Georgie doesn't like to use the word "torture", but that is what he wants to continue doing. Bush has approved the use of such tactics as "waterboarding" and guard dog attacks, but it looks like it just dawned on him that these activities are not permitted by the Geneva Convention.
He is now asking Congress to approve changes in the way the Geneva Convention is interpreted. In short, he wants Congress to legalize his use of torture. He got the House of Representatives to go along with his evil plan, but it looks like the Senate may not go along with it. John McCain, along with three other Republican senators, joined Democrats in refusing to allow Georgie's plan out of committee. These senators understand that if it is legal for the U.S. to torture prisoners, then it is also legal for our enemies to torture U.S. soldiers. The same rules must apply to all sides. Why does Georgie hate our trrops and want them tortured?
Georgie says he must have "clarity" of the rules, or otherwise the interrogations will stop. He says he is afraid our CIA torturers might be declared war criminals. Actually, I think he is just afraid that HE will be branded a war criminal [and well he should be]. Let me provide some "clarity" for Georgie:
Torture is morally and ethically wrong.
Torture is against U.S. law AND the Geneva Convention.
Torture does not work [even our CIA admits this].
Torture puts our own soldiers at risk.
Is that clear enough for you Georgie?
stopkinky,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I did read the answer to the question that both jobsanger and I put to you, about who you support in the governor race. You obviously did put much effort into answering us. That showed by a) the length of the answer, and b) that you explained the answer very well, leaving me with no further questions.
But...
Another thing I addressed in the comments where the question was put to you was that you are now attempting to turn non-Kinky posts into Kinky ones.
Does jobsanger's almost daily Kinky posts not give you enough room to express your opinion?
Do you think using non-Kinky posts to discuss Kinky will be the way to convince jobsanger to change who he supports? Cause, I can tell you from personal experience, that changing his mind when it is already made up is harder than teaching a dog to meow.
Or are you trying to convince our readers not to vote for Kinky? If that is the case, you are pretty much preaching to the choir. If you'll take a longer look at the few comments on his Kinky posts, I'm sure you'll notice that most are staunch Democrats who are already not very fond of the man.
Listen, I agree with some of the things you say. I have no problem with you commenting on this blog, nor does jobsanger (I think he just ignores you now, to tell the truth).
But please stick to the topic. There will be plenty more Kinky posts to come. Save your anti-Kinky comments for those posts.
This is the last time I will ask.
CC (and jobsanger):
ReplyDeleteI'll stop posting here unless you invite commentary from me in the future.
Before I go, I'll tell you why I have posted occasionally in non-Kinky threads.
In the Kinky threads, I have nothing to do but disagree with jobsanger. I offer policy-based reasons why jobsanger's support for progressive views on immigration and the chruch-state separation and Bush's foreign policy and other issues is at odds with his support for Kinky, and jobsanger is unmoved. I offer documentation of untruthful statements by Kinky and jobsanger still offers his trust in Kinky as his main reason for supporting Kinky.
Of course, all of this is fine. Adults disagree sometimes and that's what political debate is about. But the truth is that I suspect from reading this blog that jobsanger and I agree much more than we disagree about important issues. Frankly, I tire of disagreeing with someone all the time.
Because I tire of disagreeing all the time, I sometimes see jobsanger post something I agree with 100% and I am moved to respond. I feel this sometimes when I read something I would have been proud to have written myself.
Ironically, some of these issues where I agree 100% with jobsanger are some of the very same issues which cause me to advocate against Kinky (e.g., Bush's foreign policy, immigration, race, the separation of church and state). Instead of posting in a Kinky thread where I have nothing to do but disagree, I have occasionally posted in these non-Kinky threads to agree with jobsanger and to include a link to some source which makes me believe that jobsanger's views on a given issue are not alligned with Kinky's.
Jobsanger's post which began this thread involved his criticism of Bush's foreign policies applicable in the Middle East. As it happens, I agree 100% with jobsanger on this issue. Moreover, I have read Kinky interviews which lead me to believe that Kinky is not critical of Bush's disasterous foreign policy in the Middle East. Instead of directly opening a debate about Kinky, where we can only disagree, I would rather post a statement of our agreement, with a link to show why I think Kinky doesn't share our views.
I have raised my concern that Kinky's campaign lures voters who are losing faith in the system and thereby effectively insures the re-election of Perry (as if voting for a progressive candidate isn't enough of a protest vote we need to vote for an entertainer with a dubious grasp of the issues to register our protest, as if voting for a less progressive candidate encourages the Democratic Party to nominate better candidates?).
I will leave. If you ever feel the need of some facts about Kinky's actual statements or his views on various issues (and bear in mind that Kinky's unrehearsed statements conflict mightly with the filtered generalities on his website), you can find me at http://stopkinky.blogspot.com between now and early November.
stopkinky,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't come in to agree with jobsanger. You dragged a disagreement that the two of you have to a subject that had nothing to do with your disagreement. If, as you stated, you are tired of disagreeing with jobsanger and would like to discuss a subject that you agree with him on, why start out by reminding him of your disagreement?
Neither jobsanger nor I have a problem with you commenting on this site, as I said earlier. I simply want you to stick with the subject, or at the very least to leave any disagreements where they belong. I did not ask you not to come back, you have obviously decided to do that on your own. Why? Because I asked you to stay with the subject? This post is about Georgie's crooked views on torture, not Kinky's view on Georgie's foreign policy. The post had absolutely nothing to do with Kinky or jobsanger's support of him.
What does any of this have to do with Kinky?
ReplyDeleteI thought CC McGoon was the first one to bring up Kinky.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're right in that this post has nothing to do with Kinky, but if you'll go back and look at this thread you'll see that I was not the one that brought up Kinky. stopkinky did that (as he/she admitted) in the first comment.
I guess you have to be more of a political insider than me to understand that stopkinky's first statement at the top was about Kinky. I probably should have guessed from her name that it was about Kinky. To my inexperienced eyes, it read like a comment about Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East. I would have agreed with it before you exlained it.
ReplyDelete