Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq - Democrats Lied About WMDs
USS Neverdock ^ | 11/3/05 | Marc

Posted on 11/03/2005 6:14:35 AM PST by areafiftyone

 

Iraq - Democrats Lied About WMDs

Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter accused the Bush Administration of manipulating pre war intelligence about Iraq's WMDs. But here's what he said back in Feb 03.

"He obviously has the capability and desire to build prohibited weapons and probably has some hidden in his country.

Here is a handy list of what the Democrats were saying about Iraq and WMDs before the election campaign.

See here for more debunking of the Bush lied myth.
(Info from the Link posted below)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------

 

"Bush lied" campaign collapses

The Democrat's and anti-war movement's "Bush lied" campaign has collapsed.

First, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found here, here, here and here.

Second, links between Saddam and Al Qaeda proven here, here, here, here and here.

Third, it seems Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Nigeria after all.

Inquiry will back intelligence that Iraq sought uranium

That is in addition to US reveals Iraq nuclear operation

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

Fourth, there was no pressure put on US intelligence over Iraq.

The unanimous report by the panel will say there is no evidence that intelligence officials were subjected to pressure to reach particular conclusions about Iraq.

Fifth, the Iraq war was about oil alright as we can plainly see from the UN oil-for-food scandal.

The evidence proving Bush was right is also coming from some unlikely sources.

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Clinton defends successor's push for war

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.


Front Page goes further.

An article titled "The Big Lie Campaign", contains this:

In either case – and in both cases – what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party [the Democrats] is engaged in an effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means.

Terrorists the world over must be laughing at how we are tearing ourselves apart while they make plans to speed up the process.


UPDATE: More on the Uranium - Niger - Saddam story and it was Joe Wilson who lied not Bush. Happy Anniversary to Joseph C. Wilson IV

And the The Senate Intelligence Committee Report by Dan Darling.

Also, this demolishes 2 of Richard Clarke's key claims with respect to Iraq: that there was no Iraqi involvement in terrorism post-1993, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. Both of these claims, to put it quite simply, can now be shown to be factually untrue.

Here is a handy list of what the Democrats were saying about Iraq and WMDs before the election campaign.

UPDATE 2: The UK Lord Butler Report backs Blair and Bush on Iraq's attempts to buy Uranium from Niger.

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, was well-founded.


UPDATE

More Democrats who claim Iraq had WMDs

More Chemical weapons found?

Joseph Wilson lied



TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: demlies; iraq; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 11/03/2005 6:14:36 AM PST by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; MNJohnnie; RasterMaster; jan in Colorado
Thanks for putting all this in one place area51.

Jan - this may shed some additional light on our conversation last night. Check out all the links.

2 posted on 11/03/2005 6:36:43 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Great links!

I also use these...
http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=861

http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=867

Rightfielder


3 posted on 11/03/2005 6:39:24 AM PST by rightfielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trooprally; iraqikurd; concretebob
Excellent links proving President Bush was right!!!

Which is probably why there are not 100 posts 30 minutes after this thread was put up.

4 posted on 11/03/2005 6:45:27 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

I think no matter what Bush said, says, or will say the Dem's will controvert it.
We as a group know what the President said, was true. The evidence is all over the internet.
When they played back all the statements from the Dems on Fox news yesterday saying Sadam was a threat. Now they say I did not say that. BUSH LIED. Billary is the worst of them all.
I beleive in my President !!
[Mrs T]


5 posted on 11/03/2005 7:09:31 AM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trooprally
We as a group know what the President said, was true.

Where is this group??? They/we should be shouting this information every minute of everyday.

I've seen far too many here side with the commies, saying President Bush lied. This thread has been up an hour and there are only 5 posts. Disgusting.

6 posted on 11/03/2005 7:17:12 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

The Group I am speaking of is the Free Republic.
And yes I noticed the lack of response. I am sorry about that but, I shout it all the time. Too many Dem's in Maryland don't like to hear me.

[Mrs T]


7 posted on 11/03/2005 7:44:02 AM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Nice work!

Now if only the Republicans would make a very public noise about it!


8 posted on 11/03/2005 7:45:32 AM PST by airborne (Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

Rush made a very long speech on this just yesterday.


9 posted on 11/03/2005 7:47:02 AM PST by airborne (Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
I agree with you. And as a reminder...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice." "The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

We elected our leaders to represent us.

They sent our troops to war. In reality, every one of us sent them there.

Saddam had WMD, we know that as a fact. The only question is "Where did they go." The burden of proof was on him to prove he no longer had them. WHen he didn't comply, we went in (remember, all Reagan declared was a "cease fire.")

We simply finished a job that nobody else had the guts to do. And now that the "oil for food" info is out- we know why. Ask any soldier how many NEW Russian and French weapons we found over there...

10 posted on 11/03/2005 7:49:34 AM PST by rightfielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Regardless of how compelling the evidence, no one will ever be able to get the libs off their "Bush lied, boys died" mantra. A pathetic lot, one and all.

As conservatives, we have a sworn duty to use all means, short of homicide, to keep these vermin from destroying our country.
11 posted on 11/03/2005 7:55:19 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

Richard Miniter has a new book out about the WMDs actually found and I agree that FrontPage has done a great job exposing these Commie-crats for who they are and what they said. Also, David Horowitz maintains DiscoverTheNetworks which exposes a lot of these issues very well.


12 posted on 11/03/2005 8:15:24 AM PST by unionblue83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83
When I was in Baghdad, I spoke frequently with Dr. Khidhir Hamza, who worked on Hussein's nuclear weapons program before escaping with his family. He was actually educated in the US at FSU. He insists they were moved across the syrian border prior to the war and buried in the desert. Who should know better than he?

He wrote an excellent book entitled Saddam's Bombmaker
13 posted on 11/03/2005 8:23:45 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stm

Thank you for serving our country. I did happen to see a recent reference to this book but cannot remember where. A "friend" of mine actually was with the contingent that conducted some interviews and reviewed intelligence gleaned from captured terrorists. There have been a few (not enough) people in the conservative press that have mentioned this "Ghost Caravan" led by the Russians to Syria, which I have no doubt that they (the Ruskies) did. Who, other than the Chinese and the French, had as much of a vested interest in Saddam's regime than one of their major weapons suppliers?


14 posted on 11/03/2005 8:30:15 AM PST by unionblue83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stm

The Goverment has stated that they were moved just before we went to Iraq into Syria and Iran. Of coarse you don't hear that anymore. Then Iran saying this week they have nuclear capability. Do the Dem's think this is all fiction and fabrication?
Has Dr. Khidhr Hamza told the US this?


15 posted on 11/03/2005 8:34:09 AM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; ALlRightAllTheTime; armymarinemom; tgslTakoma; Justanobody; 3D-JOY; ...
I received this in my email today...

The GOP-controlled Senate added an amendment to the $440-billion military spending bill that would extend to spies, terrorists, and Islamic jihadists the same rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution.

In other words, our military interrogators can no longer question suspected suicide bombers and murderers of women and children without the ACLU looking over their shoulder -- ready to haul some poor enlisted man into court just because he yelled at a terrorist or hurt a terrorist’s feelings.

If the Senate had done such a despicable thing during World War II, the American people would have stormed the Capitol, tarred and feathered all who voted for such treachery, and ridden them out of town on a rail.

This evil, suicidal bill – if implemented – would expose Americans to the greatest danger in the history of our nation: The planting of explosives on our subways. Suicide bombers killing American women and children. Airline hijackings. Assassinations.

Do you realize that not a single terrorist attack has occurred on American soil since 9/11 – despite the dark, dire predictions of the political know-it-alls.

You know why? Because our worldwide intelligence operation has discovered and exposed plot after plot to kill Americans, both abroad and at home.

You may be alive today because some interrogator wasn’t too fastidious about how he got his information from some proud, smirking jihadist.

Can anyone confirm this?

If this is true, we are in worse shape than I imagined, and I'm going to start flying my flag upside down..
the symbol for dire distress..yes it is a Federal Code..

16 posted on 11/03/2005 3:18:31 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm
Short of homicide

I think I'll study on that exception for awhile..do you mean homicide, or murder?
Is a perceived threat of eminent force or bodily harm an exception to the exception?

17 posted on 11/03/2005 3:24:08 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

I read through your post and am for ONCE...speechless!

I have to research this. Whatever are we thinking?

Is this a way to say we are at war?...NOT!!


18 posted on 11/03/2005 3:34:22 PM PST by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: iraqikurd
The rights granted under our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights apply to persons born here, or who have spent the required time to become naturalized.
Those of us who are American by birth are the lucky ones, we are not required to do another damn thing to maintain that position, nor are we required to take periodic examinations to ensure we still know what it means to be an American.
Not that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Naturalized citizens must wait 5 years, take a test, and swear alligence, disavowing all ties to their former nation.
To have these rights just handed out, like Halloween candy, to a group of fanatics whose only puprpose for living is to kill all who do not believe as they do, well, we may as well tell them to come on in, and start sharpening the swords for them...

This will not stand..it is un-constitutional..un-American..and really pisses me off.

20 posted on 11/03/2005 4:03:55 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Terrific roundup! Thanks for putting it all together.


21 posted on 11/03/2005 4:26:20 PM PST by PleaDeal (Bill Whittle for Pres. in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: iraqikurd
we can not win the War on Terrorism solely on the military front.

That is the ONLY way we can the WAR on Terrorism..we are fighting terrorists...
The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights assume that people are civilized to a certain degree..unless you can assure me that OBL, Zarqwai, and their followers will demonstrate some degree of civility, they deserve NOTHING but the muzzle of a weapon..
you advocate negotiation with terrorists..appeasment...and surrender..

But lets be civilized about this...I truly want to help the terrorists..

THEY WANT TO DIE

I WANT TO HELP

23 posted on 11/03/2005 4:59:00 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: iraqikurd
We have also dealt with people domestically who want to do nothing more than kill other Americans yet we allow them and ensure they are protected by these same unalienable rights

Those people, with the exception of certain gangs, do not have a worldwide religion, nor do they have followers willing to die in their cause. That is criminal behavior...not TERRORISM..there is a definite distinction between someone who robs a bank and shoots a bank guard, and someone who will strap on a backpack and kill inocents..or fly a plane into a building..or set a bomb on a subway...or behead non-combatants...or use chemical, biological, or nuclear devices against civilians..

24 posted on 11/03/2005 5:05:39 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: concretebob
I share your anger over the involvement of the ACLU, Red Cross and other humanitarian groups that want to treat the terrorists better than they deserve.

But with the world wide media being so anti-American, we unfortunately can't take the proverbial gloves off (as much as we all want to, especially including Iraqikurd) and treat the terrorist as they deserve. There is evidence that the televised beheadings and murders by the terrorists is having a negative result, opposite that which the terrorist want.

This is as much a war of guns as it is for the hearts & minds of the Iraqis and Muslims. After WWII, we could have been hard nosed with the Germans & Japanese. But they would have been humiliated and possibly rise to power like they did after WWI. After WWII we did take those responsible for crimes to task and either imprisoned them or executed them. We, or at least the Iraqis will, and they won't show the same "mercy" we are. So in the end, they'll get theirs.

I know it is hard to stomach, but please bear with it. If Iraqikurd can, its the least that we can.>

I would really like to see those who exposed the CIA prisons be indicted and jailed.
25 posted on 11/03/2005 5:11:13 PM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

This is great, thanks. Now if we could only get this info into the NYTimes! :-)


26 posted on 11/03/2005 5:13:11 PM PST by ladyinred ("Progressive" = code word for Communist/Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unionblue83
This is an email I received form Human Events about the book

Dear Fellow Conservative,
This is an email about one of the most powerful weapons of our time... "disinformation."

It's a weapon that is used on all of us over and over every day of our lives. How do I know this?

The deliberately suppressed list above is one reason. Here's another: Have you heard that Osama bin Laden is on kidney dialysis? I'll bet you have. Much of the Western media report bin Laden's presumed affliction as a matter of fact -- and most Americans believe it. But...

...it's just not true.

Now, you may well be thinking: "Why would the news media want to make me believe that Osama bin Laden is a very sick and perhaps dying man?" Well, here's why...

The news media are -- overwhelmingly -- against the Iraq War. The image of an aged, 6-foot, 8-inch Arab limping from cave to cave, trailing a camel loaded down with dialysis equipment -- eluding George W. Bush and the most powerful military in the world -- appeals to them enormously.

And so the myth lives on -- for SEVEN YEARS now! -- long past the normal life expectancy of patients hooked up to dialysis in the best hospitals, let alone the freezing, rugged mountains of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

There is a name for this phenomenon -- disinformation.

The term refers to the deliberate dissemination of FALSE information (and the intentional omission of TRUE information) for the purpose of confusing rivals or influencing public opinion.

Indeed, the false conclusion that "Bush lied, there were no WMDs in Iraq," is the main supporting claim of the anti-war Left. Without it, the movement collapses.

My name is Tom Winter, Editor in Chief of HUMAN EVENTS. It grieves me to admit that millions upon millions of Americans unknowingly accept blatant falsehoods as facts due to the power and prevalence of disinformation.

Take a look at some of the most pernicious lies that you have no doubt read or heard:

There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda

The U.S. funded the Taliban in the 1980s

Suitcase nukes are in place across America

Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA

Halliburton made a fortune in Iraq

There were no Jews in the Word Trade Center on 9/11

What do each of these widely publicized, widely believed "facts" have in common? Here's what:

They are undeniably false... as you will discover in Disinformation, the new blockbuster book by veteran reporter Richard Miniter, and it will be my pleasure to send it to you FREE in hard cover, just for trying HUMAN EVENTS.

Rich Miniter's career sounds like something out of a spy thriller -- except it's real. In addition to writing for newspapers in the U.S., Western Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia, he has traveled with rebels into war zones in Uganda, Sudan and Burma and along smugglers' routes in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia.

Few reporters are more familiar with the methodology of disinformation -- the clever misdirection, false rumors, press manipulation, and endless repetition of falsehoods until they morph into "truth." Disinformation is a dark art, and Richard Miniter understands its shadings and subtleties.

27 posted on 11/03/2005 5:23:13 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

The truth means nothing to the leftist, commie bastards. They make up the "truth" as they go along, and so does the MSM. But, the People are seeing through it, and that pi$$es them off.


28 posted on 11/03/2005 5:28:14 PM PST by timydnuc (I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trooprally
So those young warriors who swore an oath to preseerve the Constitution and died doing it are what???? Symbols???
BRAVO SIERRA...

you don't hand over the rights people died preserving to the people responsible for their deaths...convicted felons lose their rights...end of story..and end of this discussion...

29 posted on 11/03/2005 5:28:16 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: trooprally

Germany and Japan SURRENDERED...and re-joined the world commuinty..and haven't tried to kill our citizens on a continuous basis..


30 posted on 11/03/2005 5:30:36 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Neets; Darksheare; scott0347; timpad; KangarooJacqui; The Scourge of Yazid; Conspiracy Guy; ...

PING to the crew


31 posted on 11/03/2005 5:58:04 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: concretebob; iraqikurd; trooprally

I'm inclined to agree with Iraqikurd on this one, Bob.

I agree that all of our Constitutional rights should not be extended to suspected terrorists, but basic human rights should. I have always felt that torture was a barbaric and subhuman thing to consider, but that doesn't mean that modern interrogation techniques, including moderate brainwashing or de-conditioning, and chemical pursuaders should be forbidden.

I took pride in the fact that in the first Gulf War, Iraqi troops surrendered in droves to our men (and Machines!) It seemed to prove to me that civilised treatment of prisoners of war was the best way to win battles. Convincing your opponents to fight to the last man is just plain stupid, and costly in our lives as well as theirs.

We need to convince our friends and enemies that we have a better lifestyle, with freedom and justice for all, and not just a better war machine.


33 posted on 11/03/2005 6:42:41 PM PST by NicknamedBob (If I were not a husband and father, I might be wealthier, but I wouldn't be richer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
There is a rabid dog in your neighborhood. He has already attacked several of your neighbors and their children
You gonna break out the Kibbles & Bits, or the 30.30?
34 posted on 11/03/2005 7:46:53 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Thanks, areafiftyone!

Bookmarking!


35 posted on 11/03/2005 8:04:27 PM PST by Watery Tart (Quote me as saying I was misquoted. --Groucho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The Democraps will allege that they didnt have all the information that Bush had, and that their information wasnt timely, and that only Bush acted, and that he acted without objectively evaluating all the information.

Its specious and inconsistant but its good enough for govt work.

36 posted on 11/03/2005 8:07:33 PM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
The McCain Amendment -- SA 1977 -- Says The Following...

“No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

No cruel or inhuman treatment... that sounds reasonable... or does it?

But the phrase “degrading treatment” – which could have been invented by Amnesty International -- is so vague and full of holes you could drive a Hummer through it.

Solitary confinement, harsh language, ridicule, mild threats, good-cop-bad-cop -- the Senate wants to outlaw all of these standard questioning techniques and restrict interrogators to the etiquette of a ladies’ lawn party.

These terrorists are butchering women and children all over the globe -- as well as launching sneak attacks on our troops – and we’re supposed to walk on egg shells when we try to find out which Americans they intend to kill next?

Exactly what are our troops suppose to do when questioning these terrorist thugs in an attempt to save American lives?

"Pretty please Mr. terrorist... I beg you...could you please tell us the details of your NEXT attack on innocent Americans?"

That's about the size of it folks. After all, we will now have to be extra careful not to do ANYTHING THAT WOULD DEGRADE OR INSULT THESE KILLERS!

The U.S. Senate hasn’t gotten the message: We’re at war with fanatics who hate Americans.

These jihadists are willing to die for their faith, and we aren’t even willing to be ill-mannered to protect our freedom.

37 posted on 11/03/2005 8:09:35 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
We need to convince our friends and enemies that we have a better lifestyle, with freedom and justice for all, and not just a better war machine.

Our friends don't need convincing and our enemies think our lifestyle is a tool of satan..it's why they are our enemies..
they tried to DESTROY that lifestyle on 9/11
anyone who believes TERRORISTS...islamo-extremists...alQueda... is worthy of the same treatment as criminals or prisoners of war is not thinking clearly..or does not understand the evil we are dealing with..

38 posted on 11/03/2005 8:44:14 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Hell, let 'em vote too..and give 'em medial care, and social security.

39 posted on 11/03/2005 8:55:48 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

Thanks for the ping!


40 posted on 11/03/2005 9:20:54 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: concretebob; iraqikurd; trooprally

You have a powerful rant going on, Bob, and I wouldn't want to throw water on it.

For the most part I agree with you. We cannot afford to treat our sworn enemies as party guests.

But we also cannot treat them as animals, or enemy combatants if they are only detainees, (persons of interest in an investigation. Theoretically, they could just be witnesses or bystanders when something goes down.)

I agree that we have shackled ourselves needlessly, and foolishly, if these rules are already in effect. But I still maintain that we need to take the high road in our treatment of prisoners. All prisoners.

Right up to the day they are to be hanged, or shot.


41 posted on 11/03/2005 9:25:02 PM PST by NicknamedBob (If I were not a husband and father, I might be wealthier, but I wouldn't be richer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; ALlRightAllTheTime; armymarinemom; tgslTakoma; Justanobody; 3D-JOY; ...
The words “cruel [and] unusual” are taken right out of the 8th Amendment – “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” -- thereby conferring on a bunch of terrorists the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of U.S. citizenship.

But “degrading treatment” is a phrase lifted from a document drafted by the United Nations.

Henceforth international terrorists throughout the world have all the rights of accused criminals in the United States. And an additional right – freedom from “degrading treatment” – which comes from the U.N., an organization also known as Hate America International.

We can’t tolerate this surrender to Kofi Annan’s gang, a cowardly act designed to undercut the self-preservation of Americans under international attack.

Let’s Clear Up A Few Things Right Now

We don’t torture prisoners. We don’t blindfold them, threaten them with execution, and televise their pathetic pleas for life.

We don’t condone cruel and unusual punishments. We don’t lop off prisoners’ heads in front of TV cameras or on the world wide web.

With few exceptions, we treat prisoners as humanely as any enemy has ever treated its enemies. Ask the handful of U.S. troops who survived captivity how the terrorists treated them.

Abu-Gharib was the exception -- not the rule -- and mere child's play in comparison to how these terrorists, murderers and thugs treat our people -- or even their own people for that matter.

The only atrocities going on at Guantanamo Bay are the atrocities that these murderers and thugs who are being detained are heaping upon the fine U.S. soldiers assigned to guard them.

We give these terrorists their own Korans, prayer rugs, clean living conditions, indoor plumbing and three square meals a day... many of them NEVER had it so good.

Of course that has not stopped anti-America members of our own media from literally beating up on our brave men and women in uniform -- looking for isolated examples of "abuse" -- and -- in many cases -- simply making them up.

These facts did not stop the liberal Senator from Illinois -- Dick Durbin -- from falsely comparing our brave men and women in uniform to NAZIs.

However... perhaps you now see why our GOP-lead Senate voted for this ghastly amendment?

Simply put, they did not want to be skewered by members of the anti-American press who would have -- without a doubt -- FALSELY reported opposition to this dastardly amendment as support of torture.

And that -- dear FRiends -- is cowardice, pure and simple!

While our troops risk their lives on the battlefield half-way around the world -- these spineless Senators would not even risk a little bad-mouthing from a biased media!

It's so sick... it's disgusting!

McCain’s amendment is a nasty, politically motivated slur on the integrity of our armed forces, and a gross insult to the American people.

What the Senate did two weeks ago must be undone.

Now I'm finished..

42 posted on 11/03/2005 10:47:51 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
Iraqi troops surrendered in droves to our men

The difference between scared 18 to 25 year old conscripts, and the motivated, dedicated elements of the islamo-extremists should be obvious.

43 posted on 11/03/2005 10:53:29 PM PST by concretebob (We should give anarchists what they want. Then we can kill them and not worry about jailtime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Great stuff and links.


44 posted on 11/03/2005 10:55:08 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

What the Senate did two weeks ago must be undone.


How?


45 posted on 11/03/2005 11:09:43 PM PST by Just Lori (Tony Schaeffer, Curt Weldon, Able Danger....... PAY ATTENTION.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: concretebob
What the Senate did two weeks ago must be undone.

Any Senator who tries will immediately be labeled as being in favor of torture – and wanting prisoners tortured.
46 posted on 11/04/2005 2:42:04 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

When we have a riot here like France will Congress notice?


47 posted on 11/04/2005 3:08:37 AM PST by bmwcyle (We broke Pink's Code and found a terrorist message)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: concretebob; iraqikurd
Bob,

I received the same email from TownHall.com. It's legit.

I also agree with you.

From How to Interrogate Terrorists:

...The Geneva conventions embody the idea that even in as brutal an activity as war, civilized nations could obey humanitarian rules: no attacking civilians and no retaliation against enemy soldiers once they fall into your hands. Destruction would be limited as much as possible to professional soldiers on the battlefield. That rule required, unconditionally, that soldiers distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly.

Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head...

Take the time to read the whole article.

This is not a popularity contest. To me, cost-benefit analysis says pussy-footing around with terrorists will do nothing but cause the death of more innocents. So the question is, is it more humane to provide human debris all the protections of the U.S. Constitution when it will more assuredly mean the deaths of innocents? Seems silly when you're in a shooting war and the detainees were lucky to have not caught a bullet in the head on the battlefield.

48 posted on 11/04/2005 5:29:13 AM PST by BufordP (Excluding the WOT, I haven't trusted W since he coined the term "compassionate conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: airborne

Dang! I hate it when I miss Rush.


49 posted on 11/04/2005 5:48:48 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rightfielder
Thanks for that "reminder"

Ask any soldier how many NEW Russian and French weapons we found over there...

Never thought of that question!

50 posted on 11/04/2005 5:51:50 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson