Who's Really Politicizing the War?
As noted below, Democrats have been accusing the President of politicizing the war on terror. But according to Hugh Hewitt's interview with Senator John Cornyn, it sounds like they're actually the ones who are allowing their political ambitions to inappropriately interfere with their official responsibilities.
According to Senator Cornyn, the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are deliberately obstructing legislation that would establish a consensus approach to handling the military tribunals of detainees in teh war on terror:
[T]hey've very expertly used the rules which allow senators to object if a committee, if we're in session, the committees can't go more than two hours if a senator objects. And so what happened, basically, they fill it up with making statements and offering amendments, and then we run up against that two hour time limit, and someone objects.
Either the Democrats really don't care about establishing any method to try terrorists -- or they care less about it than they do about winning the next election. Either way, it's hardly becoming.
According to Senator Cornyn, the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are deliberately obstructing legislation that would establish a consensus approach to handling the military tribunals of detainees in teh war on terror:
[T]hey've very expertly used the rules which allow senators to object if a committee, if we're in session, the committees can't go more than two hours if a senator objects. And so what happened, basically, they fill it up with making statements and offering amendments, and then we run up against that two hour time limit, and someone objects.
Either the Democrats really don't care about establishing any method to try terrorists -- or they care less about it than they do about winning the next election. Either way, it's hardly becoming.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:01 PM
4 Comments:
What is "hardly becoming" is your support of torture, Carol. I know it occurs at a safe remove, and to a justified end, so it's okay.
I guess with all that furious clicking coming from your keyboard, you would not have heard the screams of an Afghan cab driver who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time shortly after a rocket attack on an American base.
He ended up being beaten to death for a crime he did not commit. Even though many of his interrogators knew before the final deadly blow that he was innocent, no one stopped the beating of the shy young man, whose legs were "pulpified" according to the medical examiner.
But s__t happens, right?
The Decider alone reserves the right to determine who lives and who dies. He talks to God, who tells him whom to brutalize for the greater good. And you abet him.
Hey nice try, Hampster. What's become of the perpetrators of these heinous acts. They running around free, or what? You have any other isolated, unauthorized incidents to report? And where, BTW, did Carol ever say she supports torture as a routine tactic for procuring info? Truthfully, wasn't she just protesting the wackjob lefties publicly demanding that the ambiguous "torture" be outlawed which then assures the enemy that he has less to fear by capture? Torture, whatever the hell that supposed to mean, it's never really spelled out by you lunatic lefties, has never been an authorized tactic. It worked well for our enemies to believe they MIGHT be subjected to it, however. Another lefty Bush-bashing move that obstructs our ability to wage war against our enemy. Way to go.
M'Art,
You don't read Carol's posts very carefully, do you? Tucked between her cutesy Winston stories and her defense of her femininity lurks a dark heart that advocates the Decider doing whatever he wants with whomever he decides is guilty.
As for torture never being spelled out by us "lunatic lefties" (talk about drooling, huh?), we aren't the ones attempting to change the definition as laid out in the Geneva Conventions.
I don't believe I've ever called you that, you little prick. Are you trying to read between lines again? You've never done it very well.
As to the torture issue, it's a fair question if you insist on accusing our people of being torturers, that you spell out exactly what they did that constitutes torture. I've seen the water-boarding thing, and perhaps one might consider that torturous, but hardly the type of torture the average person would think of when hearing the word "torture". I find reading eddy's unsubstantiated accusations about the prez and his admin to be excruciating torture, but someone used to hacking off heads might be able to withstand hours of it. So quit dodging every question and explain yourselves. It's real easy to critique when you don't get specific. For example, if I just said eddy's a very stupid man and never show anyone any of his posts, I'd be guilty of the same crap you guys pull. I will say that dukie did begin the post with an example, though we don't have full details, it's probably the best we'll get, but it's close to what I'm talkin' about.
BTW, if my posts sound eddy-like on Wed nites, bear with me. It's bowling nite and the brew flows.
Post a Comment
<< Home