed at you calmly and spit on you, as you well deserve.
Now, about Gryph’s “crybaby post” (#41)… One of the paradoxes of the morally corrupt mindset is that they may (in some instances) seek desperately to clothe themselves or showboat in moral language, yet they cannot handle appropriate moral judgement of them, i.e., condemnation. Faced with it, they whine, etc.
To clarify something and leave no doubt – I should have said:
“In the real world, United States policy is systematically and genuinely AGAINST torture and in favor of handling enemy combatants (terrorists) humanely. Period.”
I see some kind of semantic games going on above about the meaning of the word “systematic” – and I say, forget those games. I’m not playing. Let their be no doubt about my intended meaning.
Gramps, I’m going to refrain from commenting on your latest effort to play the vicitmhood card here. But it seems hyper-hypocritical of you to argue that you’re being put-upon while your blog wrestles for relevancy by condemning and sneering at what GP’s blog posits. Do you recall that nursery-era cliche about what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
Like NDXXX pointed out, you’re wrong on this one. And I’d add, but that doesn’t make much difference to you.
“But it seems hyper-hypocritical of you to argue that you’re being put-upon while your blog wrestles for relevancy by condemning and sneering at what GP’s blog posts…”
I call it BDS (Bruce Derangement Syndrome).
The “mistake” of ignoring Islamists terrorism, goes back to the Carter Administration, and has been a “mistake” made by every Administration up to and including the present Bush. Remember during his campaign in 2000 that focused so narrowly on missile defense systems? A focus that was in full display right up to 9-11. And what about Reagan and the bombing of the Beruit Marine Barracks? Or the wave of Airline hijackings in the 80’s? Including the torture and murder of US Sailor Robert Dean Stethem, in 1985? By the Hezbollah terrorist just released by the Germans on parole? And with the CIA under the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act, etc., that is so brilliant at kidnapping other German citizens who happen to be innocent, but can’t intercept this asshole before he disappears into Lebanon? Are you going to blame all that on Clinton too?
Why is it NDT that whenever you start your finger-pointing you leave out the GOP? They are not blameless.
______________
And as for, Caraloto etc., I hope you don’t think I ever lose any sleep over your little tantrums, you are just not that important in my life.
I have never been under any illusions that anything anyone writes here, whether from myself or someone else, has ever had the slightest possibility of getting through your politically rabid brains.
So fine, whatever, you are all absolutely correct in all your assumptions about me and everything and everyone and the Universe Itself. So go on now and bask in the glory of the self-worship of your own egos. Yes, I’m being a sulky little brat, now go suck on an egg or something.
Gramps at 55 (the comment number, not the age) “…Yes, I’m being a sulky little brat….”
Well said. I ditto that sentiment.