The neo–conservative cabal is back at it again; hosting an "under the radar" event to discuss Afghanistan with featured speaker John McCain. Thier newly formed group is called "The Foreign Policy Initiative."

These are the same gaggle of idiots that brought us the failed policies in Iraq and a failed foreign policy in general that was seen as imperialistic and thoroughly out of touch with reality. What I love is their willingness to send everyone else’s kids to war but their own. Repugnant blowhards – all of them. Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, David Addington...

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/index.html

Well their policies have kept us Americans save since 9-11...thats all.

LOL!!!

Not counting the TWO attacks we suffered under their watch right?

9/11 and the Anthrax.

Their policy was to ignore stuff, then when it happened, start a war, then another one, just because.

It's like hitting your brother because your sister stole your cookie!

The fact that you don't grok that is exactly why your guys took it in the sack three times straight, and are looking to lose again this coming mid-term cycle.

There is an upside though! If enough stupid Republicans lose their seats, the rest of them will have no choice but to get their act together.

Only a matter of time.

Yes, Broadway. Through deceit, perjury, torture, secret prisons, gross manipulation of intelligence, flagrant abuses of due process, an illegitimate war in Iraq, thousands killed and injured.

It’s hard to fathom that a person who pontificates about their Christian faith time and again would find it so easy to dismiss such grotesque abuses of the rule of law?

Well their policies have kept us Americans save since 9-11...thats all.

Bullshit! Bullshit! Saddam was a tinpot dictator after Desert Storm, who was a threat to no one beyond his borders. He couldn't even travel to the north and south of the no-fly zones.

Well said, Talpdx.

No attacks since the Democratic led congress.

YES!! We've almost got 100 days down, and all is clear on the Democrats watch!

Anyone notice the whole democracy -vs- republic debate going on. Heard a talker highlight this (I think it was Maddow), pointing out that democracy sounds too much like Democrat, so they say republic because it's more Republican.

Sometimes the stuff just gets stupid.

>>deceit, perjury, torture, secret prisons, gross manipulation of intelligence, flagrant abuses of due process, an illegitimate war in Iraq, thousands killed and injured.

What part of the word "war" don't you understand?

Talpdx -- It's hard to fathom that a person who pontificates about their Christian faith time and again would find it so easy to dismiss such grotesque abuses of the rule of law?

Homework for Broadway:

Luke 10:5-6
Luke 19:41-42
Matthew 5:9
Romans 15:13
Matthew 5:39-45
John 20:21
John 16:33
John 14:27

Broadway -- What part of the word "war" don't you understand?

Homework for Broadway:

The Constitution of the United States
The Geneva Conventions
Army Field Manuals
Nuremberg Trials
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Littlesongs you are just too good.

That's a *plonk!*.

not as ugly as Neo-Commie stuff!!

I think it would have been far more Christian to let Saddam go on killing thousands with poison gas, maintaining rape room, running people through plastic shredders, and on and on. No sense taking this guy out of action.

You libs only see and hear what you want to, nothing else. Hate America first.

"I think it would have been far more Christian to let Saddam go on killing thousands with poison gas, maintaining rape room, running people through plastic shredders, and on and on. No sense taking this guy out of action."

Deane, that is exactly what you supported all along. President Ronald Reagan knew what was happening and felt there was no sense taking Saddam Hussein out of action. Beginning in 1983, the White House was told time and again about the chemical warfare.

Four different administrations were complicit and silent about the senseless atrocities in Iraq. Our government only used the information when it was convenient for politics, not when it was still possible to save millions from the horrors of a dictator we kept in power.

Twenty years later, General Norman Schwarzkopf didn't feel comfortable with the same dangerous foreign policy crowd controlling our future. Nor did he completely trust their motives for action. Many other Americans shared his doubts and were dismissed as traitors.

Though our approaches would have been far different, we can both agree that the Iraqis deserved freedom. What retroactive reasons can you conjure up for the 3,799 brave men and women in uniform who have died since we captured Saddam Hussein?

[rant deleted]

You are wrong on this. Your party lost, and lost big, like took it in the sack big, and three times!

We won. That's Democrats and a whole lot of independent voters.

Our turn now.

"You libs only see and hear what you want to, nothing else. Hate America first."

Thank you, Archie Bunker.

"We won."

Who is "we"? Do you have a turd in your pocket?

Do you have a turd in your pocket?

Tell us what that's like, Deane.

"Deane, that is exactly what you supported all along. President Ronald Reagan knew what was happening and felt there was no sense taking Saddam Hussein out of action. Beginning in 1983, the White House was told time and again about the chemical warfare."

And Reagan did nothing because the Iran hostage situation, and the overthrow of the West-friendly Shah and the fundamentalist revolution in Iran were still very fresh in our minds. Reagan was very much a hawk; he wanted the Ayatollah to shove it. At that time we were arming the Iraqis in the fight against Iran. Really not much different than us arming the Soviet Union during World War II and turning a blind eye to the war crimes THEY committed in the act of revenge against the Nazis ... really not any different than us arming Ho Chi Minh in his fight against the Japanese in Indochina. All examples of us turning an eye to war crimes and issues we normally don't agree with, when used against an enemy.

Reagan did sell arms to Iraq when it was at war with Iran in the 1980's. In fact, he sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. As for the US publically acknowledging the misdeeds of Saddam, I don’t think the US took a hard line against Iraq until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

"We" being Americans who don't appreciate war criminals and corporate fascists.

And it appears most of the world is with us on that score. International pressure to prosecute those clowns is growing.

We wrote the book on NOT doing this shit. If we let the last administration stand, without being held accountable, we close that book, and we basically condone those actions in the future as well as the idea that the executive is above the law.

Bet you a cookie that will not come to pass. Social and political pressure is too high. We've too much progress to lose over that.

Protecting those guys isn't worth it.

You live in a naive world.

You've said that before.

Got your ass kicked repeatedly over it too. Your party has said that before, took it in the sack three times running too.

You, yourself Deane, have asserted that the world is what we make it. Well, in my world, the law means something, and means that same something to every PERSON equally.

If I share my vision of that world, and live by it the best I can, and others come to agree, then that essentially is how the world then works. Speak or be spoken for man. That is the lesson learned over this last administration.

Good luck with your vision. Mine is on the upswing. Yours?

Let's just say you can count on the 23 percenters!

Missing, do you arrive at this position while smoking, or what?

Why don’t we just drop the pretense of being a country of laws and engage the enemy in an ad hoc, ritualistic torture meme that’s replete with the kinds of tyranny which separates civilized society for the vermin of the world? I think that’s kind of thing Dick Cheney was gunning for in the first place. Sort of a Machiavellian approach to dealing with terror suspects.

I'll repeat for you Talpdx, you live in a naive world.

"I'll repeat for you Talpdx, you live in a naive world."

Sounds like something Dick Cheney would say before retreating to his undisclosed location.

For all intents and purposes, Deane is Dick Cheney.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Damn! It sure is great to have the higher ground, isn't it Deane? Oh yeah... forgot. You don't!

Speak or be spoken for. Funny how that works isn't it? Elections matter.

Another usless post from Andy.

You live in a naive world.

You lived/live in a state of denial. If calling you The DICKster is flattery then you really need MORE medication than your on now....
WOW!

>>Homework for Broadway: Luke 10:5-6 Luke 19:41-42 Matthew 5:9 Romans 15:13 Matthew 5:39-45 John 20:21 John 16:33 John 14:27
Do you expect government to abide by the above scriptures?...great ones by the way and wish they could...by the way if there is any government that comes close at living the above it's the USA...name one who can...

Broadway, the scriptures listed above have nothing to do with how the government runs, or if our government should abide by them. LS is just pointing them out to YOU, as a person of faith, asking how you can honestly justify the treatment of our fellow man given your faith.

Now the other citations he posted for you to notice, THAT is what government is legally bound to abide by.

If there was..." deceit, perjury, torture, secret prisons, gross manipulation of intelligence, flagrant abuses of due process, an illegitimate war in Iraq, thousands killed and injured"...then let it go to the court system.

>>how you can honestly justify the treatment of our fellow man
I don't justify any of it...countrys in wars are all out of our hands and you have to trust in leadership to do the best they can in that war to make the best for our country...know it won't be perfect and be mistakes...war is a very nasty thing.

Agreed.

So then, bringing a case against them means the understanding that those things are not ok. They are war crimes, and we call them war crimes because war may be ugly, but it's not a free for all.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is intent.

Secret prisons, torture, abuses of due process are not mistakes. They acted with clear intent to disregard established treaties and law going all the way back to simple common law.

When you say "war is a very nasty thing", you are justifying it, particularly when you float out an implied characterization of it being "mistakes".

And this stuff is in our hands to a point. We have a press, elections, protest, and other things we can do to make it known that we do not support a war of opportunity. (and that's a whole lot of what Iraq was about.)

Funny too. If we are to take it to the courts, then we also recognize that the law trumps the executive. That's the conflict before us.

If we end up saying that's not true, and the President can do what he wants, then we can't actually claim to have a system of justice that is just. War Crimes cannot be addressed in such a scenario.

What will happen then is exactly what we have done with other nations in the past; namely, use force both economic and military to bring accountability.

Other nations are there now, waiting to see if we get this right.

And so what do you do if you do not trust the leadership? What if they are NOT doing the best that they can - but they are intentionally disgregarding the very things that they would be outraged for doing if it were their soldiers?

Uh, what Missing said.

Adhering to international law is a voluntary effort. Any nation can do anything it wants to so long as it has the might to defy the other nations.

So far as treaties are concerned, or the Geneva Convention, that again is a voluntary thing. We can tear up any piece of paper we want to so long as we have the strength to back that up.

If we made the decision to selectively enforce or outright violate the terms of international law or treaties to which the US has ratified, our word would be crap. And not only in terms of human rights issues, but in the world of commerce as well. Would you want to do business abroad when the terms of a binding framework changes because one country chooses not to adhere to the terms of relevant treaties and international agreements? If there is not a stable framework in place, international commerce would be a mess, not to mention matters of human rights.

Deane, you are absolutely right on that score.

Also a factor is how much of a target said nation is.

That has significant implications on our national security! If we choose to go back on our word, after having set the bar for this stuff, we lose a lot of credence.

And whole generations of people will be pissed at us because we chose to entertain our self-interest at their expense.

That is how terror breeds people!

We are a strong nation because our foundation is just and true, and we've improved on that, just like we said we would starting out. Essentially, we have the higher ground in most things, because of who we are and because of that, we also get to claim what we have accomplished as part of that strength and TRUST.

Bush ignored that. And we will suffer the consequences of that ignorance, if we don't go back and show the world that our system OF LAWS works, and continues to be just.

Now that we have squandered our wealth in the markets, sent our jobs overseas, along with most of our technical know how that matters, our military is strained, we are absolutely not in a position to go and just ignore those expectations we have set in the past.

Not if we want to enjoy any measure of security and peace.

I for one, absolutely do not want to start another global conflict. There is no need for it, and if we do that this time, we won't have the higher ground on it, unless we want to go ahead and tell the world that we were wrong and that the great American experiment was a failure.

As a proud American, I have to say FUCK THAT!

At some point, to get along in this world, we all have to eat our own dog food. That means living up to those things we stand for.

When that is threatened, THEN you enter into war. It will be ugly, but it will be a just thing to do and we will have the high ground doing it.

With that comes support and the will to prevail.

Defending "our right to do whatever we want to anybody just because we can" will fail just like every other nationalistic regime has failed. It's self serving, has no higher purpose that benefits the people and history has shown us that we really don't tolerate that very well, for very long.

If we are going to fight and kill, we better damn well have the high ground on it, or it's simply a self-serving crime against the people.

This is why we need to follow through on prosecution and legislation to restore the law and continue to set the expectation that we Americans don't play that way.

It's easy enough to say Bush was a bad call. Given our system of government and our history, that's understandable. We are being given quarter because of this.

Should we continue to go down that wrong road, quarter will be removed and we will absolutely suffer for that.

What is worth that? Freedom? Freedom to do what exactly? Be asses?

Our system of government serves us and it treats all PERSONS equally. That is how it works here.

Other nations are asking us quite simply if that is true, or if we have surrendered those things we fought to establish. Our answer lies in this next administrations first term.

You conservatives really are a serious threat to all I hold dear. America haters indeed!

Let me frame it this way:

Bush was a mistake. Our system takes time and we grant our leaders the leeway to actually lead.

If Obama lets this pass, then it will transcend that to be deliberate. We will have then crossed a line that we will find very, very, very difficult to un-cross and lots of progress will be lost.

I'm not there yet. Trading that for the mere perception of security buys us nothing but pain and cost. It's a fools bargain, and only seriously contemplated by scared fools.

-->that's mean Deane, I know, but come on man! You went to school same as us. Are you going slowly senile? Step away from the TV for a while. It's doing you harm.

Maybe whether or not the previous administration was guilty of torture will be determined in a Spanish courtroom:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/28-6

The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon's general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers.

Court documents say that, without their legal advice in a series of internal administration memos, "it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantánamo]".

Boyé predicted that Garzón would issue subpoenas in the next two weeks, summoning the six former officials to present evidence: "If I were them, I would search for a good lawyer."

" Adhering to international law is a voluntary effort."

True. What about adhering to your nation's own laws? Also voluntary? Technically, yes. Everything is voluntary. But they may carry some penalties if proven to be in violation.

So if I could prove that there were violations, I assume there wouldn't be an issue with the prosecution process, eh?

Yeah, and that's the rub. They thought of that and are claiming privilege, to avoid revealing that which would easily warrant court action.

They also have their fingers in a lot of places still. Left overs are there to influence and pressure the new administration, and just provide simple resistance.

It's coming down to a simple fight over it really. Either the President is above the law, or he isn't. And our nation, being founded on core ideas about human rights, instead of royalty, stands unique in that we are supposed to be able to deal with this kind of thing.

There is a lot of power in that simple idea. Power that will be lost, if we lose this simple fight.

If the Bush administration ends up on TV doing interviews, speaking tours and watching sports events, we lose. Our law will not be an enduring thing, just something that only applies until it doesn't.

No nation will trust us or see us the same way again.

Should that come to pass, you can bet other courts in other places --that buy into our ideals, even if we don't appear to, will prosecute and render judgment.

You libs only see and hear what you want to, nothing else. Hate America first.



Look at what YOU neo-CONers did to America after 8 years!!!! LOOK how many young men and women are dead for a stupid INVASION!!!!!
CLEARLY it's YOU and YOUR policies that HATE America.