Gay Patriot Header Image

Al-Qaeda’s Torture Manual Recovered

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:43 pm - May 24, 2007.
Filed under: General

Just in case you forgot that war was declared on the USA by Islamist terrorists, and that they are serious about killing and torturing civilians….here’s a quick reminder. (h/t – Drudge)

In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like “blowtorch to the skin” and “eye removal.” Along with the images, which you’ll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an “al-Qaeda torture chamber.” It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain.

torture1.jpg

 torture2.jpg

Oh, and please don’t forget…. it is against Sharia law to be a homosexual and punishable by death.  So if these Islamist charmers ever got a hold of a liberal, gay American…. heads would roll.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

135 Comments

  1. #0 – That’s real torture.

    What isn’t: humane imprisonment, sleep deprivation, waterboarding and other coercive (but safe) or manipulative interrogation techniques that CIA agents, police and Marine drill sargeants use to block terrorist attacks.

    What also isn’t: Stupid actions, like making prisoners play naked twister, which are duly recognized as wrong – and investigated – and punished.

    People who claim otherwise – that’s you, lefties – insult real victims of real torture and debase human language generally. (Neither of which lefties care about, of course. Or which the most extreme ones even have as their real goals.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 24, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - May 24, 2007

  2. Uh, I would venture to say if they got their hands on a conservative gay American, the results would still roll.

    Comment by David — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - May 24, 2007

  3. Sorry, “results” should be “heads”. Trying to do too many things at once.

    Comment by David — May 24, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - May 24, 2007

  4. David: The difference is, conservatives aren’t in denial about it for political reasons

    Comment by Vince P — May 24, 2007 @ 4:09 pm - May 24, 2007

  5. And to think that the libtard left got all upset about Abu Graib prisoners (that is “terrorists” to you, lower-casers) who were forced to wear dog collars and get into naked dogpiles by their captors. They called THAT torture.

    Like I said before a couple years back – show me a bunch of swarthy, naked men all piled on top of each other, and I’ll show you a Kristen Bjorn video.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 4:58 pm - May 24, 2007

  6. I get that Vince, but at first, second and even third glance the implication, intentional or not, seems to suggest only liberal gay Americans would lose their heads, which is of course ridiculous.

    I understand where you’re coming from. When the two boys from Iran were executed last year, I was aghast at the lack of reponse by the left.

    Comment by David — May 24, 2007 @ 4:59 pm - May 24, 2007

  7. Lest we forget, the response from the left in this country is a shrug and a “if-it-feels-good-do-it” attitude.

    My biggest concern is the hardcore Muslim population in places like Minneapolis, Detroit, Lansing et al who wish to impose shari’a law upon the general population: cabdrivers not allowing passengers with dogs, liquor or yarmulkes; foot-washing basins in airports; wearing burkhas in public et al.

    Who is to say that they won’t try beheading some fags in the name of Allah? And what’s worse – the ACLU would probably defend them in the name of religious tolerance.

    About one-quarter of US Muslim youths do not feel that homicide bombings are wrong. How much you want to bet that they are learning this mindset from the mosques the attend?

    This is one gay man who is NOT afraid to fight back. Bring. It. On.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - May 24, 2007

  8. “Oh, and please don’t forget…. it is against Sharia law to be a homosexual and punishable by death. So if these Islamist charmers ever got a hold of a liberal, gay American…. heads would roll.”

    And you were so concerned about Sharia law on 10 September, 2001? You’re transparent….

    Comment by jimmy — May 24, 2007 @ 5:35 pm - May 24, 2007

  9. The left’s definition of “torture” is “Any discomfort of any kind experienced by a non-signatory of the Geneva Convention while in the custody of a signatory of the Geneva Convention.”

    Al Qaeda never signed the Geneva Convention. Therefore, it’s all right for them to commit torture.

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - May 24, 2007

  10. These kind of posts really really are unfair to liberals. The leftist shrug of “hey would you please not bother us with this SUPPOSED terror threat stuff”. There are much more important socialist efforts to pursue like saving the earth from a two degree temperature increase in the next 100 years. yesh

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 24, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - May 24, 2007

  11. Just this week the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times screamed this headline (and nothing else) in blood-red letters on its cover: “How The United States Sanctions the Murder of Gays in Iraq.” Sanctions?!?

    Naturally the Times offers no serious evidence whatever in support of this nasty slur. However, it’s shocking to be shown, yet again, that the local gay press – in a military town like San Diego, no less – is willing to slander their own country while we’re fighting a war against Al Q’aeda thugs like this. It must have something to do with sagging ad revenues from a slow condo market. Now it’s undeniable: The presstitutes at the Times will do anything – anything at all – to make money.

    Needless to say, my military buddies are livid. I’d cancel my subscription, but it doesn’t matter; the Times is a tosser that’s all over the streets.

    And now, back to the War on Terror, which isn’t just a bumper-sticker slogan, Senator Edwards.

    Comment by Butch — May 24, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - May 24, 2007

  12. Is it just me, or is the guy in the picture turning the screw on the vise actually smiling?

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 24, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - May 24, 2007

  13. #8 “And you were so concerned about Sharia law on 10 September, 2001?”

    Actually, no I wasn’t concerned about Sharia law on 10 Sep 2001. I was a big liberal screaming at the top of my lungs for the Church of Liberalism.

    The 11 September 2001 attacks woke me up & alot of other ex liberals up. Only a mental case would not have woken up to the challenge of our day.

    Comment by Good vs. Evil — May 24, 2007 @ 10:30 pm - May 24, 2007

  14. #7 – Then I guess you weren’t paying attention.

    Comment by vaara — May 24, 2007 @ 11:55 pm - May 24, 2007

  15. apologies – that last post was directed at #6, who seems to believe that right-wing conservatives have an absolute monopoly on concern over the murder of innocent gays abroad.

    Comment by vaara — May 24, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - May 24, 2007

  16. A victom of torture speaks
    Despite ILC’s plea a, because of Bush and the lack of moral fiber on the right, we have no moral standing on this issue.
    Few things make me sadder than this and few things fill me with disgust more.
    Further, your declaration of “safe”?????
    Its just ridiculous.
    How many people have died in the hands of US custody? Have you seen those pictures? If not, look at them, and try to claim its not torture.
    Or did you forget? The gloves were ordered to come off.

    You all should stop being glib and remind yourselves that we are better than them.

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 12:21 am - May 25, 2007

  17. #13 GvE, well said.

    I was also a flaming liberal in the 1990s and well into 2001. 9-11 woke me up. The world changed a lot in the 1990s and until 9-11, I hadn’t noticed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 12:53 am - May 25, 2007

  18. #11
    I just skimmed through that article online. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the words “I heard” or blatant spculative statements used so many times in a single article before.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2007 @ 1:14 am - May 25, 2007

  19. Few things make me sadder than this and few things fill me with disgust more.

    It sure is comforting to know that most of our prisoners are alive while all of their prisoners are DEAD.

    Don’t worry. More GIs will turn up tortured and beheaded and you’ll feel much better.

    Fcuktard.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2007 @ 1:24 am - May 25, 2007

  20. we have no moral standing on this issue.

    Only in the eyes of morons. The detainees at Club Gitmo are getting three squares a day and shown every human dignity, even though most of them are sub-human. But they whine and call it torture when the air conditioning is too high, or the volleyballs are underinflated, or an infidel handles a book the wrong way.

    The enemy gets to torture and murder with impunity, while left-wing morons perform street theater in orange jumpsuits. But that’s enough to convince those who hate America already that somehow we are the bad guys.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 5:26 am - May 25, 2007

  21. But but but…if we just try to understand them, maybe they’ll like us. OHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Can’t you just hear the “liberal street” defending these vermin with that kind of reasoning?? Hmmm, “arab street” “liberal street” – anyone see the similarity here??

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 7:44 am - May 25, 2007

  22. #21 – Oh, someone from the left will try to “reason” with them, LNC. The terrorists would smile, laugh to each other…and then kill the infidel as the Koran instructs them to do.

    Religion of peace, my a$$.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 10:30 am - May 25, 2007

  23. What a great idea, Pete. Let’s send the entire ACLU over to Iraq to “negotiate” with Al Qaeda.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 10:51 am - May 25, 2007

  24. keogh – Bad effort. Even for you, LOL 🙂

    You’re so little, normally I wouldn’t bother. It’s enough to just tell you “Hi keogh! Here is some attention” to fulfill the need you’re after.

    In this case, though, your debasement of language and of real victims of real torture is a matter I take seriously. And I’m in the mood to be generous with my attention. So let’s look at your comment more carefully.

    Your first article was headlined, “A victim of torture speaks”, in such a way as to imply it was a victim of your hypothesized U.S. “torture”. But was your article that? Nope. Not even close.

    It was only Senator McCain, a victim of Vietnamese real torture, being his usual pompous self. The article dates to 2005. Newsflash, lower-casers: McCain and Bush have the same position on coercive interrogation. As Kerry said in a different context (of himself and President Bush, as regards gay marriage), “The exact……. same…. position.”

    McCain and Bush devised the 2006 bill together, Bush signed it, and McCain has (in terms of all public comments I know of) been more than happy to let Bush brag about all that. Of course, the 2006 bill was never necessary to begin with, in terms of interrogation policy; it was just (1) a way to relieve CIA interrogators of legal liability that some moonbat(s) might later try to pin on them, and (2) a sop to McCain, to make him feel important.

    Next keogh, you offer a link to a known anti-American moonbat organization. You imply there are going to be pictures. I click on it… Um, no pictures.

    Finally, you offer a WaPo article that actually is worth reading. (Finally, something to thank you for!) But does the article reveal a U.S. torture manual / policy, like what Bruce showed us in #0? Nope. Not even close. It talks about excesses that, as I already covered in #1, “… are duly recognized as wrong – and investigated – and punished.” The guilty parties were the subject of military court proceedings.

    In other words: keogh, you missed the point of my comment. As you so often do.

    I don’t claim that every one of our citizens is perfect. I don’t claim that war crimes never happen. And I don’t claim that interrogation crimes never happen. I claim that they are against policy, and that we punish them.

    Contrast that to what Bruce showed us in #0. Our enemies practice real torture. Deliberately. Systematically. As policy.

    keogh, I really mean this: YOU should “stop being glib”, in your sick hatred of America that makes you need to tear it down.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 11:09 am - May 25, 2007

  25. #23 – Or Rosie O’Donnell or Jimmy Carter. That would be an interesting idea…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 11:51 am - May 25, 2007

  26. TGC
    What kind of “tard” are you calling me!?!
    That type of crap is further proof toward the ongoing theory that you are lacking any intellectual and moral fiber.

    I have worked at a Torture Victim Center for several years now.
    These people are scared beyond belief and not just on the body but in the head.
    My experience teaches me that torture is plain old evil, no matter who does it and for what reason. Further:
    You call Gitmo “Club Gitmo”? Are you THAT brainwashed?
    Some of the guys there are bad news. However, many are completely innocent and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Often someone made thousands of dollars off their capture. Yet they are held, often in isolation, tortured, no trial, no hope, no nothing. Their families cry, and it’s a sad sad story.
    Its evil and wrong.

    Yet you so called “conservatives” make jokes about it, trivialize it, in the futile attempt to rationalize it just to keep your conscience clean through blind and willful ignorance.

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 11:53 am - May 25, 2007

  27. #25 – Okay, 401K – please tell us the following:

    1. What kind of “torture” do they employ at Club Gitmo and do you have specific proof of it? Remember, too, that “torture” is not defined as “using unscented deodorant,” as I cited the last time this subject was offered.

    2. The US provides meals, calls to prayer, Korans, prayer rugs and the best medical care in the area to the TERRORISTS incarcerated at Gitmo, according to the government. What does al-Qaeda do for their prisoners? (Here’s a big hint – it ain’t any of the above, that’s for freaking sure.)

    We’ll be waiting.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - May 25, 2007

  28. If I were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I would much rather be taken into custody by United States Marines than Al Qaeda. The U.S. does not engage in torture. But the left wants to conflate any discomfort or inconvenience experienced by a terrorist in US custody to torture so they can spew their hate. It is the left who have trivialized torture by turning into a meaningless epithet… much like they did to the word ‘racist.’

    keogh remains a very, very silly person.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 12:29 pm - May 25, 2007

  29. The real definition of torture would be the gratuitous infliction of violence on a detainee, or infliction of violence to such a degree that the recipient is left permanently scarred, disfigured, or debilitated.

    Nothing of this has even been alleged.

    At worst, some detainees have been made to feel temporarily uncomfortable.

    And that is not torture.

    Unless you hate America so much that you need to claim that it is.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - May 25, 2007

  30. Here is
    One
    two

    And VK I would rather not be taken in at all!

    Al Qaeda does torture. That is evil. The US does torture.
    That is also evil.

    Stop being willfully ignorant!

    Did you bother to read what McCain said about what you call “inconvenience”
    I quote:
    “But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.”

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - May 25, 2007

  31. I have a longer one in moderation. (To appear above, I hope.) Here is the short version for now. keogh’s links don’t say what he claims. They show that torture is indeed against U.S. policy – that individuals who practice it or commit excesses are restrained by law. Which is the real point. Which he missed, as usual.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - May 25, 2007

  32. I think Tammy Bruce once said something like “The ‘torture’ at Abu Gharib sounds like some of my friend’s weekend”

    Comment by Vince P — May 25, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - May 25, 2007

  33. A quote from John McAmnesty is not persuasive. The man is demented if he thinks our military does to prisoners what the communists did to him.

    A mock execution or a waterboarding does no permanent physical harm. Are they uncomfortable and distressing? Sure, but so is combat. Do they leave lasting unpleasant memories? Sure, but so does combat. So does life, for that matter.

    We’re not putting drills to people. We’re not burning people. We’re not pulling limbs and fingers off people. We’re not torturing people.

    I know the left gets a sick thrill out of turning everything upside down, make right into wrong, making America into the bad guy. But no rational person would call our treatment of Gitmo detainees torture.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - May 25, 2007

  34. V – It’s more than that. See my #24 which has appeared. McCain endorses the Bush Administration’s approach to terrorist interrogation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 1:04 pm - May 25, 2007

  35. I don’t think it unreasonable to suspect that keogh’s attempts to impugn the U.S. Military Code (and Geneva) by way of a comparison so extreme in both procedure and intent that it is an act of cyber-defecation, whose only purpose could be the apparent entertainment value he finds in attracting flies.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 25, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - May 25, 2007

  36. #18, You got it. “I heard” and blatant spculative statements aren’t even slightly convincing. The Left will say anything bad about America, for any reason, or for no reason at all; and they rarely if ever get called on their brazen mendacity.

    For the principal gay newspaper in a major US city to blame America for genocide of gays in Iraq, during wartime and utterly without substantiation, is truly despicable.

    As they say, follow the money: When their ad revenue is way down, how convenient it is for the Times to sell out America, literally.

    Comment by Butch — May 25, 2007 @ 1:59 pm - May 25, 2007

  37. #25 – #23 – Or Rosie O’Donnell or Jimmy Carter. That would be an interesting idea…

    I thought those 2 were members of Al Qaeda.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm - May 25, 2007

  38. Hey 401K, I can back up my statements here. What about you?

    Still waiting for your “evidence.” And no, the ACLU doesn’t count. That is like asking for a history of the Jewish world written by Adolf Hitler.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - May 25, 2007

  39. #30 – Here is
    One
    two

    From the ACLU and CNN!!!??? OHHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Come now, can’t you do any better than that???

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 2:53 pm - May 25, 2007

  40. Anyone who tortures or orders torture is as evil as evil gets. No matter his nationality, political affiliation, or uniform he wears. That is fact.
    And ILC – I wish that was true.
    But unfortunately, many of the sights that horrified the FBI agents the gov. claims are “approved methods.” Do you remember “take the gloves off”, or “the dark side”? When our politicians try to be macho, innocents get tortured.
    Further – waterboarding, inducing hypothermia, suffocation, stress positions and the like are all torture.
    In fact, as McCain said, exquisite torture.
    When it happens to Americans everyone should become rightfully outraged. How can your Love for Bush make you gleefully glib when it happens at the hands of our government?

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - May 25, 2007

  41. For examples of willful ignorance to keep a dirty conscience clear see posts 38 & 39

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - May 25, 2007

  42. Peter – that is amazing. “Mental torture” because they gave him “cheap, unscented soap”?

    Far leftists and Islamists – working together to (1) debase human language and (2) tear down America.

    If the guy was innocent, i.e., not in bed with the Islamists – then I feel sorry for him – but that’s a separate question, not at all proven in the BBC article.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 25, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - May 25, 2007

  43. ***For examples of willful ignorance to keep a dirty conscience clear see posts 38 & 39***

    Thank you, thank you!! I would rather be me than you any day, punk.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - May 25, 2007

  44. ILC, I think there’s just an element of oatmeal-for-brains leftists that already believe America is evil, and that’s enough for them to believe that America commits torture, and lacking of evidence of actual torture, they elevate things like uncomfortable (but not life-threatening) temperature, interrogation techniques, and even things like unscented deodorant and under-inflated soccer balls to the level of torture.

    Waterboarding and stress positions are not torture. They do not disfigure, or maim, and they are used only to extract information. They may walk close to the line of torture, but they do not cross it. There is a certain crowd who believe that all detainees are entitled to five-star spa accommodations, and should be subjected to nothing worse than polite questioning over tea and cookies.

    Of course, they also don’t believe terrorists are really terrorists, and some of their more fuzzy-headed leaders have suggested there’s not really a war on terror at all. If people can’t accept reality, there is little one can do for them.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - May 25, 2007

  45. What makes it worse, though, V the K, is that leftists like keogh don’t see any problem with this sort of thing whatsoever.

    In other words, they knowingly break the law, knowingly support those who want to kill Americans, and when we put stops in place to prevent them and take into custody their cronies, they shriek that we’re taking away their “civil liberties”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 3:34 pm - May 25, 2007

  46. For examples of sheer partisan stupidity and unadulterated anti-Americanism by lower-case-libtards, see posts 40-41.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - May 25, 2007

  47. # 44 ***If people can’t accept reality, there is little one can do for them.***

    Or, liberals stand on their heads and accuse the rest of us of being upside down. See that a lot.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - May 25, 2007

  48. And following up on our thread of un-American, troop-hating backstabbing libtards, here is A NEWS FLASH:

    Rosie O’Donnell has taken early leave of “The View” effective immediately.

    Chalk that one up as another Dhimmicrat who “blinked.” She must be comparing notes with Air Pelosi.

    Personal note – way to go, Elisabeth Hasselbeck! You already took out the biggest moonbat; now go after Joy Behar. She’ll be a much easier (albeit smaller) target.

    I just KNEW this was going to be a great weekend! 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - May 25, 2007

  49. #48 – That does start the weekend off nicely!! Libs may have bigger/louder mouths, but hot air is all that comes out!!

    HAPPY HOUR – 29 MIN AND COUNTING!!!

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - May 25, 2007

  50. from that article: ***”No, no, no. Do not call me a coward because I sit here every single day, open my heart and tell people exactly what I believe,” Hasselbeck shouted.***

    See, Hasselbeck had to SHOUT over that blow-hard, O’Donnell. Someone stick a ham sammich in Rosie’s mouth and hope for the best.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - May 25, 2007

  51. LNC, I know you (and every other right-thinking reader) will enjoy my tribute to Rosie O’Donnell.

    Have a great weekend!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - May 25, 2007

  52. Peter, my work is blocking it, but I will check it out over the weekend sometime!! Looking forward to it, actually!!

    This weekend, remember all who have died so we can speak freely – especially those who abuse freedom of speech on a minute-by-minute basis (looking to “the left”). You people really have no idea how lucky you truly are.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 25, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - May 25, 2007

  53. Right on, LNC. I’d love to see some of these same people expressing their “View” (pun intended) in such free-thinking cities as Havana, Beijing, Hanoi, Teheran and Pnom Penh.

    Fly that flag proudly for all those who died defending both it and you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - May 25, 2007

  54. “Waterboarding and stress positions are not torture.”
    According to all definitions. They are, torture.

    Its interesting when confronted with the reality of the US torturing the guilty along with the innocent, instead of dealing with it, you “conservatives” have become very nasty….

    I would hope that this is because your conscience is starting to bug you.

    Comment by keogh — May 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - May 25, 2007

  55. Actually, keogh, what we’ve noticed is that, instead of dealing with the very real, very obvious, and very gory descriptions provided of what your friends in al-Qaeda, Syria, Hizbollah, and Hamas, and formerly Taliban Afghanistan and Saddamist Iraq, all of which you and Nancy Pelosi are shrieking are devoted to “peace” and who you want us to stop “pressuring”, are doing as standard operating procedure……..you start screaming about how awful the US allegedly is.

    Since you obviously don’t give a rat’s ass about these other regimes using torture on a grand, official, and systematic scale, it should be obvious that it’s not the torture that’s important to you; it’s finding an excuse to bash the United States.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - May 25, 2007

  56. #55 NDT: Exactamundo. The world would be a much better place if the left were as committed to defeating the real torturers as they are to bitching about “torture” allegedly committed by American troops.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 8:16 pm - May 25, 2007

  57. AoSHQ notes that Andrianna Sullington has yet to acknowledge the existence of the AQ torture manual. Interesting considering Sully has been one of the shrillest voices denouncing “torture” by U.S. soldiers.

    Comment by V the K — May 25, 2007 @ 9:38 pm - May 25, 2007

  58. What kind of “tard” are you calling me!?!

    (Ahem) A team-killing fcuktard. If I have to explain it, you’ll never get it.

    That type of crap is further proof toward the ongoing theory that you are lacking any intellectual and moral fiber.

    As opposed to all of your posts? Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn what you and Ian think of me. Nor anybody else for that matter. I don’t concern myself nor wring my hands about whether or not anybody likes me.

    I have worked at a Torture Victim Center for several years now.

    Then why do you suck at explaining it? Why don’t you concern yourself with real torture? Because it doesn’t fit your agenda.

    My experience teaches me that torture is plain old evil, no matter who does it and for what reason

    My experience teaches me that you’re full of it since you don’t give a rotten damn about people being tortured. You’re so wrapped up in tearing down the U.S. As I’ve said many times before, our prisoners are alive. Their prisoners are DEAD. But what do you care? They’re Americans and deserved what they got in your mind.

    If you actually gave a fcuk about torture, you wouldn’t be pi$$ing your panties about claims of torture by those who are taught to lie to the infidel and trained to claim they were tortured. There are people being tortured and killed in the real world. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists, Hindus etc. But that doesn’t mean sh*t to you, does it? Well, except your delight that Christians and Jews are tortured and murdered.

    As James Taranto points out, AQ engages in real torture and the libs are dead silent. He also pointed out that neither USA Today, WaPo or NYT carried anything about this story on their front pages. However, when Newsweek lied about a flushed Koran, you and your buddies went ape-sh*t. Even after it was determined that Newsweek lied and thousands died.

    Perhaps you can explain to me why Abu Ghraib necessitated(sp?) 30+ days of front page coverage? What was the point? Are any of us better for it? Well our soldiers sure as hell aren’t. The government, including all of Congress knew about it for 4 months before it became public. It was already being dealt with. Then when it hit, the liberals charged out to find the nearest cameras to report they didn’t know anything about it. Pathetic.

    You call Gitmo “Club Gitmo”? Are you THAT brainwashed?

    It’s called illustrating the absurdity of the left by being absurd. The fact that you’re more hysterical about that than real torture proves that it works.

    Some of the guys there are bad news.

    How nice of you to notice and pay lip service to it when you’re backed into a corner.

    However, many are completely innocent and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Based on what? Their word? The word of a huge law firm backing a huge PR campaign? The word of the same law firm which didn’t give a crap about the detainees until they realized they could make beaucoup bucks and push a liberal agenda at the same time? Please.

    Yet they are held, often in isolation, tortured, no trial, no hope, no nothing.

    I hope those that throw urine, feces, semen etc. are being held in isolation. Ditto for those that use correspondence from their attorneys to pass messages to each other regarding attacking our soldiers.

    As far as “no trial”, that’s total BS and you damn well know it.

    Often someone made thousands of dollars off their capture.

    Good for them.

    Their families cry, and it’s a sad sad story.
    Its evil and wrong.

    What’s evil and wrong is the requisite sob story to humanize those that would gladly cut your balls off and feed them to you (assuming, of course, that you have any).

    Yet you so called “conservatives” make jokes about it, trivialize it, in the futile attempt to rationalize it just to keep your conscience clean through blind and willful ignorance.

    You so called liberals, who proclaim to love and tolerate everybody, will fall all over yourselves to demand immediate freedom and American rights for these folks, but fervently believe in the so-called court of public opinion for those you oppose. That Marine that supposedly murdered the islamo-fascist in the Mosque was immediately guilty. All of our soldiers are immediately guilty of murder and torture and “baby killing”. Our soldiers are compared to Pol Pot, the Gulags and Nazis and you gleefully lap it up. Then there was the a$$-hat who pretended to be a soldier who had witnessed brutalities in Iraq. You fellatioed him and hoisted him up to be a hero.

    Don’t you DARE insult us by trying to convince us that you or any other liberal give a royal rat’s a$$ about torture because by your own words and deeds, it’s clear that you don’t. It only makes you look like the biggest pile of excrement on earth. In fact, your so-called interest in torture is torture and I, for one, will not tolerate it anymore. You’re full of it. You know it, we know it.

    There’s REAL torture and murder in cold blood going on out there. If you were intellectually honest, you would condemn it and hold those responsible. Instead, you choose to bash your own country. You gleefully participate in trashing your own country under the guise of “caring” about it. That, sir, is evil.

    Therefore, you may go back to your leftist blogs where folks hold you in high regard. I for one and, I dare say, many others here are not going to sit back and take your BS.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 26, 2007 @ 2:48 am - May 26, 2007

  59. Further, to paraphrase an earlier comment:

    Compare how our prisoners are treated compared to theirs. How many of each are still alive? Which would you rather be a prisoner of?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 26, 2007 @ 2:51 am - May 26, 2007

  60. BTW, I am ready to accept your apologies for doubting me. Do NOT doubt me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 26, 2007 @ 2:52 am - May 26, 2007

  61. TGC – Good takedown.

    I can hardly believe the pompousness from little keogh about “I have worked at a Torture Victim Center for several years now”. keogh – If it’s the truth, then it makes your behavior in debasing human language and insulting the real victims of real torture here, worse – not better. You should be ashamed! You should show some concern for real victims of real torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2007 @ 9:41 am - May 26, 2007

  62. (And keogh – for the victims of DICTATORSHIPS. And – for the victims of TERRORIST ATTACKS, such as the constant stream of Iraqi victims of al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Iraq, which our brave soldiers are fighting this minute.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2007 @ 9:50 am - May 26, 2007

  63. A propos of all this – keogh is not the only one who mis-uses “torture” and so makes it harder for people to talk about the real thing. There’s also Andrew Sullivan. Wretchard and Ace discuss it better than I could: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/227891.php

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2007 @ 10:44 am - May 26, 2007

  64. Keogh wants us to believe him/her when he pretends to give a fcuk about “torture”. As you know, we’re only supposed to look at his “intentions” and not at the results.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 27, 2007 @ 7:47 am - May 27, 2007

  65. It appears that American conservatives have now given their wholehearted endorsement to the methods used by Stalin’s gulag.
    Your love of Bush is taking you down a terrible road.
    See past your blind endorsement of anything done by a republican administration and realize you are now the Stalinists, endorsing all actions done by the state in the name of protection.
    Further your position of “they torture too” argument is baseless and demeans every troop in uniform and puts our soldiers in grave danger in all future wars.
    You have damaged our country’s image, pride and sense of morality.

    Your defense of evil makes me sick.

    Comment by keogh — May 28, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - May 28, 2007

  66. And now we come to it, folks. 🙂 Little keogh feigns:

    Your defense of evil makes me sick.

    But folks – if that were true even in part, keogh wouldn’t come to this site.

    Seriously. I’ve never once visited a Nazi site. I don’t visit al Qaeda sites. I rarely bother with Daily Kos, and never with child-molesting sites. Why not? Because in all those instances, it really is the case that their evil makes me (somewhat) sick. If someone really does defend evil, you don’t bother making yourself an established regular on their site.

    Honest readers here also know that the conservatives here hardly love him and are some of his greatest critics. And that not one person here has ever offered “They torture too” or anything like it, as a rationalization or excuse for (supposed) U.S. “torture”.

    Finally, there’s the pesky fact that in his debasement of human language here and his eager defamation of the only nation ever to make it its mission to fight evil – end human slavery – end torture – fight dictatorship as such – etc., keogh is the supporter and defender of evil.

    Given the objective falsity of every one of keogh’s premises, which he has had explained to him many times and must know on some level… why would he constantly visit this site, then?

    I don’t know. I’ll brainstorm a few possibilities:

    1) It could be that, like many who defend evil, keogh is fascinated with the good and the clear and the healthy, in a way he can’t understand or admit.

    2) It could be that, like many who defend evil, keogh needs to posture and spew venom on those who understand and verbally defend the good.

    3) It could be that keogh is really, really desperate for the attention we have granted him.

    OK, enough said. I’m out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2007 @ 5:29 pm - May 28, 2007

  67. (except to fix this typo: “…the conservatives here hardly love *Bush*…”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2007 @ 5:31 pm - May 28, 2007

  68. ILC:
    Do you read other people’s comments or are you to busy thinking up your next one?
    This thread is full of comments pointing out other’s torture while whitewashing our own. So your charges, as usual, sound good but just don’t hold up under the light of the “up arrow button”

    However, I am disappointed that you would relegate yourself to the ‘if you disagree with me why do you come here” fallacy. All the while your tax dollars go to torture, rendition and every other technique perfected in the gulag.

    Comment by keogh — May 28, 2007 @ 7:14 pm - May 28, 2007

  69. Anyone who tortures or orders torture is as evil as evil gets. No matter his nationality, political affiliation, or uniform he wears. That is fact.

    Unfortunately, keogh, Syria, Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan, Hamas, Hizbollah, and al-Qaeda all tortured and ordered torture on the scale of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people over the course of years, even decades.

    But you, Nancy Pelosi, and your Democrat Party shriek that doing anything to stop these regimes is unnecessary and unjustified, that these regimes and groups are “peaceful” and their behaviors and actions are right; the United States is the horrible, evil, sick regime.

    Who has damaged our country’s image more, keogh; people like us who defend and support it, or people like you and Nancy Pelosi who hold Iran, Syria, and Saddamist Iraq up as model nations, and al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah up as peaceful, human-rights-respecting groups, while denigrating ours?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - May 28, 2007

  70. It appears that American conservatives have now given their wholehearted endorsement to the methods used by Stalin’s gulag.

    Keogh, you ignorant twat! It’s liberals who always have and always will endorse and support the gulags, trials in abstentia and the like.

    It’s liberals who support Chavez shutting down the popular TV station (remember libs going apesh*t when the al Sadr newspaper was closed?).

    It’s liberals who support Chavez ruling by decree.

    It’s liberals who opine for Fidel Castro. It’s liberals who enabled Pol-Pot to run his killing fields.

    It’s liberals who demand that the state run everything telling us what to wear, what to drive, what to eat, what kind of lightbulbs we can buy, where we shop, where we work, what kind of healthcare we receive etc.

    Tell me, when was the last time you saw a conservative wearing a T-shirt of that murderous bastard, Che Guevara?

    It’s liberals who openly support al-Qaeda calling them “freedom fighters”.

    It’s liberals who openly declare that America sucks.

    It’s liberals who demand that America surrender to al-Qaeda.

    It’s liberals who pi$$ their panties for our prisoners who are very much alive, but couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ about their prisoners, who are very much DEAD.

    It’s liberals who demand that the American people be disarmed, one of the first steps when a dictator rises to power.

    Your love of Bush is taking you down a terrible road.

    Au contraire. It’s your intense HATRED for Bush and the United State of America that’s leading YOU down a terrible road. What’s worse, you’re doing your damndest to drag the rest of us down into your own hell.

    See past your blind endorsement of anything done by a republican administration

    Somebody hasn’t been paying attention.

    and realize you are now the Stalinists, endorsing all actions done by the state in the name of protection.

    Clearly, you have no FCUKING clue what in the hell you are talking about.

    Further your position of “they torture too” argument is baseless

    Not a single, solitary soul here or anywhere has EVER said that and you know damn well that they haven’t. The point is that comparatively, we do NOT torture anybody. And you can’t point to ONE single example where we have brutalized and beheaded anyone and left their corpse rotting in the sun. Nor can you point to any mass graves that we have filled with mutilated bodies. If you can show me that, I might be inclined to believe you. Otherwise, you’re just a mewling p*$$y in the wind.

    and demeans every troop in uniform and puts our soldiers in grave danger in all future wars.

    You miserable, deranged bastard. Tell me what ranting that we’re loses does to our soldiers in uniform? What does chanting “We SUCK!” does for our soldiers in uniform? How about demanding we surrender? What does that do for them? How does what your liberal lords do in Washington do to improve our image amongst our “allies”?

    What does it say to everyone that when the going gets tough, it’s time to tuck tail, run away and prove that Osama bin Laden was right?

    You have damaged our country’s image, pride and sense of morality.

    Tell me, how have democrats helped our country’s image over the last seven years? Name one thing?

    As far as pride goes, what does it do to our pride when liberals run around declaring that America sucks, we should take down and burn the flags, we shouldn’t say the pledge of allegiance? How about the liberal’s class warfare? How does it help our pride telling us that we’ll never amount to anything without liberals holding our hands? How about liberals telling blacks, Hispanics, gays etc. that they’re worthless and will never amount to anything without liberals.

    I’ll tell you one damn thing, there is an enormous amount of pride in our country out there and it scares the hell out of and nauseates liberals beyond belief. Anybody out their whose national pride is based on who’s elected is just plain SAD and we truly have no use for them.

    Oh and another thing, a $625 BILLION tax increase won’t do a damn thing for national pride.

    As far as morality, WTF do you or any liberal know about morality? Sure you may have your own bastardized version of it, but those of us in the real world do not subscribe and will NEVER do so.

    Your defense of evil makes me sick.

    The reality is that liberals make us sick. Maybe the others here are too polite to say it, but YOU and every other liberal makes us sick.

    You’re failure to recognize true evil makes us sick. The liberal desire to ignore good vs evil choosing a happy gray makes us sick. Your constant desire to tear down everything that’s made this country great to build your Socialist Utopia makes us sick. Your coddling of our enemies makes us sick. Your desire to defend the indefensible makes us sick. Your claims that you’re better than us makes us sick. Your overt claims that minorities are inferior makes us sick. Your defense of pedophiles makes us sick. Your defense of infanticide makes us sick.

    YOU, sir, make me sick. You, Ian, Billy, Vaara etc. and your warped, depraved, perveted sensibilities make me sick. Furthermore, speaking for myself, can drop down, fifth ring, cook.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2007 @ 6:05 am - May 29, 2007

  71. ThatGayConservative, you ROCK!!!!

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 29, 2007 @ 7:42 am - May 29, 2007

  72. TGC, you ripped silly person a new one with a jackhammer.

    The mere fact that silly person would use a phrase like “your love of Bush” shows how fully detached from reality he is. If there was any love left for Bush anywhere on the right, the Amnesty bill killed it.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 7:56 am - May 29, 2007

  73. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a conservative wearing a T-shirt of that murderous bastard, Che Guevara?

    Well now… Um… I can tell you the last time I saw a small-l libertarian / Capitalist wearing one… having a “red ban” sign through Che’s face, and text saying COMMIES AREN’T COOL. Saw it in the mirror the other day 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2007 @ 8:37 am - May 29, 2007

  74. VdaK writes: “If there was any love left for Bush anywhere on the right, the Amnesty bill killed it.”

    Somehow, V, I doubt ANYTHING would get the FarRightFringe to even sit in the same room as W these days… Immigration Reform as proposed or not. It all goes back to the foreign ownership of American ports “controversy” last year… you remember how Bush’s position compared to the “true enuff, pure enuff conservatives” in Congress sent the FarRightFringe into orgasmic rhetorical overload.

    I thought the conservatives had reached their upper limit on rhetorical excess on the Port bill… which, for them, brought back vague memories of the Panama Canal give away… but, no… the Immigration Reform bill has keyed them up for another round of rhetorical excess, misdirection and political incontinence. Like calling the bill “amnesty” when it is anything but that. Isn’t it odd how the political compromises engaged by liberals, moderates and a few right-thinking conservatives with the Immigration Reform bill has allowed border security to become job #1… something the “conservatives” in the last Congress were unable to get accomplished –except in symbols and rhetoric?

    Maybe that’s why the conservatives lost control of Congress, lost control over the national policy agenda and have been vanquished to the outer margins of the GOP… if only the Democrats would do the same to anti-war FarLeftFringe liberals in their party then maybe the US could move beyond the politics of exclusion and division –heck, maybe even enact real tax reform?

    Nawh, that would take compromise and for the FarRightFringe, “political compromise” is akin to selling out the hallowed tablets of First Principles.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 29, 2007 @ 9:35 am - May 29, 2007

  75. The McCain-Kennedy Bill trades a guarantee of amnesty (i.e. legalized residency for lawbreakers) in return for a promise of border security. Conservatives know history well enough to know that the amnesty will happen, the border security won’t. It’s a bad bill. The fact that Kennedy wrote it and Eleanor Clift loves it should be a clue-by-four to the head of anyone who thinks otherwise.

    Of course, if you support the concept of open borders, it’s a great bill. I just don’t happen to support open borders.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 9:45 am - May 29, 2007

  76. And in case you’re the least bit unclear on this let me explain why it’s an amnesty bill.

    If I, as an American citizen, committed tax evasion, identity theft, and social security fraud, I would go to prison. But, if I committed those precise same crimes as an illegal immigrant, I’d be rewarded with legal residency and a path to citizenship.

    If that’s not amnesty, then I don’t know what is.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 9:52 am - May 29, 2007

  77. #71-72: I second that emotion. TGC, thank you for eloquently expressing everything I would have liked to have said – and more.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 29, 2007 @ 11:33 am - May 29, 2007

  78. V, actually the Kennedy-McCain bill doesn’t “reward” anyone for any criminal activity.

    In fact, it precludes those who have committed a crime from being eligible under the act as proposed. It gives considerable power to the HomelandSecSecy to screen, filter and monitor those who get a chance at the proverbial brass ring of citizenship –which really should be redefined as the opportunity to work in America… since about 45% of illegal aliens do NOT want to give up their citizenship.

    To posit that ALL illegal aliens have committed identity theft, social security fraud and tax evasion is a wild overstatement –the very rhetorical excess I noted was a hallmark of those on FarRightFringe pushing for tougher treatment toward illegals or, if not that, then build a real high wall real fast first.

    Now, employers who withheld various payroll taxes and then pocketed the revenue ARE criminals and ought to be prosecuted. I’ll grant you, ID theft happens –but then, so does jaywalking, tax evasion by an estimated 91% of all filers (GAO estimate) and corruption within Congress on a far grander scale than even you are aware. Newsflash: illegal aliens want to work so they can earn some money for back home… like millions of other immigrants in prior generations. I think it’s why you’ve been claiming America is just “Mexico’s Bitch”.

    Amnesty, like tax amnesty for noncompliant filers, usually results in a promise of no prosecution and no penalties and no interest if the filer simply files and pays the tax due when they were supposed to file.

    In the case of immigration amnesty, the illegal aliens will have to admit guilt, pay fines, revisit their home country, get in line for an 11-13 year process intent on cultural assimilation, English proficiency and civics education. And this is what conservatives call “amnesty”? You might be right to suggest that conservatives do NOT know what amnesty is.

    As for the border security, those pressing for that priority finally get it. The wall will be built –something the conservatives in the last Congress failed REPEATEDLY to deliver on. More agents, more guards, more processing stations, more guns and equipment, necessary tracking systems (which were needed urgently in the wake of 9/11 but the conservatives in Congress screamed like ACLU babies that a natl ID would impinge on their privacy) and other border security measures. I’m a lot less inclined to wave the Cynics Flag as quickly as you do on these issues, VdaK, by claiming they ain’t gonna happen… we’ll see if Congress and the Administration and next Administration does what they say they’ll do on improving border security. If you’re really interested in border security remaining a #1 priority, maybe you ought to start supporting those who really want it? Nawh, too easy a task; too logical.

    I think the trade off for REAL border security (rather than just symbolic gestures intended to placate social conservatives upset with the “browning” of America) with rational immigration reform was desperately needed… it was needed a hell of long time ago but conservatives in Congress were too busy acting like ACLU types screaming about a privacy invasion instead of addressing the matter.

    Like with the port mgt bill last year, this issue of immigration reform is one that social conservatives have elected to blather about rather than address. I think the NYT said it well (a publication I don’t agree with often) when they accused social conservatives of using the “amnesty” blather in a way which is akin to taking a cow, painting the word “deer” on its side and leaving it tied up in the meadow for the next orange suited 6 packer to discover and blow to bits. It ain’t hunting, but it gets the job done.

    Nope, this bill isn’t amnesty. To call it that is to miss the benefits of the compromise while tossing out the baby, the bathwater, the sink, the soap and the towel… just to feel better about hammering the illegal aliens.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 29, 2007 @ 1:47 pm - May 29, 2007

  79. In fact, it precludes those who have committed a crime from being eligible under the act as proposed. It gives considerable power to the HomelandSecSecy to screen, filter and monitor those who get a chance at the proverbial brass ring of citizenship –which really should be redefined as the opportunity to work in America… since about 45% of illegal aliens do NOT want to give up their citizenship..

    Homeland Security already has the power to screen and deport people who are in the country illegally. Why do they need an Amnesty Bill? Not to mention, there’s nothing in the bill compelling Homeland Security to actually perform background checks and provisional Amnesty is granted automatically after 24 hours even if the government never runs a background check. And the fines for illegal activities amount to less than the fine for a first-time DUI in many jurisdictions. Not to mention, Homeland Security can’t even clear its current backlog of immigrant paperwork, what makes anyone think they’ll be able to handle 12 million more cases? What makes anyone think they’re going to verify all of the “documentation” produced by 12 million or more Amnesty seekers?

    The wall will be built
    No, under the amnesty bill, the president (who has no commitment to border security) only has to certify that planning and funding exist to build part of the wall in order to proceed to his guest worker scheme.

    More agents, more guards, more processing stations, more guns and equipment, necessary tracking systems
    1. The president only has to “certify” that planning and funding are in place for additional Border Patrol agents, and if they are deployed, the Border Patrol will still be smaller than the NYC Police Department even if Bush doesn’t throw more of them in prison for enforcing the laws he doesn’t want enforced. 2. The bill only requires Homeland Security to buy four UAV’s, there’s no requirement to fly them, and four Predator Drones are no where near enough to patrol the miles of southwestern border. 3. Big deal if the Border Patrol has guns if they are not allowed to use them even if they’re shot at.

    ’m a lot less inclined to wave the Cynics Flag as quickly as you do on these issues, VdaK, by claiming they ain’t gonna happen… we’ll see if Congress and the Administration and next Administration does what they say they’ll do on improving border security.

    The triumph of hope over experience? Bush has had over five years since 9-11 to secure the border, and the only time he did anything was for PR in advance of his amnesty bill. By the time we see if he had any commitment to actually securing the border, it will be too late because amnesty happens regardless of what happens at the border.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - May 29, 2007

  80. Homeland Security already has the power to screen and deport people who are in the country illegally. Why do they need an Amnesty Bill?

    I’ll answer my own question. They have rarely enforced existing immigration laws, why should we have any expectation that they’re going to force any new ones? Especially since the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill has zero provisions for enforcement accountability.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - May 29, 2007

  81. I remember a conversation I had with a conservative re. abortion. Although I’m pro-choice up to the third trimester, I agreed with him on various issues like parental notification for girls under age 16 and that the ‘health’ of the mother could always be construed as a valid premise for convenient termination. I tried to explain to him that although we stood in different locations on the abortion continuum, it was better to work together for incremental change because our current abortion-on-demand culture is unacceptable to both of us. I tried to explain to him that we were on the same side of the issue up to the point where our positions diverge and that our fight with one another should only begin at that point, not before. I tried to explain to him that taking an all-or-nothing approach resulted in nothing because he (mistakenly) thought that to accept an incremental improvement was to betray his deeply held beliefs because by definition, all was his only acceptable alternative — one that too few in our democratic system would grant; I went on to explain that accepting something is better than nothing because this is how mature voters (those who accept the larger society in which they exist) must behave of necessity. I tried to explain that where concerning the lives of the viable unborn, we cannot afford to accept the nothing alternative and that to move incrementally toward a more pro-life position actually saves lives, and where it really matters: not in theory, not in someone’s wishful thinking, not in political posturing, but in the reality of an abortion clinic. I tried to explain to him that in terms of successful legislation (meaning that which is acceptable to a majority and thus stands a chance of passage) resulting in saving lives, my position on the issue of abortion in the form of, say, the incremental ban on partial-birth abortion, actually makes me more pro-life than he is.

    I was not successful.

    It seems on so many issues, this same mentality hinders actual progress, progress that would do much to change the culture to something less idealogical and more reasonable. I would think that those who claim so vehemently that they wish to conserve traditional ideas and their cultural manifestations would actually care enough to greet every possible movement in their direction with the alacrity of victory. But no, no legislation that has the faintest whiff of compromise is ever enough to satisfy an idealogue, especially someone who devotes his life to bitching.

    This is my problem with conservatives.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - May 29, 2007

  82. And thanks to “pragmatists” like HH, we get the Prescription Drug entitlement, McCain-Feingold, and the No Child Left Behind Act. Yippy skippy.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - May 29, 2007

  83. And, frankly, the theory of compromise for the sake of incremental advancement falls apart when the guys you’re supposed to support for the sake of party loyalty are actively trying to make things worse.

    Comment by V the K — May 29, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - May 29, 2007

  84. I tried to explain to him that we were on the same side of the issue up to the point where our positions diverge and that our fight with one another should only begin at that point, not before.

    HardHobbit, interesting point. Frequently, when there is a disagreement on an issue, the participants seem to take more divergent views, even when the differences are slight. So instead of trying to find out exactly where they disagree, and try to find out where they agree, the opposite happens. The other thing that happens is if there is a story pertinent to the issue, and there is disagreement as to whether the story is true, the argument then degenerates. I will then try to look at the argument from both versions of the story, and then see where the disagreement is. This usually leads to more agreement, even though there still may be disagreement as to the truth of the story. Note: I wasn’t necessarily referring to anything specific on this thread or blog, but I was thinking about it when I was reading about another topic on another blog during the weekend, and it was such a clear example. The other thing I would say is that this is not unique to any political ideology.

    Comment by Pat — May 29, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - May 29, 2007

  85. Pat, I agree on both counts. Unfortunately, there is often something to be gained in not finding common ground, usually having something to do with re-election. In a way, our system rewards and thus perpetuates this kind of politicking; on the one hand, we’re appalled at all the gridlock, yet on the other, we’re relieved that we were able to prevent any changes by ‘drawing a line in the sand’. And you’re more than right re. the recounting of a particular story: Truth is secondary — interpretation is everything.

    It’s interesting that I’m ridiculed for being a pragmatist (which beautifully proves the entire point of my prior comment — I knew it would), when my so-called pragmatism is actually the position most in keeping with the idealogy of the taunt. With both opposite idealogies controlling the abortion issue, no movement is likely; thus, my position happens to be the most conservative and in this culture of stalemate, that really isn’t so incremental, is it?

    We terrapins are a rare breed, no?

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 29, 2007 @ 7:32 pm - May 29, 2007

  86. V, actually the Kennedy-McCain bill doesn’t “reward” anyone for any criminal activity.

    So you cross the border ILLEGALY and you’re rewarded with legal status. So yeah, it is rewarding criminal activity. What’s worse, we’re telling those waiting to come in legally to screw themselves. Why should they bother?

    In the case of immigration amnesty, the illegal aliens will have to admit guilt, pay fines, revisit their home country, get in line for an 11-13 year process intent on cultural assimilation, English proficiency and civics education. And this is what conservatives call “amnesty”?

    If you’re legal, what’s the motivation to turning yourself in, paying fines, going home, taking classes etc? You’re automaticly granted legal status, why in the hell would you want to go through all that? Besides, do you honestly think Washington’ll keep the fines? Hell no. They’ll toss that provision ASAP.

    Seriously, Matt. Why is a bad law better than none at all?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 30, 2007 @ 1:12 am - May 30, 2007

  87. Now, Bush says people who oppose amnesty are Un-American.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 7:48 am - May 30, 2007

  88. V writes: “Bush has had over five years since 9-11 to secure the border, and the only time he did anything was for PR in advance of his amnesty bill.”

    VdaK, I find it hard to believe –but not beyond belief– that someone as blinded by self interest and racial loathing on immigration could offer such a wild-assed and grossly distorted assessment of the efforts of the last 5 yrs toward improved border security… frankly, I can’t see much difference between the rantings of people like CindyZeroSheehan on the WOT-Iraq and you on immigration reform. It’s like nothing is beyond revision, reduction to the most absurd and issuing forth angered snippets of distortion.

    Damn dude, step back and listen to yourself. Your BushDerangementSyndrome (BDS) meter is off the charts, guy! I’m not saying you need to be uber-loyal to Presidente for Life Bush… but listen to the lengths you’ll go to wildly overstate your position at the risk of credibility.

    VdaK writes: “Now, Bush says people who oppose amnesty are Un-American.”

    No, Bush did NOT equate opposition to the immigration reform bill to being un-American… at the LETC speech he told the audience that those who don’t support reform, just don’t get it… they’ve lost sight of the American Dream and (I’d add, RReagan’s notion of a Shining City on the Hill) forgotten what immigration has meant –and means– to countless generations of America. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

    But he did rightly characterize those who, generally, oppose immigration reform and border security with cynics. He nailed that one, square on.

    Cynics and, I’d add, irrational ideologues who would rather commit political incontinence than step up to the plate and show some leadership.

    It isn’t amnesty, VdaK. And all the screaming from the FarRightFringe and rhetorical excess won’t get the word “deer” painted on the side of the cow tethered in the meadow. (sorry, see #78) You can judge it to be amnesty… but then making the goal of “perfect” the enemy of the securing practical, pragmatic compromise seems to be hallmark of the FarRight these days. It isn’t amnesty for all the reasons noted earlier and continuing to say it is, won’t make it so.

    Again, I doubt that W could get the FarRightFringe to support ANYthing he does these days… whether he started with building a wall encircling the entire US before the 1st visa was issued. Even if he denied visas for anyone with brown skin, it still wouldn’t placate the FarRight on this issue.

    Illegality abounds in our culture, V. Unknown, untracked illegal aliens in our country is a HUGE problem; our immigration laws are flawed. Successive conservative Congressional majorities FAILED to provide the needed approps to support the last round of Immigration reform in ’96 (?)… failed to hold both Clinton and Bush Admins responsible for enforcement. Conservatives had UNLIMITED opportunities to act on these important issues –including ratcheting up border security– but didn’t. Repeatedly didn’t.

    To reduce Bush’s attribution of the cynics label to political opponents being “unAmerican” underscores how far afield some conservatives have wandered on this important issue. Hell, VdaK, he hasn’t even done THAT with the people who are using the WOT-Iraq opposition for political gain… he’s been very careful to draw the line between political opposition and patriotism, being an American or unAmerican, our traditions of public dissent. Your characterization of Bush’s comments on opponents to the reform bill is a cheap shot. You know better.

    Let’s try to get a little more sunshine and a little less heat on the issue, eh? And be fair. You can keep being a cynic –hell, even revel in that label if you want– but be fair.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 9:26 am - May 30, 2007

  89. V, I did respond; the filter gods are hungry this day.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 9:33 am - May 30, 2007

  90. TGC, you ask why a bad bill is better than no bill? Of course, I don’t agree with the usual conservative characterization that the bill is “bad”. Any more than I did with No Child was “bad”… I thought finally getting educational accountability in places like Detroit and NO and Gary was a good thing –even if local monopolistic political institutions didn’t do it.

    Being an illegal alien doesn’t mean that you ENTERED the country illegally, TGC. You could be here illegally because your visa expired.

    And on that note– there’s still the huge whole in the system that allows higher ed institutions to virtually act like visa granting agencies… and the term higher ed is used advisedly since the pilot training schools some of the 9-11 terrorists used are considered “higher ed” under current immigration/visa law.

    We got big problems on border security. We got bigger problems tracking those who are here. We have even bigger problems with system that should have been fixed 5-10-15 yrs ago. The current immigration reform bill doesn’t do all that’s needed –by a long shot. But it’s far, far better than the cheap symbols the conservatives in Congress provided in the last gasps of their control.

    Bad bill? No. Does it do enough? No. Is it a start at addressing some of the problems? Yeah.

    Compromise was needed. I give Bush and McCain credit for getting a part of the work complete.

    I’d rather we do that than practice endless purity tests on immigration and border security.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 9:46 am - May 30, 2007

  91. MM, at the time Bush took office, the estimate number of illegals in the US was ~7 million. The most recent estimates put the number at >12 million. This means at least 5 million illegal immigrants came into the country under Bush’s watch. And we’re supposed to believe he’s been serious about border security this entire time?

    Bush: “If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America…”

    I don’t see how you can interpret that as anything other than Bush calling opponents of Amnesty Un-American.

    By the way, all of those terrorists who overstayed their visas are also entitled to the same instant provisional amnesty as everybody else under the bill.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 10:15 am - May 30, 2007

  92. Not to mention, but in the last four years, DHS has completely lost track of over 600,000 illegal alien fugitives.

    But I’m sure keeping tabs on 12 million illegals, running thorough background checks, and verifying the authenticity of their “documentation” won’t be a problem.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 10:26 am - May 30, 2007

  93. V, I can see how YOU might declare Bush’s statement to be tantamount to calling reform opponents “unAmerican” –but the simple, unavoidable truth is that he didn’t imply that in this case and he didn’t even do it with the more onerous WOT-Iraq opponents who shamelessly fed the normal American instincts to be anti-war.

    Nope, Bush said “Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don’t like,” the president said. “If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people,” Bush said. “Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all.”

    Sort of like the Democrats who bait and taunt seniors about SocSec reform… that isn’t what’s “right” for America or fair… but it usually stops SocSec reform in its tracks, right? Same with the folks screaming “AMNESTY!”

    Bush didn’t call political opponents to immigration reform “unAmerican”. To say that he did is just irresponsible and intellectually dishonest; frankly, it’s beneath you and the critics of immigration reform.

    And again, for the record… the truth behind population of illegal aliens in the US was discussed and noted in other threads.

    http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html

    Even during the highest level of immigration into our country in nearly 100 years (Jan 2000 to Mar 2005), only an estimated 3.7m “illegal” aliens arrived –and that’s a misnomer because you can be here legally, your visa expire and become an illegal alien.

    Not 30m. Not 12m. Not even Bill O Reilly’s 18m or LouDobbs’ 40m.

    You’re not supposed to “believe” Bush has been serious about border security in the wake of 9-11; he has been. The entire country –except for border guards busy shooting felons in the ass– have been acutely aware of security everyday we get on a flight… read a newspaper… cross the border. Here in Michigan, we have daily news stories about terrorist supporters aiding Middle East terror groups and their arrest.

    Try crossing the border at Detroit –it’s a nightmare. Should we do more? Sure. I think there needs to be far more emphasis placed on profiling out (if that’s a phrase) groups who are not a threat to security and focus on those that are… and track em. And deport anyone who isn’t here legally or for a valid purpose. And put into place a natl ID card piggybacked on state DL IDs. And lots more.

    But I’m not willing to throw out the bill because it doesn’t pass my personal sense of the latest “true enuff, pure enuff” purity test. The current bill isn’t amnesty and it thankfully it isn’t predicated on animosity, either.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am - May 30, 2007

  94. V, again, the filter gods have some other comments. Sorry.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 10:58 am - May 30, 2007

  95. I think I guess what was in the response:

    1. Enforcement of immigration law is racist.
    2. Border security is racist.
    3. The Republicans’ loss in 2006 was entirely due to conservatives. (Responding to all of those editorials in National Review demanding more bloated spending and more corruption.)

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 11:12 am - May 30, 2007

  96. 4. Acknowledging the simple fact that illegals COMMITTED A CRIME in coming here, is racist.
    5. Acknowledging the simple fact that some illegals commit (further) crimes, inside and outside of our jails, is racist.
    6. Holding illegals to the precise same standards of law that we hold anyone else to as regards tax evasion, forged identity, partner immigration and work visas, etc., is racist.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 11:30 am - May 30, 2007

  97. 7. If you acknowledge any of those things, or support any effective controls on illegals, then because you are a racist (as previously stated), there is no possible way you can support legal immigration. Even though your personal fortune and your entire region’s fortunes are predicated on wonderful legal immigrants from such Third World countries as India, and you work with them gladly as equals, there is simply no way you can support legal immigration, while opposing illegal immigration. It’s too mind-blowing. Too inconceivable.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am - May 30, 2007

  98. Even a Kindergartener knows amnesty when he sees it:

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - May 30, 2007

  99. #95-97 V and ILC, those comments snarky and unduly hateful. Shame on you both.

    Comment by David — May 30, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - May 30, 2007

  100. Snarky, maybe. Hateful, not at all. I like MM, I just don’t like the way he plays the race card when the issue of illegal immigration comes up. It’s beneath him.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - May 30, 2007

  101. I don’t see where he has played the race card. Maybe in previous threads you can make that case, but I haven’t see it here. Admittedly, I don’t have time to read this blog every day, but IMO MM along with HH are generally the most dependable voices of reason.

    I still say your assumptive postings were snarky (no maybe about it) and hateful.

    Comment by David — May 30, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - May 30, 2007

  102. David, comment #78: “I think the trade off for REAL border security (rather than just symbolic gestures intended to placate social conservatives upset with the “browning” of America)”

    Comment #88: “VdaK, I find it hard to believe –but not beyond belief– that someone as blinded by self interest and racial loathing on immigration”

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - May 30, 2007

  103. By the way, I have never called MM names, I have never accused him of being “deranged,” I did not compare him to Cindy Sheehan, and I have not attacked him personally. I have confined my comments to rebutting and characterizing his arguments.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - May 30, 2007

  104. Hey David, thanks for sticking up when I was away… appreciate it and I don’t think we’ve even exchanged email addies, no?

    V, you’re the guy who’s played out the race card with the whole “I’m tired of America being Mexico’s bitch” and “illegals are stealing our jobs” and “Mexicans are driving down the wages” and on and on.

    It’s why, despite what some conservative backbenchers –many of whom are disaffected libertarians content to bitch and moan rather than compromise and change public policy– are getting their policy arguments labeled as “racist” by some, “bigoted” by others.

    V, if we played the “game” some here on the Right have done with the MaryCheney-baby-SIDS-death comment of one whacked out GayLeftBorgTyper, we could find dozens and dozens of comments from conservative commenters along the lines of racial or bigoted sentiments. And then what? It doesn’t prove anything in my book except that some idiots know how to type.

    When people come to the discussion with a predicate of border security, there’s more than enuff room to discuss the merits and demerits of the bill. But when some elect to simply try to off-track the debate by –as the President rightly noted– picking narrow issues and playing the division, speculation, more cynicism game… it becomes more apparent the end game is to limit access to our labor markets by Mexicans.

    And ILoveCalarato –nice try at the echo chamber. Take the little ploy of putting words in my mouth and spindle it (that’s an old fashioned pre-Net word meaning stick it on a pike) … no more rhetorical games, ok? Snarky doesn’t even begin to cover up your animus –and David and other readers have clued in on it. When I want an unfair, biased, snarky reduction of something I wrote… I’ll ask sean to serve as editor. Til then, the job’s not available for you.

    I still don’t understand how an entire group of conservatives who think free markets are ok, don’t think free migration of labor is ok. And I can’t for the life of me figure out how the conservatives’ collective strategy of sitting on their hands and sitting out the debate means they can win now? Except, maybe, in a bitching contest for cynics.

    But thanks anyway, David. I appreciate your willingness to stick up for someone you don’t know.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - May 30, 2007

  105. David, somewhere in the filter gods queue is a reply… but thanks for your comments.

    V, instead of noting even k’ers (at #98) know amnesty when they see it… maybe you should have noted that it’s an OpEd piece by Rep Steve King, a nearly perfect 100% rated Dobdson conservative and avowed anti-immigrant from Iowa?

    The same Steve King who argued in another OpEd that illegal aliens were raping, maiming, stealing and pillaging America with abandon and without constraint… and then he had to backtrack when his numbers proved to be fictious or phoney. I’ve watched here as some of the AmnestyBandwagon types have noted “x” incidence of an illegal alien driving drunk and killing someone as proof “these people” are a menance to us. Steve King does that argument in aces & spades.

    Come on, Steve King’s OpEd piece is the intellectual equivalent of asking TeddieK to write an OpEd on substance abuse… or Clinton on marital fidelity… or DukeCunnigham on public service… or Tom DeLay on campaign finance reform. Use Steve King to bolster your position? This is the same Steve King who compared abuGhraib pictures and controversy to frat “hazing”. This is the guy who doesn’t just want a wall and fence… he wants it electrified, snipers in guard towers allowed to shoot at will and all illegals exported el pronto… even tho he knows it’s not probable or possible.

    Yeah, that Steve King is a great resource on the merits of immigration reform but even kindergarteners can’t teach that old dog any new tricks.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - May 30, 2007

  106. #99 – David – If you REALLY are newbie here, as you seem to claim – Then you are inserting yourself in a long-running conversation that you obviously know little about.

    Matt has VERY often name-called anyone who thinks a tad differently from him on immigration as “hateful”, “racist”, “nativist”, “bigoted”, and as somehow (?) opposed to all immigration.

    Even if he turned over a new leaf (we hope) in this thread and stayed away from the names, he still tossed out the basic thought/implication that his opponents are racist. As V the K noted rightly.

    David, that – and possibly your comments – are what are snarky here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - May 30, 2007

  107. P.S. David – Let me ask a couple informational questions, so I won’t have to guess or make any unfair or unfounded assumptions about you. Are you a newbie? How long have you been around? What other handles have you posted on GayPatriot under?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - May 30, 2007

  108. Matt, as for you:

    I have not been snarky. I have merely reflected YOUR own words and behavior. If you find something snarky in that, Matt, then you need to work on yourself. Your desire to lash out at me is now on display for all to see. Please work on your behavior, Matt. Make peace with the guy in the mirror first, Matt. For the good of this blog – Please.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - May 30, 2007

  109. The “I’m tired of being Mexico’s bitch” comment was in response to the persecution of border guards by the Bush Administration at the behest of the government of Mexico. I never said “Illegals are stealing are jobs” and neither that argument nor arguments noting the depressing effects of illegal immigrants on low-skilled labor markets is inherently racist. Illegal immigrants who work for below market wages depress wages whether they came from Mexico, China, Senegal, or Ireland. I don’t make arguments on the basis of race. Period.

    I don’t know much about Steve King, but it’s typical to attack the messenger when the argument can not be refuted. There is not a hint of nastiness in the linked editorial.

    My consistent pattern of argument has been to point to flaws in the Amnesty bill and this administration’s history of indifference to border security. No personal attacks. No insinuations. No name-calling.

    I know my argument is strong enough, and this bill is flawed enough, that I don’t have to resort to them.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - May 30, 2007

  110. IloveCalarato writes “99 – David – If you REALLY are newbie here, as you seem to claim -”

    Back to those rhetorical games of impugning the integrity of others without having to dirty your hand, C? Come on.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - May 30, 2007

  111. Now, the president may whine that critics are nit-picking the bill, but for myself and many others, the flaw is in the bill’s basic premise: Amnesty now, border security later… maybe… trust us.

    Why is it unthinkable to have a bill that actually secures the border, builds all the fence, completes the Secure Border Initiative, hires trains and equips the Border Patrol before any of the Amnesty provisions kick in? Why is it unreasonable that conservative want verifiable benchmarks, and not just promises from bureaucracies with miserable track records of enforcement? (e.g. 600,000 illegal alien fugitives unaccounted for, workplace enforcement cut 95% in Bush’s first term)

    Why are any of these things extreme and unreasonable if the administration is really serious about border enforcement?

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - May 30, 2007

  112. I still don’t understand how an entire group of conservatives who think free markets are ok, don’t think free migration of labor is ok.

    For the record: I totally, 100% think that free migration of labor is OK.

    Exactly as I predicted in #97, folks: because I oppose illegal immigration, Matt can’t imagine that I also strongly support legal immigration. It’s too mind-blowing. Too inconceivable, that an honest American could do both.

    David, I was able make that prediction based on extensive past experience with Matt’s hateful, cynical name-calling and/or assumptions in regard to those who keep their own opinion (not in agreement with his) on matters of border security and illegal immigration.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - May 30, 2007

  113. #110 – Not at all, Matt. Not at all. Just reflecting that David may have tossed an implication and I am not sure about it. Openly admitting the fact that I don’t know or I am not sure.

    Matt, I tell you again: Look at your own hateful behavior. Look at how you… nowadays…. always put the absolute dirtiest interpretation you can on anything I say… because, and only because, I dare to not fully agree with you on the issue border security and illegal immigration.

    Matt: wake up to yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - May 30, 2007

  114. ILC, long running discussions aside, your comments at #96 & 97 are what they are. You should be able to see that for yourself.

    FYI, I read the the blog when I have time which is infrequent and then only read threads that interest me. I post rarely and have only used David, which is my real name. I am 47. FYFI, I am self employed in the financial markets and have been married to Doc (who is a Doctor) for 23 years. We are Episcopalian and usually, but not always, vote Republican. I consider myself a Republican, but not a conservative. Doc would describe himself similiarly.

    Comment by David — May 30, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - May 30, 2007

  115. Vdak, with respect, you did note in another thread that your son was potentially (?) interested in skilled trades and the illegal immigrants ala Mexicans were driving down wages… etc.

    And you wrote on May 10th “10 million illegals, and the Bush Admin prosecuted four? And don’t get me started on the Border Agents Bush’s Justice Department is throwing in prison. The other dirty little secret of this is that money sent back to Mexico by illegals is the second largest sector of the Mexican economy after oil. There has to be some kind of government-to-government deal going on as well. But, frankly, I’m sick and tired of being Mexico’s bitch.”

    I think my getting to Mexico’s bitch as a metaphor for US greenbacks propping up the Mexican “corrupt” govt is a lot cleaner, direct line than your latest effort to argue Bush’s comments mean he’s calling reform opponents “unAmerican”.

    Again, the simple truth about Steve King –who you note you don’t know much about– is that he’s a notorious anti-immigrant on the FarRightFringe. He’s a conservative. He’s a GOPer.

    No wonder people in the political mainstream can have the impression that conservatives and GOPers are bigots and racists… we’ve got enough in our midst to fill a BigTent.

    You’ve hardly addressed the merits or demerits of the border security and immigration reform bill. Instead, you’ve mischaracterized it ala the AmnestyBandwagon brigade… my short hand for the opponents on the FarRight.

    It’s like the ProLife folks using the term “baby butcher” to describe ProChoice people, or antheist liberals using “Christianist” to link the excesses of radical political Isamic fascists with Christians… the opponents of immigration reform refer to the policy as “Open Borders” when it’s clearly not that at all.

    Like with Amnesty… or the Democrats use of fear in scaring seniors when SocSec reform is discussed… words have consequence in policy debates. Maybe on reflection you didn’t mean the funneling of US greenbacks to Mexico when you noted your were tired of being Mexico’s bitch… but that’s not as great a leap as your recent one to declare Bush said political opponents to reform are unAmerican.

    Practice what you preach, guy. I learn that every Sunday in the pew.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - May 30, 2007

  116. Yes, David. And what they are is: An accurate reflection of the content of Matt’s past comments.

    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Thank you for answering my other questions. I’m glad I took the trouble to ask.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - May 30, 2007

  117. ILoveCalarato, like I use to say to our nuns in grammar school… “Thank you Sister Calarato for correcting me and pointing out the error in my way”. We used to have to say that when corrected –and never, ever debate the value of the correction or defend our opinion. Sometimes, I think you and others want that level of submission here… sorry, if you want that: Go to a leather bar.

    I take you at your word you didn’t mean to cast a credibility pall over David’s comments. Fair enuff?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - May 30, 2007

  118. Again, David, thanks for sticking up when some are piling on with snark and a touch of incredulity. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - May 30, 2007

  119. And there is nothing inherently racial in either of those points MM.

    Also, I have spelled out my problems with the bill in great detail, over and over again. I have spelled out why the border security elements are inadequate and why they are not what the bill’s proponents claim they are. I have spelled out why the administration’s track record can not be trusted. I have spelled out why DHS can not be relied upon to enforce its provisions (mainly because they are not even enforcing current law). I explained why I interpreted the president’s quote as I did. (I wonder if Bush even knows what’s in the bill. John McAmnesty didn’t know that the requirement for back taxes had been taken out of the bill until a radio talk host told him. So much for knowing more about the issue than anyone in the room). I have spelled out the Amnesty bill’s basic unfairness to both law-abiding Americans and to those who have followed the rules and immigrated the legal way.

    And I have done it without name-calling, personal attacks, or Sullivanesque histrionics of any kind.

    And if the bill is passed, I’ll continue to demand better enforcement, instead of walking away and imagining the problem solved as our political elites are wont to do.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - May 30, 2007

  120. And finally, it’s certainly not as if there aren’t racists on the pro-Amnesty side of the debate… La Raza, por ejemplo

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - May 30, 2007

  121. VdaK, I gather that you think claiming the DHS “lost” 600k illegal fugitive aliens is proof positive they can’t do the job of tracking illegal aliens?

    Is that the level of analysis we’re supposed to take as an indication that you’ve debated the merits of one aspect of one issue of the bill?

    Come on, guy. The article noted that DHS has inadequate resouces to do the job… just like the INS before them. The “fugitive” status can portend to political crimes commited in their home country… as the DHS website notes, clearing these cases results in the verification of 1 in 12 true fugitives. If we really wanted to put these fugitive aliens on ice, all we’d need do is to promise local jails a bonus for keeping the true fugitives once captured in local crimes… kind of like now, the Army doesn’t even send staff to take charge of deserters when picked up on traffic offenses by locals. We need to change that policy, too.

    Again, claiming that the lost 600k is proof positive the DHS can’t do the job is kind of like the Steve King OpEd piece you linked to bolster your amnesty argument.

    How many of these do we have to do to get to a point where the demerits of the bill don’t seem so pointed anymore?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - May 30, 2007

  122. Careful now, V. Judging by today’s comments: your reasoned points, careful and accurate statements about the facts, lack of histrionics, lack of negative assumptions about people, lack of name-calling, etc., may be interpreted by some as rhetorical tricks, hateful, snarky, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - May 30, 2007

  123. VdaK, I agree. There are racists on the pro-reform side of the bill as well. I wrote that in one of the comments captured by the filter gods; sorry.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - May 30, 2007

  124. ILoveCalarato… I think you should quit while ahead, guy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - May 30, 2007

  125. Make all the excuses for DHS you want, the fact is they lost 600,000 people they were supposed to be keeping track of. That was their job. They failed. They also passed out $5 million in 2006 for bonuses and offices parties.

    This is the agency that in 2003 reduced its backlog by illegally shredding 90,000 documents.

    This is the agency that sent Mohammed Atta a visa renewal six months after he flew a plane into the WTC.

    This is the agency that completely botched the US-VISIT system that was supposed to track in-bound visitors to the USA.

    The Agency that has failed to investigate more than 500 criminal complaints against its own employees for allegations that include bribery, harboring illegal immigrants, money laundering and aiding known terrorists or being influenced by foreign intelligence services.

    Under the administration that reduced workplace enforcement of immigration law 90% in its first term.

    And yet, we have to have faith they can keep track of the more than 12 million illegals to be amnestized under the program. Verify all their “documentation” and run thorough background checks.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - May 30, 2007

  126. At the end of the day, MM, it comes down to the fact that this administration like all administrations before it, failed to enforce the immigration laws. And we have nothing other than their assurances to believe they will enforce the enforcement provisions of this law.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - May 30, 2007

  127. And the “forgive and forget” attitude toward the current crop of lawbreakers is not reassuring.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - May 30, 2007

  128. And it bugs me that MM just blows off that DHS couldn’t keep track of 600,000 fugitive illegals. Keeping track of those people was their job. They didn’t do it. Then, they paid themselves bonuses. 600,000… last I checked, was a much smaller number than 12,000,000.

    Yeah, it would be nice if we could engage local law enforcement to help track illegals. By the way, an amendment to Kennedy-McCain was offered that would have permitted law enforcement officers to question someone about immigration status if officers had “probable cause” to believe the individual might be illegal. It was voted down. So much for that.

    It just demonstrates in yet another way that this bill is not serious about enforcement.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - May 30, 2007

  129. David, I echo Matt’s sentiments. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments — they reflect some of the things I’m thinking about and I’m priveleged to share them here. I greatly appreciate that you take the time to respond and to support Matt, myself, and others you consider rational. I also appreciate that you seem a common-sense, no nonsense kind of guy and that you’re in a great relationship. Congratulations — you have my admiration!

    I hope you don’t mind if I state the obvious (obvious to the rational, that is): It’s really none of anyone’s business how long you’ve been participating on this blog and you don’t have to justify yourself and/or your presence here to anyone. Although I don’t speak for the owners of this blog and never will, I more than welcome your comments — I wish you had the time to contribute more frequently.

    This blog is advertised as for conservatives, so I’ve always felt like an interloper; I seldom agree with the general gist of many of this blog’s discussions. The site has also become fairly repetitive, which is understandable. I’ll probably move on soon. I’ve no doubt some will be delighted.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 30, 2007 @ 5:13 pm - May 30, 2007

  130. Look, any way you slice it, when you give someone who broke the law the thing he broke the law to get, that’s amnesty. The only thing that wouldn’t be amnesty would be making the lawbreakers go home. I, personally, don’t believe that is practical or even desireable. I could swallow some form of amnesty if I really believed the border was going to be zipped up and there wasn’t going to be millions of more illegals coming over that would necessitate another amnesty in twenty years. The Kennedy-McCain Amnesty bill doesn’t do that. It doesn’t even come close.

    Comment by V the K — May 30, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - May 30, 2007

  131. #129 – HH, good comment. For the record, note I asked David for information – not justification. Purpose of asking people stuff: To avoid making assumptions. You know that in some of our past interactions, you have made some pretty big (as in incorrect) assumptions about me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 30, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - May 30, 2007

  132. VdaK, at the end of the day show me a single federal agency that does the job it’s supposed to do? One, just one. NASA? NOAA? CDC? FDA? EPA? FBI? DoD? State? Or even that behemoth of an agency from hell –DHS? For that matter, how about Congress? Or the lower federal Courts? Or SCOTUS? Or the WH and the huge assembly of ExecOff agencies?

    DHS was charged with a lot of stuff –and it’s not improbable to consider they can’t get it done without the resources and assets needed. Just like the Border Patrol (which is now called what??? something else?)… they need the equipment and tools and personnel and funding to manage the priority tasks. DHS didn’t “lose” 600k in fugitive aliens, VdaK… anymore than Bush said your position is “unAmerican”. Anymore than the reform bill is “amnesty”. But it doesn’t matter to you because I think your anti-govt ideological bent trumps any reasonable assessment about govt functions. Govt is the problem for a lot of people… it’s an easy out for the cynic who then gets to bitch instead of lift, work, compromise with others.

    I appreciate you’re fed up with the federal govt… probably state and local govt too… and public schools and higher ed and…. but at the end of the day, for people like that, the “perfect goal” is going to be made the enemy of the practical, pragmatic achievable goals available today. It’s the same kind of discussion we’ve had about who the GOP regulars OUGHT to choose for Pres… not the one the alleged “base” wants as determined by special interest groups like pro-life and the NRA and the Nativists. Perfect is for purity tests… this is about politics and govt and public policy.

    I think you’ve noted before that govt bureaucracies are generally not competent to your mindset… ok, I think that’s also true of lots of businesses, labor groups, higher ed, church administrations, NPs and other institutions like the WorldBank and NATO and the UN.

    But at some point the govt has to stop being the enemy down the street– the target for the cynical armchair quarterbacks who know what the leaders should have done differently if they’d only listened to the armchair cynics 1st.

    RReagan ran a botched campaign against Gerry Ford making Ford out to be the problem… the enemy. He gave JimmineyCricketCarter all the fodder and strategy the Democrats needed to win. And then, three years later, ran the same campaign against Jimmy –the ultimate DC outsider. Conservatism has always catered to the cynics in the crowd and this time around, on immigration reform, it’s not only catering… the cynics have taken over the party.

    I’m tired of the conservative cynics bleating out the “It’s amnesty, I tell ya” line. They continue to sell distrust of govt, distrust of the possible, cynicism as an escape for all and plead to the lowest denominator in the mob… the angry, the disgruntled, the disenfranchised. To hell with that.

    It is NOT amnesty. It will pass. The Nativists who demand a wall with electrified fencing and razor wire and snipers in the guard towers are going to get something very much like that in the end… and that wall will be a lasting testimony to this generation’s failure to embrace our Nation’s greatest tradition –welcoming immigrants into the culture. And it’s done not out of a respect for the Rule of Law; it’s done out of fear, intolerance and bigotry.

    RReagan and BarryGoldwater wouldn’t recognize today’s conservative antipathy toward immigration reform. It wasn’t what they practiced. It wasn’t what they envisioned for the Shining City on the Hill.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - May 30, 2007

  133. VdaK writes: “Look, any way you slice it, when you give someone who broke the law the thing he broke the law to get, that’s amnesty.”

    Again, some illegal aliens were legal when the entered the US. Nearly half of all illegal immigrants don’t even WANT to become US citizens. The problem is that the immigration visa protocol and quotas (I know, we’re not supposed to call them quotas but they are) are insufficient to meet the needs of labor in the American economy. The immigration reform bill is a pragmatic step to address the problem –where prior efforts have failed and others (like conservatives in the last few Congressional sessions) feared to tread.

    Chill down the economy. We’ll end the illegal immigration flow in a single quarter. Crack down on employers in Ag and Construction and hospitality… we’ll end the illegal flow fast.

    The problem is that some outside govt want to control who becomes an American or works in America without a willingness to take the pragmatic, reasonable marketplace pressures on labor into context. We can fix illegal immigration real, real fast. It’s just that the untoward consequences of the “fix” is toxic to us all.

    And V, I agree with you on a lot of points about a lot of issues… the bill doesn’t address the sanctuary movement strongly enuff for instance… but on the need for this bill to become law, we’re going to remain on opposite ends of the spectrum.

    Hey, wasn’t this a thread about AQ torture techniques? Where is PatrickGryphon when he’s needed?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - May 30, 2007

  134. ILoveCapitalism, so you won’t mind if I waterboard you then?

    Yea, Al Qeada a brutal pigs. But we’re ok because we don’t go quite as far as they do.

    Comment by ZealotSmasher — August 9, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - August 9, 2007

  135. Yea, Al Qeada a brutal pigs. But we’re ok because we don’t go quite as far as they do.

    Another example of “moral equivalence” disease. Always find a way to blame America, folks.

    ILoveCapitalism, so you won’t mind if I waterboard you then?

    Umm… Let’s check. Have I done anything to deserve it? Am I knee-deep in plots to kill civilians, or practice real torture on them?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 13, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - September 13, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.