"He has a trap door for that vote in favor of the “war resolution”: he was lied to. "
Interesting. I just came here from a thread where elucidator demands impeachment because Bush “lied to Congress” from apparently bad or false information. Someone so incompetent probably shouldn’t have been a candidate in the first place.
I will absolutely vote for Kerry on the basis that i agree America needs a big change. Nobody has the balls to say it or push for it, but i think this guys has the balls and thats why i will vote for him. Every other election goes like this: you get a choice between same ol’ guy #1 or same ol’ guy #2 sometimes you get a #3 but nobody takes him seriously…
This has been the same ol’ country for too long. Im sick and tired of watching politics go nowhere, it seems more like a neverending court battle than a system made to serve the people. Im sick of watching my taxes go to Isreal(there are countries that actually need that money for humanitarian purposes- we are giving it away to be spent on weapons and destruction) Im sick of watching my tax dollars go to making the largest military by far in history get even bigger. Im sick of campaign funding, im sick of the hypocrisy, the games. Its about time someone opens there eyes, stands up and says: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?
I will back Kerry 100% and agree that America needs a regime change. I will not be a servant to my government, government is supposed to serve the people. Our efforts need to start benefiting our citizens.
Furthermore Kerry is not being “unpatriotic” in any way shape or form. We all have the right to speak against anything we feel is wrong. I say he is excersicing his patriotic duty in doing so.
Its a scary thing when a government runs smoothly and the leaders all “get along”. If politicians aren’t having disputes then it seems our representative citizens arent accurately representing our people. It means the views are too narrow.
So who wants to be a servant?..
You’ll get no argument from me on that one, companero
[PurpleFloyd’s eyes flutter, his face twitches, and he sits bolt upright in his chair]
Which personality am I talking to now?
If I were a Democratic candidate, I wouldn’t bother with the war. I know right now it is the 2000 pound gorilla in the room, but I’d stay on message.
“It’s the Economy, Stupid”
Bush won’t be re-elected (or likely defeated) based on Iraq. It will be whether the economy recovers and people’s 401ks get out of the toilet.
I dont get it, is there something you didnt understand? I certainly don’t understand what your trying to say. Elaborate please… : )
Britain couldn’t defend it but didn’t want Germany getting it, so they asked us to. We also temporarily held some of their islands in the Caribbean.
One of them should be each other’s running mate, IMVHO, since I haven’t made up my mind on which one to support*.
Ordinarilly I go Libertarian but on an election as important as that they need all the support they can get.
ABL (Anybody But Lieberman)
Age Quod Agis:
1 - The Padilla case isn’t the only case in this regard. See the following: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12262&c=206
That’s one. Secondly, even assuming that the government has every right to define someone as an “enemy combatant” and hold that person indefinitely, it would seem to me to be simple common sense on the part of someone sworn to uphold the Constitution to err on the side of extreme caution when using such a power. In other words, just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. Not by a long shot.
2 - Your contention that the Gitmo prisoners are being held under the dictates of the Geneva Convention is debatable, at best. As the State Dept site you yourself referenced says, “Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs.”
No explanation is given here or elsewhere as to why the Taliban prisoners aren’t POWs. Instead the document continues without a break into “Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status.” Further down, the document flatly states “POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:”, and then goes on to list some fairly trivial items.
However, neither the triviality of the items listed nor the detestable character of the people detained has anything to do with the principal, which is, as Human Rights Watch stated in the quote you posted, “Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter’s status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.”
In other words, once again, one should err on the side of caution.
Why? Because the question came up in the present war, as to whether the U.S. would treat certain of the Iraqis it captured as POWs, given what happened to the Taliban under its control. This seriously worried the Britons, as this would mean they would suddenly find themselves allied with a country that, by not recognizing the Geneva Conventions, would expose British soldiers to the possibility of not being treated in the same way by the Iraqis as a retaliatory measure.
Once you start down a slippery slope like this, stopping can be hard indeed.
Goofy-ness? Does’nt come close to matching the silly witless attempts of Chicken Hawks the likes of DeLay, Frist, et al trying to paint Kerry and all Americans who oppose Bush as being unpatriotic because that opposition is inappropriate in this time of war.
Brother! What a crock of you know what!!
It’s about time someone stands up to these Chicken Hawk “wrap-yourself-in-the flag” phonies for questioning Kerry’s and all other like minded Americans’ patriotism!!!
You do understand that wangling a part time assignment into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam Era was 1.) a way to evade being drafted into the Army and 2.) A guarantee that you wouldn’t be called to serve in the South East Asia theatre.
Um, there might be that incident in Cuba concerning the Maine.
Um, and the present Iraqi regime has such a fine record for obeying the nicities of the Geneva Convention anyway, right?
This article from Drudge has some more info on this.
I am sure Kerry is thrilled to have the millions of Drudge readers viewing his name along side those others.
Saying “regime change” when referring to Bush is comparing him to Saddam. It is a tasteless, tacky, insulting, and stupid thing to say to a popular president during a war.
If Kerry wants to have a shot at the US presidency in the next election, he will have to be more careful with his words. This was just a minor slip up, but it will cost him. If he continues to say foolish things he will pay the price at the polls.
Saying “regime change” when referring to the Bush administration is using that administration’s own language back at it with heavy irony. It’s a tactic that’s been used throughout political discourse since before Hamurabi made his first list of civil codes.
And I would disagree with the “popular” appellation for Bush; he’s more accurately a polarizing figure rather than a popular one. He’s immensely well-liked among the people who buy into a narrow neoconservative point of view, but he falls somewhere between the extremes of neutral acceptance and active loathing by most others (IMHO based on my own observations, of course).
Replace Beach Boys with Brian Wilson rendering “Pet Sounds” and, hell, even i’ll forgive this war thing.
Debaser
Saying “regime change” when referring to Bush is comparing him to Saddam. It is a tasteless, tacky, insulting, and stupid thing to say to a popular president during a war.
Oh, come now! That’s pushing the “political correctness” envelope to the point of gooffiness.
And anyway, any thinking person knows there is no comparison between Dubya and Saddam; Saddam is taller, heavier, darker,…
Ranger: two wrongs make a right?
pantom, no, but three lefts make a right.