Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now: you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terror (even though most at Abu Ghraib are innocent of any terrorist activity) and attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage.
So remember: torture good, marriage bad. And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it’s just what’s left of your sense of morality trying to survive.
And try not to let your heads explode while you’re at it
Because I can point out that the Bush Admin. has supported torture, calling the Geneva Convention constraints agaisnt it “quaint” and I can point to Bush specifically opposing gay marriage.
I posted this because it truly highlights the moral disconnect that the Bush administration has gotten the Americans into.
And as you can’t say that other countire are responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib (and wherever we’ll find it next) so it remains a strictly American phenom.
The Bush Administration and Americans definitely oppose gay marriage. The Bush Administration has definitely sanctioned torture, and some American apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. So torture good, marriage bad. It’s not a straw man if there’s substance to it.
Seymour Hersh has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don’t think members of Congress won’t be gunning for them now you’re sadly mistaken. People are going to have to defend them. American people. Or Rumsfeld and Rice will have to fall on their swords to preserve King George. It’ll be fun to watch – I’m looking forward to it either way.
And Americans are clearly against marriage … wait for it … wait for it … wait for it … for gays.
I want to make clear the moral bankruptcy that America is being driven to by the Bush Admin, which has been squandering moral credibility quite wildly of late. How upset you do or don’t get as a result of my clear and forceful statements is of little interest to me
Sure, a bunch of cafeteria Americans are saying they disagree with this or that policy of Bush’s or that they dont’ like the Bush admin. as a whole. I feel their pain.
Frankly, this strikes me as fair to an extent. Why do you have to use mealy-mouthed, watered-down phrases such as, “Some elements of the American electorate who support the Bush Admin.” when “Americans” is so much shorter and to the point? Did the America not get Dubya elected? Is he not their man? If they don’t like his policies, let them elect someone else for Prez in 2004. THAT would shut me up pretty good!
I think they’re a fine way to alert the undecideds in the world about the vile moral status of the Bush admin in particular and Americans in general.
Surprise, er, thread, coming from you SimonX. I always thought better of you…
Really? I thought that was a single official, and a pretty lowly offical at that. And that C. Powel hit the roof when he heard it…
Certainly, because only American’s torture people. Its a proven fact after all…
Yes, a majority of American’s (currently) oppose gay marriage, but the gap continually narrows. You could say that the Bush Administration (and the Clinton Administration before it) opposed gay marriage BECAUSE the majority of American’s opposed it…and that future Administrations will NOT oppose it when the majority of American’s don’t oppose it. Democracy and all that…
As to the Bush Administration ‘definitely sanctioned torture’ this has still yet to be definitively proven IMO. When (if) it IS proven, then you can say ‘definitely sanctioned torture’…until then, it allegedly sanctioned torture would be more accurate.
As to some American appologists about torture…how does this in any way, shape or form represent the majority view in the US? Some German appologist believe the killing of the Jews in WWII was justified…does that make Germans=killing jews good? Your assertion here is ridiculous, just like EC’s assertions were ridiculous. I expect that of him…I don’t expect that of YOU.
Cool…and when he presents said evidence, names his sources, etc, then I’ll be more inclined to believe him. Until then its just unverified talk. SHOW us the documents where Rummy and Condi signed that they condoned torture. Reviel the sources. Until then its smoke and mirrors IMO. Lets see the facts.
Even if true though (lets assume it is for a moment), and even if people do defend them (I’m guessing some will), again, how is this representitive of the American people thinking torture is good. It certainly won’t be the majority of people that defend the Administration…it will be a small fringe group.
I think you aren’t the REAL SimonX…I think you’ve been taken over by an evil cabal headed up by Reeder and EC. I hope the REAL SimonX comes back some day…
Although I get your point, Simon, I think this would’ve been clearer if it had been in the Pit, where satires are usually found. For that matter, I wish the other thread had been started in the pit as well. Hell, just send 'em both there.
My apologies to ME Buckner. I’m sure that MEB had better things to do.
Allow me to clarify things by means of links. What was obvious to me at the moment of ‘composition’ is not at all obvious to all. This should’ve been obvious to me. Obviously, I realize it now and am endeavoring to rectify the situation.
