Go play your own games. Would rather seek

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

That and the fact that you have been too many times to recount to not bash on this board and to be respectful. In looking at other postings I see you are unable to follow this very very simple request from the moderator.

Go put on your party clothes and get to your local people died, so leftists can celebrate parties. You admitted it was party time. Go now...shooo...

I'm perfectly on point. My reasoning is that there is no reason to fear 1 man, because it takes a lot more than 1 man to make a change. Members of either party don't always back their party's bills. In fact, a lot of them don't, as the case was Monday.

The hard part for you here is that what I am saying is true and you don't want to admit that, ergo you would be admitting that there should be no fear.

WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.

While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.

Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.

Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.

In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.

The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.

David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.

There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.

Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.

Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.

During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.

Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.

But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.

Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.

Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.

He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski � who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case � has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case � that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue � has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition � the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet � whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration � was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/

I can remember when republicans attacked Hiliary and Chelsea big time. Dont you remember? So, now that someone has attacked Bush, his daughters and wife (seems like quite a bit is not attack but truth), the poster is wrong. Geez, I can remember when I would read awful attacks on Chelsea, who was only a child while in the White House, and I often thought all this is gonna affect her self esteem. Hiliary has been a punching bag and continues to be from the right wing. So, can we all get over it? Politics is tough and yes both sides attack, even personally (really..wow??) the other side. From the posts I have read between these two (GT and MT), me thinks one has a grudge against the other and that to me is ridiculous and tiring to read. So, kiddies, can we all play nicely in the sand box?

So by your reasoning if a child molestor had molested a child many years ago....you would be okay with the person teaching young children? Because that person has a right to privacy and if they are qualified to teach...their prior history should not be of any concern?

I'm sorry but there are exceptions to every rule here. A person who willingly, knowingly, and admittingly helped blow up several buildings while running a terrorist group should have no right to be a teacher or instructor to any students......period.

What I'm tired of - denial. Widespread total denial, even as live as we've known it crumbles to ashes.

Take the healthcare mess. Lobbyists of insurance and pharmaceutical companies buying the vote of every senator and congressman in Washington to keep the status quo. The people we elected to office taking bribes to betray the very people that elected them. I am sick of knowing that no matter how much I pay in insurance premiums, when the time comes for a claim to get paid, big business will find any loophole to deny the claim and bankrupt me - and they get legislated more loopholes every day by anybody I vote for. And if I am unlucky enough to have a disease that requires a procedure to save my life, the "loss prevention" department at any insurer I pay will diligently seek reason to deny that procedure as "unnecessary" so I will do without the procedure and die. All Washington can do is lie and deny about the healthcare situation.

The lie that the more the government spends on "defense", the safer we are. I found out after Katrina just how safe I was, just how much my government would take care of me, and just what fun living under martial law is. I have learned just how much respect for our enlisted men the government has as they deny insurance claims to their families if they die in action, and force them to pay back sign-on bonuses if they are careless enough to get hurt on the job and have to be removed from duty before their stint is up. I have learned how much are government cares for our other heros, as they deny 9/11 rescue workers healthcare, while providing the best healthcare that can be bought for the terrorists they have incarcerated. Whatever the government claims to be defending, it is not you and me, it is the interests of the big businesses that have bought their vote. Oh, and PLEASE, search every sweet little grandmother that gets on any plane going anywhere - that'll make me feel real safe, because nothing can possibly go wrong with a flight if all the American passengers are treated like criminals before they board it. Keeping the sky safe is all we need, since our borders are so secure that no terrorist could possibly sneak into the country by any other means, like our illegal aliens do!

I am sick of profiteers getting bailed out at the expense of the little guy. I am disgusted to watch incompetence be rewarded and responsibility punished. I am tired of watching people lose their homes, jobs and way of life - while we legislate billions to keep the corporate profits strong, and swallow the propaganda that offshoring our jobs to other countries is a good thing.

I am sick of the war on drugs. How many years and how much mony have been spent on this, yet we are not winning it, so lets just keep throwing money at it and surely someday we'll win. Certainly a DEA agent would never take a bribe or feel any greed like the folks in Washington do.

I am tired of the welfare system and the corruption within it. I am tired of reporting fraud just to be shushed because it causes too much paperwork for them to investigate. I am tired of hearing how anyone can get a government check for threadbare reasons such as questionable mental disabilities, drug/alcohol addiction, or simply the desire to breed irresponsibly until their reproductive organs give up the game. I'm sick of us giving welfare to anyone that strolls into our country illegally and sticks out their hand. I'm 49, I am assured that there will be nothing left for me when I am old and ill, and I have paid into the system all my life. I am also assured that no matter how much wealth I may amass to try to pay my own way, health care costs will continue to skyrocket past it and any illness at all will financially wipe me out, so the best I can hope for is a quick, severe illness that kills me before I'm penniless and homeless.

I am tired of charities that bombard us with heartwrenching commercials - then turn around and pay any contributions we give to CEOs, advertising, and overhead - only then maybe a few cents will actually be left over for the pitiful victims we intended to help.

I am sick of the environmentalists, PETA activists and vegans. Get real, folks. We can't even stop being barbaric to other humans - considering the way we treat our heros, veterans, children, elderly, poor, disaster victims, mentally ill and homeless - do you seriously think we'll become misty eyed about a marshland or an animal? Well, obviously some of us find it preferable to caring about other humans. But your lectures regarding what will we leave our future generations and where is our conscience also apply to the national debt and all the other problems we continue to allow to escalate. So which fire needs to be put out first, would it be possible to actually define and prioritize all the issues intead of just jumping on your bandwagon?

I'm also tired of hearing about the horrific conditions in other countries - imagine taking an interest in what's wrong with our own country before we go fixing everybody else on the planet!

I am tired of being politically correct. We are sooo, sooo worried about offending "someone", and a slip of the tongue in front of a camera can ruin a career....but we have no problem taking away anyone's livelihood, housing, self-respect, dignity, health or even their life if it stands in the way of corporate profit. So why keep up the pretense that we care how anyone feels?

I am tired of going to the polls to vote for people who claim to stand for something, but are prepared to change their mind the minute they hit Washington and the bribes start rolling in. I am tired of having no good choices on election day, and no candidate that I have any faith in actually making it on the ballot. I am tired of knowing that any candidate from any party that makes it to Washington will be on a lobbyist's payroll before they cast their first vote on any issue, so whoever I vote for will put the highest bidder's interests first.

I am tired of the widespread apathy of my fellow citizens, who waste their brainpower on entertainment and fluff, instead of questioning the system and working to change it. I am tired of greed that has taken over every aspect of this country. I am tired of a society that worships wealth, celebrity and beauty for all the wrong reasons. I am weary of everyone being in debt up to their eyeballs, one paycheck away from total financial anniliation, and thinking its a sensible way to live because "everybody" does it. After all, our national leaders show us by example that the solution to huge debt is borrowing more money without a thought for tomorrow, and daily the media assures us those guys really know what they're doing! I am tired of conspicuous consumption and planned obsolesence. I am sick of the skyrocketing costs of education and transportation. I am sick that everything I voluntarily purchase or involuntarily contribute to via taxes has been deberately engineered by some corporate fat-cat to cost me more and give me less than it did yesterday.

Sign me - Just another unheard voice in the land of the deceived, home of the naive.

I prefer the LA Times version, though I don't really like them. Their article did not try to deliberately mislead.

despite how many times I tell you it has nothing to do with what my Christian beliefs are, other than my belief in Christ strengthens my moral resolve. Abortion is morally wrong and it is on that level that I most strenuously oppose it. I have no reason to believe that if I parted ways with God as you have that my moral convictions would go with Him. I had moral convictions before I knew Christ. All knowing Him has done is strengthen them.

You have morals, right? Has nothing to do with religion, as you don't have a belief in God, right? You and He parted ways a long time ago didn't you say? Did your morals go with Him? Of COURSE they didn't. You think war is morally wrong. That does not come from any religion in you does it? NO. It comes from your morality. The same place my exception to abortion comes from. There are many people against abortion on moral grounds who aren't Christians.

You ignored my question again. Do you think war is ever justified? Was the Revolutionary War? Was the Civil War? ANY war?

Just as you think it is a shame war casualties do you light a fire in my heart like millions of aborted children, I think it is a shame that aborted children don't light a fire in yours.

Geeezzzz piglet. Is there a GOOD way to murder a baby? I don't think so!! I don't care how they do it...it still kills them. Murder is rarely done in a "humane" manner. It would not be more palatable to me no matter how it was done. I mention how it is done because you continue to talk about maimed and mangled and bloody war casualties. That is why I bring the point that that is exactly what abortion does...maim, mangle, torture, and kill. Neither is pretty. Both are ugly, and both end with death. Would you want pictures of aborted babies on the 6:00 news? Would you like live video footage of a late term partial birth abortion with your evening meal? Perhaps we could have a half hour of war victims and a half hour of abortions?

I think you are wrong about abortion going underground. Women would start going to Mexico or to whatever state abortions were available. But at least the woman still has a choice of an illegal abortion or carrying the child. The child NEVER gets a choice. In your world that is fair. In mine, it is not. That being said, I realistically do not believe that we will ever live in a country again where abortion is illegal nationwide. I do not believe it will happen. That does not mean I will not continue to speak out against it or work with organizations to give women a choice other than abortion. And if called upon to vote for or against...it will be against. Just like I would not vote to legalize murder. Or theft. It is just amazing to me how outside the womb it is a crime to kill a child, inside the womb it is open season. Freaking amazing. That is why in a partial birth abortion they have to force a breech delivery, then pull back skin of neck, insert needle and suck the brain out, to collapse the skull, while the head is still inside the mother. So that the baby is dead when it is "delivered." If the head was out before that procedure, by law the child has been "born" and to kill it then would be murder. So, to be "legal," have to suck the brain out while the head still inside. Sick.

Going to war is not a unilateral decision. It requires a majority of Congress. Abortion requires a majority of one. Giving one human being total control and choice to take the life of another is morally wrong. Any other time that happens we call it murder without blinking an eye.

I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.