Bush Wasn’t Polarizing, His Election Was
One of the things I find most annoying about the coverage of President Obama’s inauguration was how certain Democrats compared the good will shown and national unity expressed to the previous two inaugurals, both of George W. Bush.
It’s as if that Republican created the contention of those two ceremonies,Ă‚Â But, the then-president wasn’t the one organizing the protests against his swearing-in.Ă‚Â Those who make that comparison, while meaning to slight the former president, unwittingly end up slighting his attackers.
It just seems that some people, a class of people given a pass (if not outright or tacit support) by the media, can’t accept that a Republican could win election to the highest office in the land.
But, we Republicans and conservatives, well most of us least, are a different breed. As Robert Stacy McCain puts it “conservatives aren’t going through anything like the grief/angst/outrage that Democrats went through after the 2000 and 2004 elections” (Via Glenn).
To be sure, the former President, after the 2002 elections, could have done more to unite the nation, especially by better defending his own policies and by better challenging those on the far left (and their media enablers) who sought to slander him.Ă‚Â But, he would not have been as polarizing a figure as he would become had others not sought relentlessly to undermine him.
92 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Fixed it for ya.
Also, trust me: America will end up PLENTY polarized by Obammunism. Especially when the 20% inflation rates hit in 2011 / 2012.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 22, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - January 22, 2009
Good “correction” ILC.
My title fits on one line though.
Maybe it should be “Bush Wasn’t Polarizing, His Election was/To Those on Left who Couldn’t Accept the idea of a Republican president”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2009 @ 10:03 pm - January 22, 2009
Yeah, and the left is aggrieved, bitter, and outraged that the right isn’t nearly as miserable as they wanted us to be.
Comment by Miranda Priestley — January 22, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - January 22, 2009
On the day the President renounced the torture policies of the previous admin, and hopefully began to correct eight years of financial mismanagement, the right is still frantically attempting to rewrite history.
And GPW is not alone! A quick scan of many right wing blogs shows many other attempts to gloss over the recent past.
I don’t blame you. There is lots to try and gloss over. Perhaps that is why you are trying so hard.
Comment by gillie — January 22, 2009 @ 11:12 pm - January 22, 2009
and hopefully began to correct eight years of financial mismanagement,
By appointing a tax cheat as the head of the Treasury Department, and preparing to sign off on 2 trillion dollars in deficit spending.
Comment by Miranda Priestley — January 22, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - January 22, 2009
On the day the President renounced the torture policies of the previous admin
Interesting that the Dear One’s first public act as president doesn’t benefit the American people, but foreign terrorists.
Comment by V the K — January 22, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - January 22, 2009
6: No, it re-asserts that we’re better than terrorists because we will no longer engage in heinous acts like they do, such as torture. Too bad Bush and company didn’t understand that.
Comment by Kevin — January 23, 2009 @ 12:04 am - January 23, 2009
I don’t think I agree with this.
I read and hear a hell of a lot of angst from conservatives about the policies Obama and the Democrats intend to inact. I think there is a lot of grief over the destruction they will inflict on our country. And there is even some outrage that socialists came to power on a tissue of lies.
Whats different is how much less childishly conservatives express it all.
Comment by American Elephant — January 23, 2009 @ 12:04 am - January 23, 2009
Whats sad Gillie, is when rubes such as yourself dont recognize when they are being lied to for political gain at the expense of the country.
From the Associated Press:
Even the fact that Obama is considering this loophole refutes everything he has said and validates everything Bush has done in regards to interrogation.
Democrats and Obama have blatantly and intentionally lied about the necessities of national security for partisan gain in a time of war at great expense to the nation. And you are merely one of their useful idiots.
Comment by American Elephant — January 23, 2009 @ 12:10 am - January 23, 2009
@5: It might not be deficit spending if the “fiscal conservatives” in the GOP Congress (in power for 12 years) and the GOP President (in power for
who spent us into a hole had left us any money while they were wrecking the economy. You do know who left us so far in debt, right?
@6: Repeat after me slowly: “We were torturing people that we thought might be terorists but nothing had been proven, were accused of being terrorists but nothing had been proven, were sometimes found later to be innocent of terrorism and nothing had been proven, were guilty of lesser charges and nothing terrorism-related had been proven…” do you see how this works? You seem to have no problem with the US torturing people before we know if they are guilty of anything. Why is that? People snatched on raids from Iraq get tortured for info, with no idea if it will lead to actionable info or not, or even if they know anything – you’re ok with that? Even if you are, that’s not an American value.
@8: You’re not reading enough Free Republic.
Comment by torrentprime — January 23, 2009 @ 1:23 am - January 23, 2009
Our prisoners are alive. Their prisoners are DEAD, you team killing fucktard!!!! We’re a DAMN SIGHT BETTER than they are.
We have the right, under Geneva, to detain prisoners captured until the official end of hostilities. We DO NOT have to charge them with anything. We DO NOT have to allow them access to legal counsel who rakes in mega bucks and kicks some of it back to Washington liberals.
So take your fake, righteous indignation and shove it right back into your twat where it belongs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 23, 2009 @ 1:27 am - January 23, 2009
#10
Repeat after me slowly (your speed) dipshit: We “tortured” exactly 3 people, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and two of his cronies. All three were directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and other conspiracies to attack the U.S. Other than those three, you ain’t got dick.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 23, 2009 @ 1:32 am - January 23, 2009
gillie is very easily deceived.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 2:13 am - January 23, 2009
Oh, and torrentprime, guess who it turns out came up with the concept you now scream is “torture”?
Warning to everyone else: the Obama Party shill will now turn a 180 and suddenly start explaining why The One needs to “torture” and why The One’s nominee for CIA head should be allowed to “torture”. Be sure to get out of the way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2009 @ 2:16 am - January 23, 2009
Torrentprime,
Its politics. I expect liberals to get together with other liberals and bad mouth Republicans just as its natural for Republicans to do the same. Thats why I dont quote things from Democrat Underground, Daily Kos and the other wretched hives of scum and villainy that your ilk frequent.
Instead, I quote what liberals and their elected and unelected leaders do and say in public, like vandalizing the White House, stealing top secret documents, producing plays and movies about assassinating President Bush, leaking national secrets for political gain, leaders of your party calling president Bush a liar for coming to the same conclusions they did based on their own assessments even before he took office, badmouthing the nation overseas, rampaging GOP headquarters, destroying public and private propety and on and on…
this is not the understandable and normal name calling and bad mouthing that goes on among ideological peers, but a whole different level of rank immaturity, anti-Americanism and thuggery that simply doesn’t exist on the right.
And sorry, but as usual, TGC is absolutely right. We “tortured” a total of three people, which got us the intelligence to foil several plots, the airline plot which was very close to execution among them. And you can argue all you want that it wasn’t proven that Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cohorts were terrorists, but you’ll only look like an ass. So I guess I should expect you to.
Comment by American Elephant — January 23, 2009 @ 2:29 am - January 23, 2009
WOW NDT, I hadn’t seen that. Thanks.
Comment by American Elephant — January 23, 2009 @ 2:31 am - January 23, 2009
Gillie, please identify the history I’m trying to rewrite. Thanks.
And it might be nice as well if you link to a few of those “right wing” blogs and explain how they’re trying to “gloss over the recent past.”
Thanks again!
On and torrent, in #10, please note that the US only sanctioned what some call torture on a handful of terrorists and then to extract information from them that was used to prevent terrorist attacks. Please check your facts.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 23, 2009 @ 3:20 am - January 23, 2009
We can only pray that no American lives are sacrificed on the altar of liberal smugness. Obama, gillie, and torrentprime care more about the comfort of terrorists than saving American lives.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 7:54 am - January 23, 2009
Bruce, Dan, spam filter.
Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 8:00 am - January 23, 2009
Longer post in filter, here’s the first paragraph.
Lets not forget that when the democrats were the minority party, they were introducing resolutions to bring back the draft, pull out of Iraq, cut funding etc. They got hoist by their own petard when the republicans actually let those motions come to the floor for a vote. Then we got to see the democrats backpetal.
Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 8:01 am - January 23, 2009
#17 – your comment in of itself is an attempt to rewrite history:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf
A quote:
“Exemplifying the disturbing nature and substance of the training, the SERE instructors explained “Biderman’s Principles” – which were based on coercive methods used by the Chinese Communist dictatorship to elicit false confessions from U.S. POWs during the Korean War – and left with GTMO personnel a chart of those coercive techniques.”
False confessions?!?!?!? WTF
Comment by gillie — January 23, 2009 @ 9:12 am - January 23, 2009
And that quote doesn’t challenge a thing Dan posted, gillie.
Thank you try again.
Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 9:19 am - January 23, 2009
Thank you try again.
Or, better yet, gillie, just go play with your Colorforms and let the grown-ups talk. We’ll bring you a juice-box later.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 9:27 am - January 23, 2009
#22 & 23
please read the link and please investigate further the shameful Bush legacy of torture
Comment by gillie — January 23, 2009 @ 9:30 am - January 23, 2009
LOL. You regressive republicans will try and say anything to rewrite the past eight years of failure.
Bush “won” the 2000 election with the help of the US Supreme Court. He won the 2004 election by 111,000 votes in Ohio. It was a country divided in two, egged on by Bush’s horrible policies and divisive tactics.
Contrast to 2008 where Obama won in a landslide, both the popular vote and the electoral college. With Obama reaching across the aisle, and building consensus, this country is healing from the past eight years; it’s too bad the core of the GOP will do anything to obstruct that cohesion. Pathetic.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — January 23, 2009 @ 9:37 am - January 23, 2009
Actually, a cumulative swing of 500,000 votes in FL, NV, VA, IN, OH, and CO would have changed the outcome… and this was against a thoroughly awful Republican candidate who was outspent by the Dear One by about 6-to-1. Not really that much of a landslide, all things considered.
Also, the left has been chanting for the last eight years that “Dissent is patriotic.” Does that no longer apply now that the Lamb of Chicago has been anointed.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 9:46 am - January 23, 2009
Dan, you’re forgetting one major piece of history: Bush lost the 2000 election. At least, that’s the narrative that many Democrats subscribed to and while you might very rightly disagree with it, it’s not 100% without merit. In terms of the popular vote, it’s absolutely true, and the technical aspects of the electoral college and vote counting ultimately had to be resolved by one of the bodies most reviled by conservatives: a court. That said, you’re right, there were more liberal protestors against Bush’s inaugurals in ’01 and ’05 than conservative protestors against Obama in ’09. I’m sorry, though, I don’t buy your fundamental argument that such a comparison means conservatives are somehow… “a different breed”. That kind of makes me gag. You guys also keep talking about all this “bush-hatred”, but you’re conveniently forgetting all the Clinton hatred that persisted not only during his presidency, but into Bush’s.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 10:07 am - January 23, 2009
CR. Bush won the election. Period. It is not determined by the popular vote. It happened in the past, and likely will happen again.
Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 10:24 am - January 23, 2009
I’ll say it: The “narrative” that Bush somehow lost his first Presidential election is 100% without merit.
The real election happens, per the Constitution, on January 6 of the following year. Bush absolutely won it. No ifs, ands or buts are possible. No alternate “narrative” has any validity whatsoever. No other polls, votes, or margins count in any fashion.
As to how the State of Florida chose the electors it sent to the Jan 6, 2001 election: A consortium of major newspapers reviewed all the votes and recount scenarios. Gore lost under every recount variation that he had requested. So, the right set of Florida electors (reflecting the true winner in Florida) were seated.
CR, I don’t know but perhaps you are conveniently forgetting that Clinton had committed actual crimes under American law, like perjury. Plus, we’ve all since learned that the fecklessness and incompetence of his administration’s response to al Qaeda attacks on America in 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000 led directly to 9-11.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 10:41 am - January 23, 2009
A primer on how Presidential elections work:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/dates.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 10:44 am - January 23, 2009
Note the Dear One’s change of language. I didn’t even like ‘The War on Terror,’ but now the Lamb of Chicago is calling it ‘The Struggle Against Violence.’
The word ‘Struggle’ is far more defensive, for one thing. One thinks of ‘War’ in terms of armies massed in purpose. A ‘struggle’ is what happens when you try to get away from an assailant in a dark alley. ‘Terror’ was at least somewhat specific to Global Jihad/Islamic Fascism, but ‘Violence’ is nebulous. It implies that jihadists are not much different than South Central gangbangers.
I guess we should all be hoping that smugness, timidity, and weakness will succeed, huh? Because criticizing the Dear One would just be wrong.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 10:51 am - January 23, 2009
It also sets up a moral equation between us and the vicious, evil jihadists. Because one important or recognized translation of ‘jihad’ is ‘struggle’. He may as well start calling it the Jihad against Violence.
I feel awful that lives are probably going to be lost as we all learn, the hard way, the stupidity of the Messiah.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 11:08 am - January 23, 2009
Detainee Released from GITMO becomes top Al Qaeda leader.
Gee, I thought they were all innocent little lambs who were picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please explain how this could happen, terrorist-defenders?
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 11:09 am - January 23, 2009
Thanks for the premier on how presidents are elected. You know us libs… we can barely find the crapper when we start gettin’ that backed up feeling. Yeesh. Yes, gentlemen, I know how it works. But if you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge there is ANY merit on the otherside, then you are just as hidebound and stuck in the mud as you claim those nasty, evil liberals are. 2000 was a horrific election, and there are people who, I’m sorry, have quite a bit more education than you on Constitutional law who say Bush lost. You have EVERY right to disagree with them (and me) and you may, in fact, be correct, but just because you disagree does not mean a differing opinion has no merit. If you can’t even start with such a basic premise, then you’re just as guilty as creating the hyper-partisan atmosphere that pervades American politics as you claim the liberals are. (And so am I. I confess I’ve come here and fired off a few pot shots now and again.) As for Clinton’s perjury… please don’t start pointing fingers about who committed what crime while president. You want to say Clinton lied about sex, I’ll say Bush (or his subordinates, to be more precise) lied about WMDs and authorized the use of torture, thereby committing war crimes. (And, for the record, I do NOT support prosecutions for war crimes, so please don’t even go there.)
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 11:24 am - January 23, 2009
Off-topic: We’re once again going to be paying for abortions overseas, camouflaged as “providing information and education.” Thanks, Obama — the Kenyans love you.
Comment by Ignatius — January 23, 2009 @ 11:28 am - January 23, 2009
# 33 “And, for the record, I do NOT support prosecutions for war crimes, so please don’t even go there.”
Why not?
Rummy, Yoo and Perhaps Bush seem to be guilty guilty guilty.
The Hague should at least investigate them.
Of course, then we would have to suffer the embarrassment of having an Ex-President not be able to leave the country for fear of imprisonment.
Comment by gillie — January 23, 2009 @ 11:45 am - January 23, 2009
CR, I routinely acknowledge there is merit to the other side… when there is merit to the other side. In this case, there simply isn’t. Let’s review again.
- The real election was in early January of 2001.
- There is absolutely no question whatever that Bush won that election. None.
- There were questions about how Florida’s contribution to that vote was decided. After the dust settled, in 2001, America’s top newspapers got together and did the recounts that Gore had wanted. He lost them.
These are matters of fact, CR. Deal with the facts. It is as if someone were trying to tell you “2 + 2 = 4″, and you were saying “But if you refuse to acknowledge that there is ANY merit on the otherside, that maybe 2 + 2 = 5″… No. 2 + 2 is never 5. Ever. Period. Deal with it. Live in the real world.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 11:46 am - January 23, 2009
(continued)
Well, that’s something.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. That’s not what I “want” to say. Rather, the *reality* – whether I wanted it or not, is 100% irrelevant, though in fact I did NOT want it – is that Clinton intentionally gave incomplete, false and misleading answers when under oath.
Go ahead, but saying it won’t make it true. Again, CR: The point is to live in the real world. Not to make sh*t up. Bush did not intentionally give incomplete, false or misleading answers under oath, about WMD or anything. And the CIA under Bush didn’t “torture” or do anything that Americans, in the aftermath of 9-11, didn’t want them to do. Now, if you want to be a fool by trying to have your own “facts” here, like (say) gillie, knock yourself out.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 11:50 am - January 23, 2009
CR–
It really is quite simple. We acknowledge no merit on the other side of the 2000 election question because there *is* no merit on the other side of the 2000 election question. Does the throwing of tantrums (not on your part, but on the part of others) somehow create merit? If there really are “people who, I’m sorry, have quite a bit more education than you on Constitutional law who say Bush lost”, then they have certainly earned pity for their emotional problems and thinking skills, but they have not earned any respect for their contrived, insane opinions.
Comment by Matteo — January 23, 2009 @ 11:53 am - January 23, 2009
ILC: “There were questions about how Florida’s contribution to that vote was decided. After the dust settled, in 2001, America’s top newspapers got together and did the recounts that Gore had wanted. He lost them.” Sorry, but that is The Contested Issue. As you say, it was “decided”, but many people, including constitutional scholars, say it was decided incorrectly; a decision based on ideology rather than law. You tell me to deal with it, but I have. I actually don’t give a hoot about 2000 or Bush. It’s done and over with. You’re the one who seems to be getting hung up on it. Bring it back to Dan’s post: there were more liberal protestors in 2001 than there were conservative in 2009. I simply mentioned one of (if not The) reason why that was the case. I didn’t ask anyone to agree with it. Anyway, I hope what you say about recognizing merit when it exists is true, but it sure doesn’t sound like it.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 11:54 am - January 23, 2009
P.S. I should stick with CR’s specific claim, as worded. That was:
Our government is very bureaucratic. *Everything* is authorized by some memo or authorizing document – or else it isn’t authorized. Kindly cite the document where some Bush administration signed off on the following words (or appropriately similar): “Mr. CIA interrogator, you requested permission to torture and it is hereby authorized”.
(Hint: No one in the Bush administration ever said it’s OK to torture. They authorized some interrogation techniques that have been made into a political football, after careful legal review to establish that the techniques WERE NOT torture, positions retrospectively blessed by the United States Congress in a bill passed in 2006.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 11:57 am - January 23, 2009
The entire last 8 years, capped with the crowning of our new Messiah, has been such an exercise in auto-eroticism. The lefties created a hell in their own minds, going berzerk about a President who was little more than a mild-mannered centrist (who did what *any* President should have done after 9/11), and then worshiping the man serving as Savior from their own self-created misery. Absolutely masturbatory from beginning to end. And utterly shameful.
Comment by Matteo — January 23, 2009 @ 11:59 am - January 23, 2009
No, CR. You’re still not getting it.
The newspapers got together and counted the votes, under various recount standards. In every standard that Gore had requested at the time, he still lost. That is a FACT. Not a question of legal interpretation. A question of empirical fact. WHICH standard Florida should or shouldn’t have gone with, or which SCOTUS should or shouldn’t have permitted to continue, is the question of legal interpretation. The newspapers did not look at that question. They found, as a question of FACT, that Gore lost all the different ones he had requested – so that, in a very real and important sense, different decisions by the courts on the legal questions would not have changed Florida’s outcome.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - January 23, 2009
Would someone please give Gillie his juicebox!
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - January 23, 2009
Matteo, you’re getting me hot.
Comment by Ignatius — January 23, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - January 23, 2009
ILC: Last time because “you’re still not getting it”. The newspaper recounts happened AFTER the inauguration. They are 100% irrelevant to the protests on the day of the inauguration. What is relevant is the perception at the time of what happened in that election and how the court “decided” it. That’s all I’m going to say on it because it clearly isn’t productive.
#35: I say I don’t support prosecutions for war crimes b/c the people who may have actually committed torture have a virtually iron-clad legal defense: the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States. That’s basically a get-out-of-jail-free card. That leaves only senior administration officials and, much like Ford’s pardon of Nixon, I think it’s better for the country to just move on and start healing. A middle-ground proposal I heard was to have a public commission try to learn the truth and, in the process, grant amnesty to everyone who testifies. Not a witch hunt and no prosecutions, but just trying to learn the truth of what happened (or didn’t).
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 12:08 pm - January 23, 2009
#40: Many legal scholars (I dare say a majority) and even some interrogators agree that “waterboarding”, one of your authorized techniques, is per se torture and the administration authorized its use against detainees.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 12:28 pm - January 23, 2009
So?
I say if pouring water over a terrorist’s face for 90 seconds can save American lives, go for it.
But, I see other worry more about making terrorists uncomfortable than saving innocent lives.
It’s a fundamental difference in worldview.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - January 23, 2009
V: I understand (and somewhat share) your feelings on it, but the fact is we’ve signed international treaties (aka “laws”) that prohibit the use of torture. Ultimately, we are a society of laws and we will live and die by them. I also don’t think it does anything to protect us b/c I think the “information” gained from it is highly suspect.
Additionally, although a slight tangent, it’s also something many of our service members object to because they feel it (a) undermines our moral authority and (b) puts our own troops at greater risk of torture. Our upstairs neighbor is a former spec-ops Marine, and I have a friend who is a retired Army Captain and psychiatrist who was responsible for intelligence and interrogations, and they are both opposed to torture. Neither are “legal scholars” or egg-head intellectuals, and one of them voted for McCain. They both oppose waterboarding, and I share their concerns.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 12:40 pm - January 23, 2009
gillie conveniently forgets that the liberal/left hatred of Bush goes back not just to the 2000 election but to well before that. So any talk about “torture” policies being the cause of the animosity is simply silly.
Comment by pst314 — January 23, 2009 @ 1:04 pm - January 23, 2009
#48 –
So you think its OK to torture innocent people because MAYBE they have information?
Yikes.
Comment by gillie — January 23, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - January 23, 2009
Again missing the point. CR, please point to the administration memo that said “Mr. CIA interrogator, you requested permission to torture and it is hereby authorized”.
Can’t do it? Cat got your tongue? Too much evidence out there that, in fact, the Bush administration reviewed the techniques in question carefully, and believed sincerely and with reason that they weren’t torture? And, let’s not forget, too much evidence that top Democrats were informed at the time and, by their silence, agreed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - January 23, 2009
Duh.
First, what is relevant to the protests “on the day of the inauguration” (my, you are occupying a narrow slice of territory! But I digress) is that *beyond any doubt whatsoever, Bush did, in fact, win the election* of Jan 6, 2001, which under the United States Constitution is the real election.
Second – What about the eight years after the inauguration? The newspaper consortium recounts were completed fairly early in 2001. What about your own behavior in this thread in 2009, CR, still trying to claim “Bush lost the 2000 election… the narrative… [is] not 100% without merit” LOL
No. He won it. Grow up. Deal with it. Live in the world of facts. You’re entitled to your own opinions, CR – not your own facts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - January 23, 2009
Did Al Qaeda ever sign a treaty foreswearing torture? Is waterboarding torture? I say where there’s no inherent risk of death, no permanent disfigurement, no extreme pain… there’s no torture. And even if it were torture, if it saves the lives of innocent people, I’d rather save lives than sit back and smugly congratulate myself on my moral superiority while women and children are blown up.
I’m not esoteric, I’m practical.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - January 23, 2009
#52: http://tinyurl.com/59r3d7 … Adminsitration officials explicitly authorizing the use of waterboarding. Beyond that, look at Wikipedia for a whole host of sources and organizations that define waterboarding as torture.
#53: As I said, I’m done talking with you about it. It’s not a “narrow” slice but rather is the slice Dan discussed in his post. That you want to broaden it to some massive indictment of liberals throughout the Bush presidency just makes it impossible to discuss. As I said, I’m done, not because I don’t respect your opinion, but because it’s obvious we will never agree on it. It’s a waste of time for both of us.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - January 23, 2009
CR, get this through your head: Everyone in the military opposes torture. Or at least, everyone who is anyone, and not a psycho. I oppose torture. Strongly. Your statement there is every bit as silly as saying:
Everyone in the military opposes war and wants peace. Every sane citizen opposes war, strongly, and wants peace. That’s a side issue, but the point is to illustrate how stupid it is to make statements of the general category, “Even military people oppose war” or “Even military people oppose torture”. We all do.
The questions worth debating or examining are:
1) What exactly is torture? What interrogation techniques fall on what side of what line, and exactly why?
2) Is torture U.S. policy? Is it ‘authorized’? (The answers here are so obvious: No and no.)
3) And even if one had to agree that something were torture, and therefore unauthorized and to be opposed in normal circumstances, is it still possible to conceive of circumstances so grave and overriding that one’s opposition to it or lack of authorization for it could and should, morally, be set aside?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 2:32 pm - January 23, 2009
That would be, what – your third self-righteous declaration of that kind? And yet you soldier on, continuing to talk about it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - January 23, 2009
#56: *sigh* Talking about a narrow slice. Here’s what you want to hear: “NO! NO BUSHIE EVER AUTHORIZED ‘TORTURE’!!!!” Okay? Happy? Now, will you please read what I wrote? The Bush Administration authorized waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Your argument that because they didn’t authorize the word “torture”, only techniques, can basically be summarized as, “They authorized lining people up in the streets, pointing guns at them, and pulling the triggers, but it’s legal because they only authorized a technique and not ‘murder’.” For crying out loud, that’s some convoluted logic. I’m beginning to think you’re working on the same level as AmericanElephant. Maybe that’s a compliment to you. Take it as you like.
Comment by CR — January 23, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - January 23, 2009
Some people call listening to Barney the dinosaur torture (saw it defined as such on PBS the other night)
5 year olds don’t.
So are parents who subject their kids to Barney toruring them? In your world, yes.
Comment by The Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - January 23, 2009
Translation:
1) CR can’t handle or admit that there is legitimate debate over whether, or how, waterboarding is “torture”. Or that the Bush administration never did authorize torture.
2) CR can’t or won’t examine the real questions I outlined earlier.
CR, as regards the legitimate debate over whether, or how, waterboarding could constitute “torture”, I think a different commentor (than I) made a point earlier that you should really consider:
You see, CR, the “is waterboarding torture?” question is in the realm of opinion, not fact. See you need to consider both sides.
But that Bush won the election of early January 2001 is not a matter of opinion: it is a fact. Heck, it was even a known fact on Inauguration Day 2001. And that the Bush administration never had a policy like “Hey, we authorize torture” is a fact. Grow up. Live in the world of facts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - January 23, 2009
Some people call listening to Barney the dinosaur torture (saw it defined as such on PBS the other night)
Listening to that godawful inauguration “poem” was torture.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - January 23, 2009
Seriously, the Vogons called. They want their poetry back.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - January 23, 2009
Listening to Aretha Franklin singing in that fugly hat was torture.
Comment by Sean A — January 23, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - January 23, 2009
Tom Hanks apologizes for calling Prop 8 supporters un-American. That’s a very rare gesture, and it should be noted.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - January 23, 2009
THANKS V
TOM HANKS: Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use “un- American” lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.
MAYBE some of the conversations and commentors here at GP could be framed in terms of respectful disagreement. . . but then again,
in the glory of Disney’s Lion King, some prefer to be Shenzi, Banzai and ED.
Comment by rusty — January 23, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - January 23, 2009
[...] Bush Wasn’t Polarizing, His Election Was [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On the Hatred of the (Gay) Left — January 23, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - January 23, 2009
#65 – As spoken by the biggest polarizing commenter out there.
Pot, meet kettle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 23, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - January 23, 2009
The best part about the apology is it wasn’t the usual weaselly words we get from leftists. (“I apologize if my words offended anyone.”) He admits he was wrong to call his opponents un-American. I respect that.
Comment by V the K — January 23, 2009 @ 5:07 pm - January 23, 2009
#68 – To quote his most famous movie role: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 23, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - January 23, 2009
hey, I’ll give him credit for admitting his mistakes. It’s a rarity anymore
Comment by The_Livewire — January 23, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - January 23, 2009
my favorite from Hanks: My work is magnified by the fact that the streets of heaven are too crowded with angels — we know their names, they number a thousand for each red ribbon we wear here tonight. in his acceptance speech for his role in Philadelphia.
Oh Peter, McConnel is calling for the end of the pettiness also:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-sings-bipartisan-tune/
Ciao
Comment by rusty — January 23, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - January 23, 2009
>You see, CR, the “is waterboarding torture?” question is in the realm of opinion, not fact.
ILC, waterboarding as torture was a settled question in legal and ethical circles since at least the 1940s, when we prosecuted Japanese and German interrogators for it. A simple wiki search shows that, world-wide, from the Geneva Conventions on down, its prosecuted as a crime in the first world. It wasn’t until 9/11 that we tried to carve out an exception for it and for us.
You know, when John McCain tells you it’s torture, and Christopher Hitchens, who willingly had it done to himself twice and who’s no fan of the Islamists, tells states it’s torture, and forty years of case-law tells you its torture, a memo from Alberto Gonzalez and the opining of a few talk-show hosts, isn’t enough to suggest otherwise.
While it may have been the election of Bush that was polarizing, the choices he made and the policies that he initiated, over the years didn’t help matters any.
Comment by Jody — January 23, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - January 23, 2009
#71 – Rusty, please don’t confuse Hanks and a stupid ribbon for what has really transpired in our communities.
I would hope you were better than that. I guess I was wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 23, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - January 23, 2009
oh I know. after helping 40 people die, sitting with 8 in their last hours.
sometimes that red ribbon brings not only a tear, but a smile.
Comment by rusty — January 24, 2009 @ 12:24 am - January 24, 2009
Ok, so back to Arethas hat.
I loved it. I love that black women wear big garish hats to church. I wish more women would wear hats.
Comment by American Elephant — January 24, 2009 @ 2:22 am - January 24, 2009
ILC, waterboarding as torture was a settled question in legal and ethical circles since at least the 1940s, when we prosecuted Japanese and German interrogators for it.
Actually, we prosecuted them for a) doing a lot more than just waterboarding and b) doing torture on a massive scale to everyone for little or no reason.
Meanwhile, what amuses me to no end is how Jody and his ilk get all excited over waterboarding three high-value terrorists who were sworn to the death of thousands of Westerners and who themselves had endorsed, supported, and pushed such actions as the sawing off of Daniel Pearl’s head and throwing acid on young girls whose only crime was daring to go to school.
But then again, those latter actions on the part of the terrorists don’t suit their “it’s all Bush’s fault” mentality, or their need to attack and blame Bush for everything. The left, especially the leftists like Jody, simply don’t care about torture; all they care about is Bush-bashing. Their whining and tantrum-throwing over Saddam’s removal, given that Saddam made the Nazis look like pikers when it came to systematic torture, is a dead giveaway for that fact.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2009 @ 2:25 am - January 24, 2009
I’m intrigued by this CR. He says:
That a lib would know what a crapper is and/or knows what that “backed up feeling” means is nothing short of amazing and worthy of one of those butter cookies we used to get in kindergarten.
But then I that that’s what Chairman Obama meant by “Changeâ„¢”.
CR also says:
The fact is that we don’t “revile” courts. We revile judges who see fit to decree laws or change them from the bench as when the Florida Supreme Court decided to change our election laws just so Algore could win.
Interestingly, he also says:
But in his comments, it’s clear that he doesn’t give a damn about Algore’s flagrant disrespect of our state’s election laws. He even says:
If he truly believed in the rule of law, he wouldn’t have made that last comment. Nor would he have used his own version of “it’s just sex” with regard to his beloved spank-bank material, lord BJ.
He also says:
And the shit of the much vaunted “constitutional scholars” doesn’t stink? I’ll remind you that they love to throw out there that Chairman Obama is a “constitutional scholar”. Based on his words and deeds, one has to wonder if he even knows what the U.S. Constitution even looks like.
He also says:
The perception at the time, as well as know, was based on yet another damnable liberal lie. Just like the response to Katrina, Valerie Wilson, “torture”, the fired U.S. Attorneys, global warmism, “civil war” in Iraq, “quagmire”, Iraq = Vietnam, the “Haditha Massacre”, etc. etc. etc.
And then gillie pops off with:
No, I (for one) think its OK for a muderous sonofabitch like KSM to pound sand along with gushing pussy “americans” who will smear their country and her soldiers to protect that kind of garbage.
You know, the kind of douchebag that looks at the poor “innocents” with 3 square meals, top notch medical care, prayer rugs, soccer balls etc. and claim that we treat our prisoners worse than this:
http://tinyurl.com/clnatp
or bastards who do this:
http://tinyurl.com/czklsl
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2009 @ 3:21 am - January 24, 2009
>Actually, we prosecuted them for a) doing a lot more than just waterboarding and b) doing torture on a massive scale to everyone for little or no reason.
Actually, we criminally prosecuted our own for waterboarding “just a few people,” at the end of the Spanish-American war, Vietnam, and even here at home. Again, a little reading shows that we, Americans, have been against the practice, as we should we be.
I don’t know about you and your family ND40, but the America my family fought and died for was about being the best in the face of darkness, not about becoming that darkness.
You are free to advocate for pissing on the sacrifices of our forefathers by becoming the very thing they fought against. Mine didn’t torture. They fought, defeated, and brought to justice those who did. I am though free to call your view what it is: inane, cowardly and quite simply, un-American.
Comment by Jody — January 24, 2009 @ 4:33 am - January 24, 2009
What is funny here is that BHO signed an order saying no more torture, but left himself as the sole decider on when and if it needed to be done he can authorize it. What is wild is he did not define the torture techniques he would authorize ie. waterboarding, only techniques listed by the CIA. In other words, secret stuff. Can you imagine the howling if Bush did that? The media would have picked it apart, but when the one does it, they are virtually silent. If you posters here so opposed to “torture” really want to defend the integrity of the USA, you would say something about the executive office giving themselves so much power on day one! You really trust this president that much? You are all fools.
The lefties I know have constantly screamed to me that fascism would show up waving the flag and carrying a bible. Not so, clueless, usefull idiots. Fascism will show up with posters of one man plastered everywhere with a catchy simple easy to remember phrase like hope and change. Fascism will show up when youth march in lockstep like paramilitants professing what that one man means to them. Fascism will show up when kindergarten classes sing songs dedicated to dear leader. Fascism will show up when that man makes a gesture of “goodwill” to his followers, but leaves himself power without limits that his followers don’t even question. You people do not believe in your cause, you are making excuses for your dear leader!!
Comment by BCnSanDeeahgo — January 24, 2009 @ 10:45 am - January 24, 2009
It all comes down to, the left would rather see a thousand innocent people blown up, murdered, or maimed than pour water over a terrorist’s nose for two minutes to get the information that could save them.
All this jive about, “what if they’re innocent,” is just jive; because even if a lefty knew for a fact human lives would be saved by subjecting a terrorist to temporary discomfort, they would still oppose it. Because it allows them to fell smug and sanctimonious like Jody.
The left is truly evil.
Comment by V the K — January 24, 2009 @ 11:11 am - January 24, 2009
Sorry, I looked it up again, not necessarily CIA techniques, but a task force that will review and look into interrogation techniques outside of the Army Manual that may prove to be necessary in keeping the country safe. Now, I am okay with doing whatever is necessary to save women and children, but you lefties are so hypocritical, it boggles the mind. Your “boy” just gave himself the power to torture in an executive order that supposedly “bans torture”. Pretend Bush just did that. Say something!!
Comment by BCnSanDeeahgo — January 24, 2009 @ 11:15 am - January 24, 2009
I don’t know about you and your family ND40, but the America my family fought and died for was about being the best in the face of darkness, not about becoming that darkness.
And therein lies the difference, Jody; my family fought to preserve American lives, and your family is concerned with protecting and coddling those who want to take them.
If the waterboarding of one suspect saves one American life, the calculus balances — unless, of course, you would argue that allowing one American to be killed is less important than avoiding upsetting a terrorist. You simply do not value American lives as much as you do terrorists.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - January 24, 2009
Okay, if you don’t approve of waterboarding, what do you lefties consider acceptable?
Tickling? The threat of wall to wall Full House reruns on the prison HDTV?
#64: Tom Hanks is a coward. He meant what he said and he should have stood by his comments, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
Comment by Attmay — January 24, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - January 24, 2009
My family wouldn’t sacrifice American lives so they could feel good about themselves. What’s more, they wouldn’t have raised a spoiled little bitch that runs around telling everyone how superior his family is to everyone else’s.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 25, 2009 @ 1:08 am - January 25, 2009
Ah, so I am un-American. Thank you for clarifying that, att-may.
Comment by V the K — January 25, 2009 @ 7:49 am - January 25, 2009
>If the waterboarding of one suspect saves one American life…..
Do the scales balance then if you rape one suspect to save American lives? What about disembowel one suspect? What about behead one suspect?
We don’t even need to do calculus, we can just do simple math. If waterboarding, or disemboweling, or even rape of one person saves American lives, then surely the waterboarding or disemboweling or rape of multiple suspects can save that many more American lives.
Perhaps we can extend the policy to their wives and children too, because without a doubt, waterboarding the suspect and their family must really increase our success rate for saving American lives.
It’s fascinating to me that we faced down the Nazis and the Japanese with abandoning or moral authority, our ideals, as Americans. We saved lives, we saved the world, without torturing people. I thought moral relativism was a liberal failing?
> spoiled little bitch…
You say the sweetest things, TLC. Kisses.
Comment by Jody — January 25, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - January 25, 2009
Summary: Jody can’t make a rational defense of his position, and begins spinning out a bunch of ridiculous straw dog scenarios.
Comment by V the K — January 25, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - January 25, 2009
>Jody can’t make a rational defense of his position….
Actually, no “straw dog” involved. ND30 argues that torture is justified to save American lives. Everything I listed is also torture. It’s a pretty reasonable application of his argument.
But please, V, take a stab. Justify the use of torture to save American lives. I’ll go pop some popcorn. This should be quite entertaining.
Comment by Jody — January 25, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - January 25, 2009
We bombed the hell out of them. We knew what it took. These days, liberals would call that “abandoning our moral authority, our ideals etc.”. Liberals wet their panties when you look at an Islamo-fascist cross-wise, but they don’t seem to give a fuck when they behead Americans or kill their prisoners.
And thanks for offering examples proving that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. You must have tortured yourself to come up with such piss poor examples.
Funny how your heroes would welcome Club Gitmo guests into their state, but would piss all over “fellow” Marines. Quite telling, actually.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 26, 2009 @ 5:33 am - January 26, 2009
I already said it, torture… and it’s leftist cousin “torture” (i.e. any discomfort a terrorist complains about)… of bad people to preserve the lives of non-bad people is justifiable.
The problem with dumb lefties is they can’t make a distinction between torture that is committed out of pointless sadism and coercive techniques intended only to secure vital information that saves lives. So, they err on the side of preserving the comfort of terrorists.
What goes on in the backrooms at International Male Leather is far worse than anything anyone at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib suffered.
Comment by V the K — January 26, 2009 @ 7:44 am - January 26, 2009
so Jody,
You feel we should protect our 5 year olds from being tortured by Barney?
Comment by The Livewire — January 26, 2009 @ 7:47 am - January 26, 2009
>I already said it, torture… and it’s leftist cousin “torture” (i.e. any discomfort a terrorist complains about)… of bad people to preserve the lives of non-bad people is justifiable.
My apologies, V. You’ve manned up, said you were willing to torture “non-bad people” and didn’t try to weasel out with some kind of faux controversy. At least you are honest. Scared, but honest.
>So, they err on the side of preserving the comfort of terrorists.
No, those of us who believe in law and justice prefer not to become the monsters we fight against. Sit in a room with monsters some time. You’ll see what I mean. To paraphrase Hitchens, paraphrasing Lincoln, “If torture isn’t wrong, nothing is.”
>Funny how your heroes ….
My heroes are actually the people who sat down in 1787 and created a framework that’s served us, and the rest of the world, quite well. I get the impression yours airs Monday nights on Fox. Bread and circuses indeed, TGC.
Comment by Jody — January 26, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - January 26, 2009