Matt Laurer (!!!) pounds Bush on torture

[Scarletwine]

And I'm ashamed that people in the US (and so close to me in OH) feel that torture is ok, it's just sick. Of course our own homegrown terrorists, the Klan, did. The ends does not justify the means. We deserve all the disdain the worls heaps on us.

 

[kellyahern]

you're also missing the point that torturing detainees (even if it isn't chopping off hands) makes our jobs harder, it makes it harder to win hearts and minds, it makes it harder for US troops to get crediblity in Baghdad, it makes it harder for the US to garner international support. it screws over our military and lowers our expectations for their behavior.

It seems some prominent Republicans agree with you Irvine:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/

Powell said that Congress must not pass Bush’s proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

This development accompanied Bush’s visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Republican dissatisfaction with the administration’s security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This makes me wonder what world you really live in.

This one:

Let's use his behavior on March 12, 2002, for example.

Here he is introducting David Brock, a former conservative, and a newfound liberal.

"His specialy was character assassination, and throughout the 1990s he made a living as a right-wing hatchet man. But after years of lies and, some would say, malicious journalism, this Washington insider wants to clear his conscience. In his new book, Blinded by the Right, best-selling author and ex-conservative David Brock exposes how he says the GOP tried to destroy the Clinton presidency through a series of well-plotted smear campaigns."

Now that he takes on the right, he's no longer a waste of sperm.

 

[Irvine511]

My preference is with loud music and cold rooms. I really don't prefer any such method that goes beyond that. I really hope I've made myself clear.

well, you haven't.

Bush wants much, much more than this, and you say you support Bush, and you seem to think that anyone who doesn't would like to give each terrorist a puppy.

so much more is going on than "cold rooms" and you're totally ignoring this fact and thus endorsing EVERYTHING that has happened.

i really don't have the energy to continue with this.

 

[BVS]

This one:

Let's use his behavior on March 12, 2002, for example.

Here he is introducting David Brock, a former conservative, and a newfound liberal.

"His specialy was character assassination, and throughout the 1990s he made a living as a right-wing hatchet man. But after years of lies and, some would say, malicious journalism, this Washington insider wants to clear his conscience. In his new book, Blinded by the Right, best-selling author and ex-conservative David Brock exposes how he says the GOP tried to destroy the Clinton presidency through a series of well-plotted smear campaigns."

Now that he takes on the right, he's no longer a waste of sperm.

Matt, never said he was a waste of sperm. David Brock himself said he was a hachet man and he used lies...

So what's your point?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

well, you haven't.

Bush wants much, much more than this, and you say you support Bush, and you seem to think that anyone who doesn't would like to give each terrorist a puppy.

so much more is going on than "cold rooms" and you're totally ignoring this fact and thus endorsing EVERYTHING that has happened.

i really don't have the energy to continue with this.

I support his case on Islamic Jihad and I back him for fighting the good fight. But that doesn't mean I have to be a party hack bootlicker and agree with everything he sponsors.

I don't agree with him on the Dubai Port Deal.
I don't agree with him on open borders.
I don't agree with him on government spending.

So why do I have to agree with him on this?

 

[Irvine511]

This one:

Let's use his behavior on March 12, 2002, for example.

Here he is introducting David Brock, a former conservative, and a newfound liberal.

"His specialy was character assassination, and throughout the 1990s he made a living as a right-wing hatchet man. But after years of lies and, some would say, malicious journalism, this Washington insider wants to clear his conscience. In his new book, Blinded by the Right, best-selling author and ex-conservative David Brock exposes how he says the GOP tried to destroy the Clinton presidency through a series of well-plotted smear campaigns."

Now that he takes on the right, he's no longer a waste of sperm.

firstly, Brock is gay, so i hope "waste of sperm" wasn't a slur.

but, anyway, Brock himself characterizes the kind of journalism he was hired to do -- such as writing The Real Anita Hill -- was rightfully called a piece of right wing hatchet work. and there are left wing equivalents. does Laurer need to qualify this? why should he? he's talking about Brock, not talking about all kinds of hack partisan journalism.

and you'll notice the important words: "he says."

i do recommend you check out Brock's new website. it does a very good job documenting right wing bias in the mainstream media.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Matt, never said he was a waste of sperm. David Brock himself said he was a hachet man and he used lies...

So what's your point?

My point is obvious.

Lauer would contribute more to society if he worked for TRL.

He's a biased journalist who saw an opportunity to attack conservative views and he took it.

 

[BVS]

So why do I have to agree with him on this?

Then why were you defending him?

 

[Irvine511]

I support his case on Islamic Jihad and I back him for fighting the good fight. But that doesn't mean I have to be a party hack bootlicker and agree with everything he sponsors.

I don't agree with him on the Dubai Port Deal.
I don't agree with him on open borders.
I don't agree with him on government spending.

So why do I have to agree with him on this?

we're talking about "interrogation techniques."

tell me: do you support the use of waterboarding?

 

[BVS]

My point is obvious.

Lauer would contribute more to society if he worked for TRL.

He's a biased journalist who saw an opportunity to attack conservative views and he took it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

firstly, Brock is gay, so i hope "waste of sperm" wasn't a slur.

By no means, and I think you missed the point.

but, anyway, Brock himself characterizes the kind of journalism he was hired to do -- such as writing The Real Anita Hill -- was rightfully called a piece of right wing hatchet work. and there are left wing equivalents. does Lauer need to qualify this? why should he? he's talking about Brock, not talking about all kinds of hack partisan journalism.

and you'll notice the important words: "he says."

i do recommend you check out Brock's new website. it does a very good job documenting right wing bias in the mainstream media.

I'm going to take a look at his site right now.

But so what if he said "he says."

What would be wrong with an introduction like this:

"He made a living as a conservative political activist. But after years of self-examination, he looks back on his career with a newfound worldview. In his new book, the best-selling author makes his case on what he now believes to be smear campaigns plotted to destroy the Clinton presidency."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Seems to me Matt Lauer must be one of the least biased journalists in the US. How was he biased in that interview with Bush? What are the other examples of his attacks on conservative views?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

we're talking about "interrogation techniques."

tell me: do you support the use of waterboarding?

After reading what it involved, no I do not.

 

[BVS]

What would be wrong with an introduction like this:

"He made a living as a conservative political activist. But after years of self-examination, he looks back on his career with a newfound worldview. In his new book, the best-selling author makes his case on what he now believes to be smear campaigns plotted to destroy the Clinton presidency."

Because those weren't Brock's words to begin with...

 

[Irvine511]

After reading what it involved, no I do not.

then you stand with the Democrats. and McCain. and Amnesty International.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Because those weren't Brock's words to begin with...

So replace the word "activist" with "journalist."

 

[Macfistowannabe]

then you stand with the Democrats. and McCain. and Amnesty International.

I don't stand with the human rights groups that complain about loud music and cold rooms. And I don't stand with anyone who turns a blind eye to the Pendleton Eight, especially Matt Lauer. "McKennedy" says no torture methods whatsoever. I disagree with him. There are ways to get answers without risking the death of an unproven suspect.

A fair reporter would've questioned Bush with both waterboarding techniques and the fact that his administration has refused to make the case as to why they held their own soldiers in shackles, without charging him so shamelessly and viciously as Matt Lauer did.

 

[BVS]

A fair reporter would've questioned Bush with both waterboarding techniques and the fact that his administration has refused to make the case as to why they held their own soldiers in shackles, without charging him so shamelessly and viciously as Matt Lauer did.

Did you see how long he had with Bush? Did you see how he avoided those questions. A reporter has to know which subjects to stick to. Of course there's a lot of issues we'd like Bush to answer but you can't do it all in one short interview.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Did you see how long he had with Bush? Did you see how he avoided those questions. A reporter has to know which subjects to stick to. Of course there's a lot of issues we'd like Bush to answer but you can't do it all in one short interview.

You are ignoring the lack of coverage in the media in general of the Pendleton Eight.

Why is it that Lauer, when given the two options, does everything he can to condemn how the Jihadists are treated, and he ignores the fact that our own soldiers have been betrayed by their leaders and strapped in shackles with maximum scrutiny, before conviction?

 

[BVS]

You are ignoring the lack of coverage in the media in general of the Pendleton Eight.

I agree it's not being covered but there's a lot of questionable shit going on with that story. Completely different thread.

Why is it that Lauer, when given the two options, does everything he can to condemn how the Jihadists are treated, and he ignores the fact that our own soldiers have been betrayed by their leaders and strapped in shackles with maximum scrutiny, before conviction?

Here's the point you don't get. First of all, they aren't convicted, so calling them jihadists is a presumptious attack. Secondly, it's the fact of how we carry ourselves period. It shouldn't matter who the enemy is or why, you of all people with your deep religious convictions should know this.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree it's not being covered but there's a lot of questionable shit going on with that story. Completely different thread.

Where are the politicians on either side of the aisle?
Not to mention the press and the special interest groups.
It's mindboggling that we're spending all of our time condemning the way the military treats their prisoners, and while I agree that it is questionable, NOBODY in the political arena has the moral courage to condemn the way their own troops are being treated by the military.

This is a story that makes me wonder if there's any loyalty in this country anymore.

Here's the point you don't get. First of all, they aren't convicted, so calling them jihadists is a presumptious attack. Secondly, it's the fact of how we carry ourselves period. It shouldn't matter who the enemy is or why, you of all people with your deep religious convictions should know this.

I disagree that terror suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This leads me back to my point that we're treating these people as if they belong in the general population in our prisons. I see this as a WAR, not a law enforcement issue. Would you really perceive Saddam's innocence after all he's done to his own people?

 

[Scarletwine]

A perspective on our "enemies"

Who is the enemy?
by Omar Al-Rikabi
I have been on the road a lot in the last three months, taking different road-trips to New Orleans, New York City, Nashville, and Dallas. Constantly in the shadow of the endless line of 18-wheelers, I noticed that one particular trucking company had this sign posted on most of their trucks:

Support our troops whenever we go!
No aid or comfort to the enemy!
No way!

So who is the enemy?

Last summer my older cousin Ali was able to come in from Ohio to be at our wedding. I think it was really good for my dad to have someone from back home who was able to be there, and he filled in as my grandmother's escort, sitting with her on the front row.

Ali was forced to serve in the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Other cousins were also conscripted, stationed on the front lines and in Kuwait City. Some of them were rounded up in the mass-surrenders after the ground war began, and they all made it home. But Ali had a different story. He was a field surgeon on the front lines with the Republican Guard. Sadaam thought that if he placed the medical units close enough to the rest of the soldiers then the Americans wouldn't bomb and shell them. He was wrong.

Somehow the Iraqis knew when the American ground troops would be coming over the dunes, and so they were given a five-day pass to go home to Baghdad and say their goodbyes. Ali knew it would be a meat-grinder, and he knew that under Sadaam desertion meant death and trouble for your family. So while he was in Baghdad he had another surgeon friend take out his perfectly good appendix. While he was in the hospital, his entire unit was annihilated.

Around that same time a Marine friend of mine named Nelson had been part of an artillery outfit that was shelling Iraqi positions inside Kuwait. Suddenly an Iraqi artillery shell slammed into the hood of the truck Nelson was standing next to, but it was a dud and didn't go off. He lived to come home and tell me that story.


Also at our wedding, only four rows back from Ali, was my friend Joe, who is an Army Ranger veteran. On the other side of the isle from Ali was one of my two mothers-in-law, whose stepbrother was part of the Army forces that moved through the same area of Kuwait where Ali had been. On another pew was my friend Johanna, whose husband has served in Afghanistan and is now training for Special Forces duty in the Middle East.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The best phrase came from a taxi driver in Cairo, right after the invasion of Iraq three years ago, who upon finding out that my brother was half Iraqi and half American said, "Ahhh ... is funny. Your country is attacking your country."

I have often become frustrated when I have heard people in my church make statements like, "Remember who we're fighting here," before they lead prayers for our military victory. A professor here at Asbury once said that the only two choices we have is to either "convert them or keep them from hurting us."


Well ... first of all you can't fight and win a "war on terror." Terrorism is a method, not a country or ideology. I once heard it said that fighting a war on terror is like having the flu and declaring a war on sneezing: you're only attacking the symptoms. As long as there have been people, there has been terrorism.


But what frightens me is the mindset in this country, and in the church, that seems to think terrorism was born and raised in the Middle East, and if we can take out the Muslim Arabs then the world will be a safer place. Put this idea up against the idea in large segments of the Arab world that America has, in a sense, created terror herself with her policies toward the Middle East. So the cycle continues, and we have "become a monster to defeat a monster."


So who is the enemy? I believe that on this side of the cross, according to the scriptures, that "we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12)


If you track through the whole story of scripture, you see that while God may have fought battles on Israel's behalf in the Old Testament, the trajectory was always towards to the cross, which redeemed God's intention for creation. Jesus set for us an example of living and witnessing that intention through loving, serving, and forgiving our enemies. The way of Christ was not to kill and destroy those who had abused and killed him.


Imagine what would have happened if the entire mass community of Christians who prayed so fervently for our troops to "defeat the enemy" would have instead prayed against the real Enemy and for peace between humanity.


So who is the enemy? We must first remember that the enemies of America are not the enemies of God. I have Iraqi Army veteran family and U.S. Army veteran friends. I have been raised by Southern Methodists and Shiite Muslims. I cannot abdicate the gospel message of Christ to a bomb, but can only bear the cross: the ultimate battlefield victory over the Enemy.


Omar Al-Rikabi is the son of a Southern Methodist mother from Texas and a Shiite Muslim father from Iraq. He is in his final year of earning a Masters of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary, and a declared candidate for ordination in the United Methodist Church.

edited to add
From Soujourners

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Imagine what would have happened if the entire mass community of Christians who prayed so fervently for our troops to "defeat the enemy" would have instead prayed against the real Enemy and for peace between humanity.

Not everybody believes that peace can be achieved through inaction.

 

[BVS]

I disagree that terror suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This leads me back to my point that we're treating these people as if they belong in the general population in our prisons. I see this as a WAR, not a law enforcement issue. Would you really perceive Saddam's innocence after all he's done to his own people?

Saddam doesn't belong in the war on terror, why do you keep confusing all these ideas? Oh I know because your sources do.

I disagree that terror suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is a problem, I also find this to contradict the moral posturing you do in this forum.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Saddam doesn't belong in the war on terror, why do you keep confusing all these ideas? Oh I know because your sources do.

Saddam harbored terrorism, and was a threat to the peace of the world. 9/11 link or not, he threw tons of money at terrorist organizations and families of suicide bombers. In addition to kicking UN inspectors out, he violated almost all of the UN Resolutions that were passed after the first Gulf War. That's why we went after him.

This is a problem, I also find this to contradict the moral posturing you do in this forum.

Examples, please.

 

[BVS]

Saddam harbored terrorism, and was a threat to the peace of the world. 9/11 link or not, he threw tons of money at terrorist organizations and families of suicide bombers. In addition to kicking UN inspectors out, he violated almost all of the UN Resolutions that were passed after the first Gulf War. That's why we went after him.

Is he being held as part of the WOT? No, that is my point.

Examples, please.

Oh, please. Since day one. You accuse everything that doesn't fit in your box as not being true Christian or moral, yet you're contradicting one of Jesus' biggest teachings.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Is he being held as part of the WOT? No, that is my point.

On this we disagree, and perhaps we always will.

Oh, please. Since day one. You accuse everything that doesn't fit in your box as not being true Christian or moral, yet you're contradicting one of Jesus' biggest teachings.

Such as...?

 

[BVS]

On this we disagree, and perhaps we always will.

Well, that's just fact. He's not being tried for anything dealing with the War On Terror.

Such as...?

Love your enemy.

 

[Scarletwine]

Saddam harbored terrorism, and was a threat to the peace of the world. 9/11 link or not, he threw tons of money at terrorist organizations and families of suicide bombers. In addition to kicking UN inspectors out, he violated almost all of the UN Resolutions that were passed after the first Gulf War. That's why we went after him.


Examples, please.

Saddam did not kick out the UN inspectors. Cripes get you facts straight. They left when we announced our intent to bomb.

The biggest lie I heard yesterday was about Al Zarqawi being in league with Saddam, he was not. He was in the northern part of Irap held by the Kurds and in the no fly zone. The Kurds offered him to Bush at least 2 different times.