And So It's Come to This: The NYT Subverts American Security in Order to Bring Down Bush

Our Patriotic Media decides to make an issue of something we all knew was going on, and all knew had to go on, in order to make political trouble for Bush. Get ready for a shock-- we roughly treated top Al Qaeda leaders and operatives in an effort to get information from them.

All right, jerkoffs-- you want to whine about torturning Al Qaeda suspects? You know Bush cannot not permit this; it is necessary. But you think it's worth it to inflame the quite-inflamable Arabs over it, if it can be used to damage Bush.

Well, you've succeeded in hurting America's national security. Congrats. But you won't succeed in damaging Bush.

Because the American people know that this is completely justified. It is -- what was the term used by the Washington Post ombudsmen a couple of days ago? Ah yes -- "necessary and patriotic."

You haven't made trouble for Bush; you've made trouble for Kerry, who will now be forced to admit he's against harming a hair on Khalid Sheik Muhammed's precious head.

We want Kerry on the record about this, no mushy-mouthed stradles, no equivocations. Is he against it or is he for it?

And let's run the fucking election on this one single issue.

We are absolutely furious. There is no limit the liberals and lefties will not go to -- there is no damage to America they will not inflict -- in order to get their precious political power back.

John Kerry Couldn't Stink More of Pathetic Opportunism if He Showed Up at a Dog-Kennel With Snausages Stuffed Up His Narrow Ass: Our brave and fearless war-hero (thanks for winning 'Nam for us, pallie! now wants to put off court-martialing the soldiers responsible in order to look further up the chain of command.

But that's not the best part.

The best part is this: "They dismiss the Geneva Conventions, starting in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, so that the status of prisoners both legal and moral becomes ambiguous at best," the senator from Massachusetts told radio host Don Imus.

We want it on the record and unambiguous. We want a clear statement.

What Kerry is doing is attempting to criticize Bush for what Bush is doing, while refusing to announce what he would specifically do in Bush's place.

This is unnacceptable.

We want it clear and on the record and without any wiggle:

True or false, Senator: You would strictly apply the full panoply of Geneva Conventions protections to Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists, despite the fact they're not legal combatants nor are they soldiers in the army of a signatory of the Conventions, meaning absolutely no forceful/coercive/painful interrogations of terrorists and serious punishment for all of those who violate your policy.

We will not accept a "nuanced" answer on this one, Senator. True or false. Yes or no.

posted by Ace at 11:05 PM

| Access Comments