Well, according to Bush today:

Weren't we attacked by Saudi Arabians? I don't recall Iraq attacking us. I also don't remember them posing any direct threat to us. Interesting alternative universe he is living in. And I wonder how come he didn't say "We went to war with Iraq because they violated a cease-fire agreement." Any theories, scaeagles, as to why he wouldn't just say that, if it is as rock-solid a reason as you say it is?

Pssst, MBC- he probably didn't bring it up since it is a UN action, and they weren't gonna back us. Don't tell Scaeagles, though- he'll start going on about the UN and then we'll never get any peace.;)

It's all so sad. Instead of an open and honest introspective discussion about ourselves and the American way, we are arguing semantics.


I sorely miss my America.

Lying to congress to get us into a war is illegal. I can't get any plainer than that. Congress charged this President to report why it was necessary for the security of the United States to invade another country, and what they got was a pack of lies. Further, regime change is not recognized by the international legal community as a justification to invade another country. Now I full well realize we're in bizarro world and international opinion matters not to this administration, but that first problem is not going away.

Color me surprised.

Good. Great. Get your big megaphone out and make sure everybody knows that. Keep on making the point that American soldiers abusing enemy combatants is really not so bad... it's just talking about it that's the crime. See where that gets you.

I'll be over here watching Mr. Bush's ratings sink like a stone.

:cheers:

And when exactly did I state that abusing the enemy isn't really so bad? I didn't. Exactly the opposite, in fact, urging prosecution of those responsible.

What I did, in this thread, was express disgust at Durbin for comparing Guantanamo to Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and Soviet Gulags. Period.

There is no proof that lies were told to congress. None. In fact, the international intelligence community agreed with our assessments of Saddam's capabilities, though they disagreed on the solution.

But enough rehashing that which has been discussed ad nauseum. I still stand by my assessment of Durbin, and in fact, I read a small blurb that he regrets having said what he said. It was in my local Saturday paper, and I have no link, but I could go and look if anyone is really interested.

What you did was malign Mr. Durbin unjustly.

Riiiiiiight!

Oh, I don't doubt that. Once the chickenhawks, attack poodles in the media and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists crank up their machinery, it can be pretty scary.

If calling him "a disgusting individual" for comparing our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to Nazi death camps, Pol Pot, and Soviet gulags is unjust, then so be it.

Rather, I would regard him as unjust in his comparison, when we provide them with religious texts, quiet times for prayers, a diet that meets their requirements both religiously and culturally, prayers mats, etc. Don't think you'd find much of that in those other places.

"What the Democrats are doing is "the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), May 19, 2005

Comparing the pro-filibuster Democrats to Hitler? Rick Santorum is truly a disgusting individual.

I agree. In fact, I joined the criticism of his statements, though not to the extent I have criticized Durbin. Anyone who participates in such rhetoric is ignorant of history and what the Nazis and Soviets and Khmer Rouge and whomever had done throughout history.

I will say, though, that I find Durbin's comments to be much worse, because we are at a time of war, and his statements have surely been cause for comfort to our enemies. In fact, his comments were broadcast all over Al Jazeera and used as anti US propaganda when his comments have no basis in fact (not to say Santorum's did).

Since you find Santorum's comments so outgrageous, will you then join in the criticism of Durbin? Or since his political philosophy is more alligned with yours, will you just ignore the comments and give him a pass?

Scaeagles,

I agree that politicians and politicals commentators who use inflammatory rhetoric are absolutely inappropriate and need to recognize the hurtful nature of their comments.

However, I've got to admit that I'm really surprised by this thread. I felt the original post was a little "bait-y" because of the instigative nature of your language - not usually your style. But I'm equally surprised by all of the responses which try to show how wrong the war is and how Durbin is right.

For the record, here's where I stand on your original post: Durbin was wrong wrong wrong to compare Gitmo to Cambodia and Nazi Germany. That's what I was trying to gently say when I provided a link to the Daily Show.

Unfortunately, the sound-bite nature of our current news media has forced politicians and political commentators to resort to incendiary comparisons to make sure that their point makes it to the evening news - and that applies to Libs and Cons.

I agree with most of the posters here who say that Bush is a liar and that the current war is wrong (illegal? perhaps, but I'm not going to tackle that here). But to compare deadly actions to political rhetoric is really an apples and oranges argument, isn't it?

If you want to start a "disgusting individual" thread for politicos who go overboard with their comments, I'd be delighted to contribute to it. Here's a 'funny' one from Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform (who is also the "reputed architect of President Bush's tax cuts") who uses the Holocaust to make a point about the estate tax:
What a disgusting individual.