I think you missed some points. Some of the criticism, like a lot of it, has to do with the pure incompetence of this Republican administration. These guys couldn't win a game of dodge-ball in the backyard playing against 6 year olds.

Back in March 2004 President Bush had a great time displaying what he felt was a hilarious set of photos showing him searching the Oval Office for the weapons of mass destruction that hadn't been found in Iraq. It was a spoof he performed at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association.

The photos showed the president peering behind curtains and looking under furniture for the missing weapons. Mr. Bush offered mock captions for the photos, saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere" and "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?"

The president deliberately led Americans traumatized by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, into the false belief that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that a pre-emptive invasion would make the United States less vulnerable to terrorism.

Close to 600 Americans had already died in Iraq when Mr. Bush was cracking up the audience with his tasteless photos at the glittering Washington gathering. The toll of Americans has now passed 1,750. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Scores of thousands of men, women and children have been horribly wounded. And there is no end in sight.

The C.I.A. warned the administration in a classified report in May that Iraq - since the American invasion in 2003 - had become a training ground in which novice terrorists were schooled in assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other terror techniques. The report said Iraq could prove to be more effective than Afghanistan in the early days of Al Qaeda as a place to train terrorists who could then disperse to other parts of the world, including the United States.

You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him. And in the course of that, they're learning how to build bombs. They're learning how to conduct military operations.

Americans are paying a fearful price for Mr. Bush's adventure in Iraq. In addition to the toll of dead and wounded, the war is costing about $5 billion a month. It has drained resources from critical needs here at home, including important antiterror initiatives that would improve the security of ports, transit systems and chemical plants.

The war has diminished the stature and weakened the credibility of the United Sates around the world. And it has delivered a body blow to the readiness of America's armed forces.

Great Job Dubya!

Ghost, thanks for the Kos talking points...

Now, I am about getting sick of blowing this torture thing out of proportion. Why is it so important to make us look bad????? The thing is that it doesn't fly here. My relatives who aren't into politics just see the whole thing for what it is...political revenge. BUT, overseas it plays like a sweet harp to the anti-American propaganda that the media there love to put out there.

Do the liberals not see this?

Please Ace, stop questioning their patriotism.

If that's torture, what's Amnesty International going to say in their annual American Frat Party report?

Hey Everybody!
Ace got married!
To a WOMAN!

Hey, who let John Kerry's speechwriter in here?

I wish we had audio/video commenting here. I'd love to see if Ghost Dansing could say what he types with a straight face. I doubt it. But he's probably scoring a lot of points back at DU.

I find it highly amusing that some people don't know the difference between humiliation and torture.

Makes me wonder what high school was like for them.

That sounds a lot like fraternity hazing to me. What is the left so worked up about? If we really wanted to get in their heads, we could go back to this:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

You soft-pedal the Gitmo behavior, but for me it brings back memories of Nazi Death Camps with the dancing, the name-calling, and (because it was a different time and place) the prisoners being forced to wear giant woolen bloomers on their heads. Sometimes I wake up screaming.

Just ask Peter Yarrow and the people who brought us Operation Respect: Don't Laugh at Me

Torture? I have worse things happen at house parties. People *ask* for worse...

Forgive me if it's been discussed here, but I caught a few minutes of a special of some sort on (A&E?)...
Anyway, I thought it was great, they featured the tactics used against a group of detainees that were being moved from one location to Gitmo.
Long story short, they treated them great, no rough tactics. They used the terrirists own fear of their homelands (or nearby lands) to instill fear.
Over time, and using various means, they convinced many of them that they were going to be returned to "other" authorities in different parts of the world.
They even labeled a few "Syria" or "Egypt" with black marker and masking tape on their prison attire.
They brought in a convincing and fluent "Egyptian Military Commander" among other things to complete the effect.
It sounded as if that gained them loads of information to wade through as the detainees became more and more anxious about the move.

Here's hoping that that's not the only effective intellegence gathering that's being used.

At least it didn't involve leashes. Indeed.

msl

Wow. No WMDs, no Saddam-al Qaeda link, no...zzzzz. Sorry, I'm just tired of hearing the same shit over and over. The Baathist-AQ link has been proven, over and over. Stephen Hayes wrote an entire book, The Connection, about Saddam's links to AQ and other terrorist groups. Is there anyone who honestly believes that a meglomaniacal monster like Hussein offered material support to every Islamic terrorist group in the Middle East EXCEPT Al-Qaeda, the biggest and most lethal? Really? Prior to the US putting on her war face, AQ operated in battalion size in only two places, Afghanistan and ..Iraq. Al Anser was training and plotting in northern Iraq with the express consent of Hussein. Iraq was just as complicit in state-sponsored terrorism as Iran, Syria, or any other country liberals scream we should have invaded while not really meaning it.

I prefer just to say, "Yeah, it's torture. So what?" After 9/11, my preference was to nuke Mecca and Medina and to daisy-cutter the al-Aqsa Mosque, to seize Arab and Muslim oil with extravagant violence, and to stuff a sock in the mouths of our would-be critics by selling the oil cheap. I was heedless of muslim casualties then, and I'm heedless now. I don't want merely to oppose terrorism; I want to take Allah's place and become The Terror, to put down Islam so spectacularly that for a lifetime, the thought of violence against us will make whoever imagines it sick with dread. Against that background, the question as to whether there's torture at Guantanamo looks like hairsplitting.

Arifel for President 2008. Sounds like a winning platform to me.

Yo, Arifel you got a VP pick already, or is the job open?

I've got your campaign's theme song right here.

"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative: violence. Force must be applied without apology.
It's the Starfleet way."
- Captain Kathryn Janeway, Commanding Officer, USS Voyager NCC-74656

Arifel,

Good luck in '08.

After 9/11 I also wanted Mecca and Medina to glow in the dark. Given the continued evil, perhaps in the end that may end up being the choice of every non-Muslim.

Ace,

msm = Quislings - no more needs to be said.

Love the "this administration could't win a game of dodge ball against 6 year old" blast. Good one.

Well, they were good enough to smoke your side in a game of winner take all presidential politics last year.

The dem/msm talking points are exausted. Most people hear that litany start and tune right out.

Well I for one do not wish America to be better than the terrorists. I want America to be tougher than the terrorists. I want America to take the war seriously and do what needs to be done.

American troops didn't beat the Wehrmacht and the Japanese by being better than they were, they did it by being tougher, meaner, and wanting to win more. Only a dolt would think American troops in WWII were saints.

Claim: "anti-war Democratic politicians and the anti-war Democratic media Spirit Squad -- downplayed Saddam's vicious torture and state-supported rape"

Truth: Leftists like Noam Chomsky were trying to bring pro-democracy Iraqis into the US back when Saddam was torturing -- but was buddy of Rumsfeld and the rest. Wanna guess who was downplaying Saddam's torture then?

Another key point: over 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. When you read stories focusing on the bras on the heads, you know you are reading a whitewash, that makes it appear to be dealing with the worst while ignoring it. According to the military doctors' reports, some deaths were clearly the result of beatings, though the military claimed deaths were not homicide - so you have to get the medical records rather than trust the military ruling.

Amnesty Int'l focuses on the deaths and beatings. Wankers focus on the humiliation. See the difference?

We already ARE better than the terrorists.

Now that we've got that settled, can we wipe out the bastards?

"Amnesty Int'l focuses on the deaths and beatings. Wankers focus on the humiliation. See the difference?"

Sorta, but frankly, we don't really care.

"Truth: Leftists like Noam Chomsky were trying to bring pro-democracy Iraqis into the US back when Saddam was torturing -- but was buddy of Rumsfeld and the rest. Wanna guess who was downplaying Saddam's torture then?"

Rusmfeld finally realize that Noam Chomsky was right and decided with his buddies to follow his (chomsky's) recommendation and bring democracy to Iraq by toppling. Happy now?

Again, their response to this is always: "But we want to America to be better." Who doesn't? But it's hard to square their claimed love of America with their constant adversarial position against her. Generally the objection of your affection is seen and a described in a positive light, not a viciously distorted negative one.

Hyperbolic? Yeah, maybe. But I think in today's political climate, it's also fairly apt.

So....

If harsh insults and panties on the head are out, what technique does the left propose for dragging information out of these goons?

Hugs and understanding?

A heartfelt conversation with Sean Penn?

Saying pretty please with sugar on top?

Oh, and by the way, tubino writes:

Another key point: over 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Nobody has died in Gitmo. In some other places, perhaps they have. I'm not sufficiently up to snuff on that info, but we know for sure that no prisoners have died in custody at Gitmo, so you might want to leave that off your list.

Especially considering the fact that an independent report was just released that says there have been only three violations of army regulations or the Geneva Convention (which, I might add, doesn't even apply to terrorists or illegal combatants) at Gitmo since it opened.

The only way I really care about Americans being "better" than the terrorists is that I want us to be breathing.

There's a war on people.

sheesh.

I'm so bored by this Gitmo thing. The only people in there probably deserve to be tortured in the first place, so whether it happened or not is, as Arifel noted, a matter of complete indifference to me.

I'll grant every charge the left has ever made about Gitmo and/or Abu Ghraib. Can we launch a couple of nukes now, please?

I am paraphrasing another liberal blogger but truly ask yourself. If, for some perverse reason, the Bush administration was actually trying to lose the war on terror, can you imagine them doing anything different?

I especially like the were-not-as-bad-as-saddam-so-it-isn't-torture defense. Not to be confused with the we-didn't-kill-6-million-jews-so-we're-not-fascists rationale.

It frankly doesn't matter whether or not the geniuses on this blog (myself included) thinks it was torture. What matters is whether our enemies and those who are in the middle think it was torture.

People claim Durbin's words embolden our enemies. While at the same time Rush Limbaugh is selling "Club Gitmo Gear." What does one suppose would make our enemies and others less sympathetic towards us? Durbin's words or Rush's selling t-shirts that say "I got my free Koran and prayer rug at G'itmo." Really. If you answer that question with the name Dick Durbin, you're a f***ing liar.

How about if, once again, we answer with "Irrelevant?"

I was tortured worse than that when the football team hazed me. And I wasn't even withholding information. Where's my lawyer?

What matters is whether our enemies and those who are in the middle think it was torture.

Why? So we can lose the meaning of yet another word? The way we've lost the meaning of fascism, which is generally tossed about these days when someone disagrees with your politics?

What does one suppose would make our enemies and others less sympathetic towards us? Durbin's words or Rush's selling t-shirts that say "I got my free Koran and prayer rug at G'itmo." Really. If you answer that question with the name Dick Durbin, you're a f***ing liar.

Um, first of all, I doubt many of our terrorist enemies listen to Rush Limbaugh. I don't, either. Secondly, on the one hand, you've got a member of the Senate's Dem leadership comparing US troops to Nazis, etc., which I'm surrrrre wasn't picked up anywhere in the foreign press or by enemy propagandists [cough, cough], and on the other hand, you've got a radio host peddling t-shirts printed with a slogan that displays questionable taste but is fact-based. Was Durbin's smear fact-based, or was it a hysterically hyperbolic assessment of what's going on?

Moral equivalence makes life so much better for them enlightened folk.
Its just too bad the universe plays favorites.

"What matters is whether our enemies and those who are in the middle think it was torture."

I think that our enemies see the fact that we are not willing to torture as further evidence of our weakness. They're willing to slice a guy's headoff with a dull knife, video tape it, and then proclaim their devotion to Allah. The best we can come up with is panties ????

Al Qaeda has a name for you on the left "useful idiots". I wonder where they got that from.

What happened to the country that believed in the rule of law? Holding people indefinitely without legal counsel seems to be against everything our country was based on. It is wrong yet nobody is held accountable. That should be the theme for this administration. It is embarassing how this administration has reduced our standing in the world community. Global warming? We will change science to make it not exist. Torture? Not us. More troops in Iraq? No, we got plenty because the resistance is in its last throes. Bush a uniter, not divider? Please, what an arrogant clown we have for a leader. The world does not respect the US anymore and that is sad.

What happened to the country that believed in the rule of law? Holding people indefinitely without legal counsel seems to be against everything our country was based on. It is wrong yet nobody is held accountable. That should be the theme for this administration. It is embarassing how this administration has reduced our standing in the world community. Global warming? We will change science to make it not exist. Torture? Not us. More troops in Iraq? No, we got plenty because the resistance is in its last throes. Bush a uniter, not divider? Please, what an arrogant clown we have for a leader. The world does not respect the US anymore and that is sad.

The world does not respect the US anymore and that is sad.

"Sorry, everyone." [head tilt]

SS,

Let's try this again. What was your plan for defeating the terrorists? How would you measure success? Would two budding democracies in the heart of Islam within a four year period look like failure? To answer your question, if Bush really wanted to fuck it up, he would have followed Clinton's policies. Remember, a decade of playing largely by Islamist rules (playing nice, being politically correct, bending over for a middle east peace plan, etc...) bought us a string of attacks abroad and 9-11. So until you come up with something more tangible than a teddy bear defence, piss off on the matter.

Nobody on the right says it is not as bad a saddam so it isn't torture. What they say is humiliating a person or making them uncomfortably hot or cold is not fucking torture. They use what saddam did to explain what fucking torture is: permananent fucking damage or death. Do you get it? Will you ever fucking get it? Do you even wanna get it? Yes, some stuff has been over the line and, you know what, we've had fucking trials and some prosecutions. By the by, you suggest we are stupid, but you say you don't even want a fixed definition of torture? You want our enemies or a third party to define it for us and, maybe, have it change when it suits them? Upon reflection, you do realize how asinine that is, don't you.

Guess what, I don't want our enemies to sympathize with us. I want them to fear us. No Islamic extremist is ever gonna sympathize with a Christian or a Jew, or anyone else who doesn't do exactly what they say. They are pretty clear on that point, why aren't you picking up on it? As for the people on the sidelines, if they are not going to maintain their sympathy over the death of thousands of civilians just b/c a few terrorists get handled roughly, then I don't think we ever truly had their sympathy. If their sympathy is dependant on us kneeling down and being slaughtered, I don't want it.

I don't assume you are stupid, but you keep talking like this and I am gonna need to reassess that.

Ted,
I don't know where your lawyer is, and you likely do have a claim, if you can show an injury, which you probably can't. But I doubt that you were forced to be on the football team. Your hazing probably didn't last for three years straight, twenty four hours a day. Perhaps I am wrong. Did you friends and families not know where you were?

Sean,
more people in both the U.S. and abroad know who Rush Limbaugh is than Dick Durbin. Terrorists don't watch C-Span. If you crybabies hadn't rerepeated his remarks over and over again, nobody would have known. Muslims in America, many of whom are in contact with their friends and relatives in the middle east, see Americans wearing their "Club G'itmo" gear on the streets of America. It is harmful, embarrassing, and on sale right now as we speak. (and it is not based on fact)

And are you sure Al Qaeda called us "useful idiots?" I know that it is a term often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, and I know many people claim that the so-called al Qaeda training manual contains those words, but I have yet to find a reputable source for this. I do know it has been used by nearly every political group to refer to their opponents since Lenin said it. (actually, Lenin's words are supposedly more accurately translate to "useful fools")

Oh, and no one has lost the meaning of the word fascism. Here it is for your erudition:

fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

And I also don't think we'll lose the meaning of the word 'torture' either. It was defined under international law in 1987 thusly:

torture:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Do you disagree with someone relying on the U.N. Convention Against Torture definition of the word torture? Is it not fact-based to do so? Do you feel like our understanding of the word torture should be moving towards being less inclusive?

dude,

I don't know where you get your definition of torture, but it unlike any I have ever seen. See my post above for an internationally recognized definition.

As for getting our enemies to have sympathy, know that I have no hope of convincing extremists of accepting us. It the the regular/moderate/ordinary muslim I am concerned with. If we lose the hearts and minds of the ordinary muslim, and then foist democracy upon them, we will have gotten nowhere.

My plan? I have said it before, there are only two options. Declare failure and walk away now, or retriple our efforts. That would mean holding a draft and Repealing the tax cut. We need to pull a Marshall plan.

As Colin Powell foresaw, we broke it. Now we must buy it. The average Iraqi is worse off now in basic services than before the war. 9 hours of electricity a day. Soaring unemployment. We need to go in there and rebuild all the roads, and power plants, and water treatment plants that we destroyed or allowed to be destroyed. Give them something worth standing up and protecting. Then we need to rebuild their military and get out of dodge. That means leaving them to do with their oil what they want. Sorry Halliburton.

The forces we have there now are barely enough to keep themselves safe. At the rate of progress we seem to be making with the current plan, we will never leave.

So I take it you think Durbin's remarks are more harmful than "Club G'timo" gear?

If you crybabies hadn't rerepeated his remarks over and over again, nobody would have known.

Oh, that's rich. So it's our fault that a senior Senate Dem made remarks that could be used as propaganda in foreign countries. Sorry about that. I guess I may as well have compared our troops to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge myself, then.

Muslims in America, many of whom are in contact with their friends and relatives in the middle east, see Americans wearing their "Club G'itmo" gear on the streets of America. It is harmful, embarrassing, and on sale right now as we speak. (and it is not based on fact)

I've personally never seen anyone wearing this gear, and I live in a major metropolitan area. But again: which is worse in the real world? A t-shirt sporting a bad joke, or a senior leader of a political party comparing troops from his own country to criminals from the most dastardly regimes in history? And don't give me that C-SPAN bullshit, because we both know that outlets like Al-Jazeera cover American politics.

Finally, I think you're using an awfully expansive description of the word torture. If you paraded your allegations around in front of most Vietnam War POWs, the'd either laugh at you or kick your ass.

SS:

You seem young: your generation may not be as accepting of the ancient rites of hazing as was mine. In any case, in those days pursuing a lawsuit for something as trivial as hazing would have been considered an embarrassing overreaction - using lawsuits in that way was unheard of. I doubt Ted has or had any interest in suing his peers. As to the lengths of interrogations at Guananamo, I don't believe anybody was interrogated 24/7 for 3 years. And just as Ted could have left the team, the prisoners could have forestalled future interrogations by talking.

I believe that those present are very conversant with the definition of "fascism" - they object to its inappropriate and ubiquitous use by leftist critics every time they discuss the current administration. Godwin's law is verified in nearly every comment thread with significant liberal participation.

The definition of "torture" as a well-defined, legal term takes us down the path of the infamous (and vile) Bybee "Torture Memo." While difficult to read without a profound visceral reaction, the memo did attempt to draw a line beween legal interrogation and torture. Compared with the permissible treatments outlined in that memo, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo has been benign.

No one here is particularly excited about the lengths interrogators have to go to to extract information, but the blunt fact is: that information is critical. The question to you is: what means should we use to quickly acquire the information we need to prevent future terrorist acts and unravel the terrorist network?

For my definition, I relied on common sense and websters. Unthinkable, I know. Your preferred definition really only varies by adding legalese. I tossed in death as an extreme end to what would, at that point, be a failed effort at torture. Websters does include mention of mental pain, as does the UN. Not to minimize it, but how do you define "severe" mental pain? If I strike someone, break something on them, burn or electrocute them, I have a pretty good guess as to what they experience. I think we can agree that is torture. What is a clear definition of mental torture. Threats to loved one's? Sure. I don't suspect that is happening. Threats to inflict physical pain? Maybe, but probably not used too much. You can only threaten for so long. Insults and being embarressed? Not so much.

websters

Nice call-back on the were-not-as-bad-as-[the viet kong]-so-it-isn't-torture defense.

As for the Club G'itmo gear, why not go here:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/tshirts.guest.html

Check out that first photo. Those guys aren't in your hometown, unless you live in Iraq. Is that a good idea? Does that win us the hearts and minds?

And I am wondering if you think Al Jazeera picked up on the comment itself, or on the firestorm that ensued. I would put money on the latter, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

That would be a failed effort at interrogation. The torture, at that point, would have been total.

wow, I am having trouble keeping up. This is my last post of the evening.

Geoff:
Fascism ? Nazis. In fact the term is based WWII Italy, not Germany. Godwin's law applies only to Hitler. Not fascism. Just like you can be a communist and not be Joe Stalin II.

I am not exactly young. I am in my mid thirties. Again, suing for a hazing ritual is a lot different. (unless you have actual damages. If your nose or arm was broken, you would be stupid not to sue), but that is the point. It was a RITUAL. You knew it was a ritual. That means you knew you would survive it unscathed.

These prisoners don't know that. Because it isn't a ritual. It is real. Some of them have died due to mistreatment. They have been isolated for years now. To them, a mock execution or threatened beating seems quite convincing. When no one knows where you are, I can't even imagine. Many didn't even do anything wrong.

That is torture enough. I don't know about inserting legalese into the definition. It is a legal definition because dictionaries aren't precise enough. Unlike fascism, torture is a crime, so the legal definition is the only one that counts.

Dude:
Mental anguish is a cause of action in tort law, but you have to show a physical manifestation of it. So losing sleep, nervous breakdowns, that sorts of things. If you know anything about the muslim religion, you'd know that having a topless woman smear what you believe to be her menstrual blood on your face is about as bad as it gets. And they have held mock executions.

The worst part is that many of them don't know anything, and the interrogators apparently know this, and they are being interrogated any way. At least that's what some former U.S. servicemen have said.

'night all

And I am wondering if you think Al Jazeera picked up on the comment itself, or on the firestorm that ensued.

And I'm wondering whether or not you think those of us who disagreed with Durbin's outrageous slander ought to have just sat back passively and let it stand. I'm guessing your answer would be "yes," since you've implied that it was our fault that it became a big deal, and that you haven't said a single word condemning his idiocy.

SS:

I had a point-by-point refutation prepared, from your quibbling over Godwin's Law to your definition of torture, but I decided that these were just symptoms, and that further back-and-forth would be unrewarding. So before I go up to drool over Ace's mecha post, I'll endeavor to move to more of a root cause discussion.

In his book "Moral Politics," George Lakoff tells us that the difference between conservatives and liberals lies in structure of their value systems. Put distressingly simply, he says that based on his analysis of their respective linguistic behaviors, conservatives have a value system based on moral strength, and liberals have a value system based on empathy. I don't think he's far wrong (although later in the book he goes off the deep end).

So no amount of debate will reconcile your viewpoints with those of the frequenters of this website. Conservatives will always be driven to remove threats to their families, country, and way of life as expeditiously as possible, and liberals will always be convinced that establishing mutual understanding, negotiating, and compromising are more effective and just.

I believe that both sides have valuable contributions to offer, depending upon the situation. The question before us, then, is: what is the appropriate mix to address the problem of radical Islam?

Conservatives believe that negotiating is useless - there is ample evidence in Islamic writings and in public and private statements that the radical elements view negotiation as an opportunity to string the kufrs along until they are strong enough to build their empire. Conservatives also believe that the Muslim culture respects strength more than empathy, and that a soft touch is just as effective a recruiting tool for young Jihadis as the invasion of Iraq has been.

In my opinion the conservative position has problems, and interestingly enough, these can be addressed by liberals.

My tenet is that the extremist Islamic movement can only be stamped out when: 1) they have been shown that military resistance is impossible; 2) they believe that their antagonists will never yield; 3) their external sources of support are withdrawn; and 4) they are shown a better way.

The conservatives are all over the first and second points, although the constant criticism from the left has largely undermined the latter. They are working on point 3, although it is not their forte, and they really haven't thought much about point 4. Since their strategy depends largely on decimating and outlasting a couple of generations of Jihadis, they are settled in for the very long haul.

In my naive and optimistic view, the liberals could help to accelerate the process by laying off of the counterproductive rhetoric concerning the war (point 2), and instead focusing on creating an international coalition that emphasizes intolerance for the violence and goals of radical Islam. This coalition would also promote moderate Islam as a peaceful, integral member of the world religious community.

So get your buddies and your signs and start marching for Peace, but this time march against beheadings, suicide bombings, and the violent establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic empire. The sooner you can convince them to stop wantonly killing civilians, the sooner we'll stop putting panties on their heads.

I am in Iraq, the second time in two years and I don't see a single thing that idiot sh*t slug, 'cuse me, seatle slough is claiming. For some reason I don't think s/he has even been to Iraq.

"The Baathist-AQ link has been proven, over and over"

No it hasn't. You can't prove what didn't happen.

And if you're tired of hearing about the lack of WMDs, maybe next time you won't be so gullible as to let a charsimatic dryu-drunk cowardly piece of shit like Bush lie you into supporting a war.

-

Ace, come on, now. You state,

Having done so, it appears particularly egregious now that they trump bras on the head as "torture" or even "mistreatment."

Dude, it was THONG on the head. You and I both know that "thong on the head" comes WAY before "bra on the head" in the international torture handbook.

"if you're tired of hearing about the lack of WMDs, maybe next time you won't be so gullible as to let... Bush lie you into supporting a war"

Mystifying. You think anyone has to work terribly hard at convincing Americans to go to war these days? Hell, if the President tells us tomorrow that Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt are hiding dangerous stockpiles of giant mutant winged monkeys and must be forced to give them up, he'll have my full support. I don't really care what the reason is as long as we're killing the right people. Which, in Iraq, we are.

No it hasn't. You can't prove what didn't happen.

This guy could run the TSA.

You know, when I became a conservative, I didn't think I'd have to argue that torture was bad.

But, hey.

Torture is bad.

I couldn't help but think of this discussion as I read about a suicide bomber piling his car into a crowd of children getting treats from GI's. I began to wonder what I wouldn't do to find that guy before he could do this. Would I slap a pair of Hanes on his buddy's head to find his bomb factory?

The jihadis need to know that there are two factions here, one who wants to understand them and one that wants to kill them. One concerned about "sympathy" and one more interested in instilling fear. But membership is fluid between the groups, and if they want to blow up kids at will they need to know that the Understanders will become Killers in growing numbers.

From what I hear from the Left--the Understanders--there isn't much the jihadis can do to make them switch to Killers. Lefties hate the President far too much to ever take an agressive stand against those he considers enemies. You Lefties need to work on that.

The idea that conservatives and liberals have different reactions to reports, photos, testimony and direct evidence that we've been abusing, mistreating, and - yes - torturing our captives is rather disingenuous.

That kind of conduct runs counter to traditional American values. It should make all of us sick and disgusted. Period. That it only makes some of us feel that way indicates that civic education and moral inculcation has fallen short for a generation. Megan, f'rinstance, is a failed American. She'd be a good Muslim, or a member of some totalitarian state, but she shreds her U.S. identity and cheapens all of us with her willingness to adopt the methods of the KGB.

In one of the early battles of the American war of indepence, Washington's troops captured a large contingent of Hessians (Germans). These guys were legendary fighters, of the "no quarter asked and none given" variety. If they captured you, you could expect torture and slow death. So when we caught 'em, some of our troops and commanders wanted to execute them on the spot. Washington insisted that they be spared and treated decently.

Ever since then - until today - we have had a reputation for true moral strength (in the Lakovian sense) because we don't gauge our conduct in relative terms against that of our enemies. We do the right thing, regardless of the fact that sometimes evil conduct is more expedient. We gain benefits from that in more ways than can be listed here.

Minimizing our behavior by pointing to the least egregious examples of humilation is a moronic whitewash and the cheapest kind of propaganda. The author of this blog needs to reflect on why, exactly, he feels the need to support the destruction of key American values.

Declare failure and walk away now, or retriple our efforts. That would mean holding a draft and Repealing the tax cut.

Just admit that you want us to fail. You either want us to fail and walk away, or do something that is completely unnecessary to help further your political agenda. Look at the growth of the economy since the tax cut, or go ask any recruiter how hard it is to fill combat roles. It isn't. The only option for you only advances the political end. It sure as hell doesn't make us safer.

Give them something worth standing up and protecting. Then we need to rebuild their military and get out of dodge. That means leaving them to do with their oil what they want. Sorry Halliburton.

Sorry Halliburton?? Do you even know what they do? Who the hell do you think rebuilds the infrastructure there, the magic sand people? They are over there busting their ass building things for those people. But all folks like you, who know nothing about the industry outside the Cheney=Halliburton=oil=CORPORATION hysteria can see is some conspiracy. It's old, and it's wrong.

haven't these people seen Wierd Science? bras on the head = Kelly LeBrock as personal magic love slave.

it's time President Bush just comes out and says it: "If it means stopping future attacks, I am willing to make terrorists put panties on their heads," and let Carl Levin argue with that.

Raven, read my lips! I'll say it slowly for you so you can understand. There is NO TORTURE going on and some behaviors that have approached torture, once discovered, have resulted in trial and punishment for the guilty. You seem smart enough to distinquish between truth and political propoganda but I guess your hatred for George W. Bush enables you to ignore principle. Very sad, really.

"the destruction of key American values"

[flipping through the Constitution] Hey, this is strange. I can't find the bit that reads "Be nice to fanatical Moslem savages who want to murder you and destroy your country."

"The idea that conservatives and liberals have different reactions to reports, photos, testimony and direct evidence that we've been abusing, mistreating, and - yes - torturing our captives is rather disingenuous." - Raven

The difference is that when a report of torture emerges, conservatives are skeptical and liberals are instantly accepting. When a violation actually occurs, conservatives advocate letting the military's existing legal apparatus deal with the situation (as in Abu Ghraib), rather than turning it into an international incident. And when the press seizes upon relatively benign interrogation methods and labels them "torture," conservatives can't take their reports seriously.

The moral equivalencies we draw in comparing the atrocities of the insurgents to the inflated "atrocities" of Guantanamo are not to claim that "they did worse, so we're justified," but to note that one might morally exchange the imposition of a high level of temporary discomfort on a POW for information that would prevent the horror of future terrorist attacks.

A perfect example of this willingness to believe the worst is the acceptance of Abu Ghraib deaths as being wrongly inflicted by bloodthirsty troops or Rummy-compelled ass-kickings. The more likely scenario is that some were killed while trying to escape and others after attacking guards with the intent to fight to the finish.

And then there's the Boston Globe's rape photos.

If we had a drug with no side effects that would cause the detainies to spill their guts about everything they knew, these clowns would complain that it would be a violation of human rights to administer same. They are not concerned with just our methods of obtaining info but merely the fact that we are holding these terrorists at all.

Geoff, thanks again for the thoughtful reply

I will keep this brief.

The biggest difference I see between our two groups is that there is a difference in perception as to the group known as terrorists.

We do not believe they can be killed. They cannot be "defeated." The problem is that they are (1) not a finite population and (2) willing to die. The only way to "win," is to marginalize.

We are not concerned with appeasing terrorists. We are concerned with not creating more terrorists. The wrong way to go about this war is with the U.S. military getting their grubby boots all over the place. We need intelligence. That means spies. It is nearly impossible to thwart a suicide attack. The only way to do so is to know what and where in advance. The U.S. military is not built to do this job.

We honestly and truly feel that fighting this war poorly does more harm than good. We honestly feel like more people hate us now than before. Here's the really scary thing. Islam is not a purely middle eastern religion. There are lots of black, white, and asian adherents as well. If this "war on terror" comes to be seen as a war against Islam, we will have no idea who the enemy is. None.

If you don't understand the enemy and more importantly, don't understand the people who might or might not become your enemy, you cannot hope to contain them.

Brak,
Is it your suggestion that the number of soldiers we sent over there to defeat Saddam Hussein's army just so happens to also be the exact number needed to quell this unforeseen insurgency and carry on an unforeseen nation building exercise for an unknown number of years? Isn't that a bit convenient?

Or is it more likely, upon further reflection, that a different number of soldiers and support staff is needed now that we know they are not going to "greet us as liberators" with flowers and all that.

Of course our troop situation needs to be realigned. That's why a realignment strategy in underway examing our deployments in Germany and S. Korea. But the Navy and AF are currently in a drawdown, the Marines are hitting their goals as usual, and the Army is making up its prior shortfalls. It hit its goal for last month, and this is after adding 30,000 additional spots to fill this fiscal year. And it's the support roles that are difficult to fill, as they usually are.

The only branches really hurting are the Reserves and NG. But they are beng used in a way they weren't really meant for. That's why increasing the Army's manpower is a good thing. But there will not be a need for a draft. The volunteer military works.

SS:

I'd agree that we need to significantly improve our intelligence capabilities, but I don't see it happening any time soon, if ever. This is, in any case, the "policing" solution, which will never be effective when regimes are able to provide significant support for terrorist organizations.

You are also correct that the military cannot stop suicide attacks, but that isn't the focus of their mission. They are trying to disrupt the infrastructures created by Baathists, Zarqawi, and Al Qaeda to stem the flow of weapons and recruits, remove terrorist strongholds (like Fallujah), and keep the peace. This is certainly not the entire solution to the problem, but it is a critical component of the solution.

Oh, and please refrain from pejoratives such as "grubby boots." It is insulting in a very personal way, since my father, my wife, my wife's father, three of my brothers-in-law, and I all have served, or are serving, in the military.

Your comment on understanding the enemy is well taken, and is a standard component of military doctrine. This is where, as I said above, liberals could make a substantial contribution. Understanding moderate Islam's relationship with radical Islam, and encouraging the moderates to, as you say, marginalize the extremists, would be of enormous assistance to a near-term state of peace.

"They cannot be "defeated." The problem is that they are (1) not a finite population and"

They are not finite? Dumbass.

Who's emboldens the enemy more, Durbin or Rush? Ummm lets see. One wants to empathise, and treat prisoners with respect and candy and sweets. The other is saying that if you are caught, we will lock you up, make your life hell, and we will mock you with our attire while you rot in prison. Which do you think they fear?

You know, the left really are a bunch of traitorous assholes, strong words? Yep, I would say parroting Al-Queda's propaganda on a daily basis requires it.
They wouldn't know a fact if it came up to them and cut their fucking heads off with a dull knife, after all, they can't recognise terrorists that do the same thing. Jerkwads.

What would Bush do diffierent if he were trying to lose the war? I don't know, what would the left do different if they were Anti-American Terrorist Appeasers who would want lose the war for political purposes.

Torture my ass, again, it's all about the seriousness of the charge, and not what can be proven. I know the left are pushing themselves to the point of irrelevance in US politics, but can we speed it up a bit please, we've got shit to do.

I wonder how many dead westerners it will take for the left to wake up?

geoff,

"grubby boots" isn't my personal feeling. I too have friends and family both serving in Iraq and other conflicts.

However, since we both agree that it is important to understand, not only our enemies, but those on the fence, it is important to recognize. It is how those who recruit moderate muslims against us view it.

Bin Ladin himself claims (if he can be believed) that it was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (not Iraq) during the gulf war that got him started in earnest. We in America don't have the same connection to the land that other (older) cultures do. America is a document. America is an ideal. The boundaries change. We move around. In the middle east, the actual land itself becomes holy.

I don't think we are that far apart.

As for Ring,
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'finite.' A person who has no inklings of being a terrorist today, might become one tomorrow based on what we do. Terrorists are made, not born. Any person in any culture can become a "terrorist."

If we kill every person alive today who has ever even considered terrorism, we would still have terrorism as a problem. It is a strategy. It is like going to war with 'guerillas.' We have our own terrorists.

Our actions in the Middle East and G'itmo make it easier for terrorists to recruit otherwise moderate muslims. I don't care what impact our actions have on those who seek to kill us. It is the people in the middle, the people in the crossfire that I don't want to lose.

Just ask Israel if simply killing the terrorists works. It doesn't.

Well, we do diverge in that: 1) I believe that the US military presence in Saudi Arabia was only one item on a list of grievances bin Laden submitted; 2) the invasion of Iraq may have been incendiary, but the fact is, the basic thrust of radical Islam is to convert or subjugate all non-Muslims - they will keep trying regardless of US policies; 3) the infrastructure for generating, funding, training, and arming recruits was in place prior to 9/11 - the invasion of Iraq may have incentivized it, but it certainly didn't create it; 4) if we can disrupt the international network supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, we can certainly clip their wings in terms of the damage they can do; and 5) we may have angered bin Laden with our presence in Saudi Arabia, but we were there with the permission of the Saudi government performing a UN-sanctioned mission - I don't think bin Laden has the right to call the shots for the Saudi people, regardless of his religious views.

Remember that there is a long history of predations upon US citizens and assets prior to 9/11, and that our inadequate response only emboldened bin Laden and bolstered the recruiting process. It also gave them time to grow in size and capability, establishing Byzantine networks of personnel, arms, and money across the world.

Unless moderate Islam steps up and squelches the radical Imams preaching hate and violence in the mosques, we are stuck with a long-term strategy of convincing potential recruits that entering the ranks of terrorists means certain and pointless death.

The world does not respect the US anymore and that is sad.

Yet, let there be plague, pestilence, famine, or foreign invasion and that same world that holds the U.S. in such disdain will all turn to us to bail them out. The same "world" that indulges in America hating is more than willing to beg for our money, resources and military support in times of international crisis, all the while berating the policies that put us in a position to help. Anyone else see the irony? Do you know what makes America "better" ? Despite all the bullshit and temper tantrums we are forced to endure from the world - we still always come through in the end. Here is a clue for all those wringing their hands about the world no longer respecting us: They don't like us because they desperately NEED us but we don't really NEED them - that tends to piss other countries off.

"Just ask Israel if simply killing the terrorists works. It doesn't."

He's right, you have to kill the terrorists's leaders AND put up a big fucking wall. That's what does the trick.

"Our actions in the Middle East and G'itmo make it easier for terrorists to recruit otherwise moderate muslims."

What you fail to realize is that absent any 'bona fide' reasons to commit acts of terrorism, our enemy is only too happy to invent reasons out of whole cloth. They have been doing that for decades.

The real grievance they have with us is that we exist and the only real way to placate their demands is to just all die.

Defense Guy:

You have the right of it, sir.

I have a modest proposal for dealing with Islam: Let's read Sura 9 of the Quran and treat muslims exactly as their holy book teaches them to treat us. We will take the "religion of peace" itself as our guide. Crack open the "Q'u'r'a'n" and read Sura 9. It's how good muslims, real muslims, are supposed to treat us. Let us, then, learn from our betters and become models of proper muslim behavior.

Note the tendency even of the parts of Sura 9 that seem mild on the surface: Honor peace treaties with unbelievers only as long as they've observed the letter of the treaty and otherwise been entirely on their best behavior. In other words, keep a close watch for the first available pretext for considering the treaty nullified. Only treaties that were made in the Great Mosque are to be honored at all. And by the way, don't allow unbelievers in the Great Mosque anymore.

But the priceless gem of Sura 9 is verse 5. That's the passage I think we should especially read, take to heart, memorize, and adopt as the policy of our country toward Islam. We will take our cue from "the religion of peace" itself.

Arifel

"What does one suppose would make our enemies and others less sympathetic towards us?"

I'm sure that this has been adequately dealt with, but:

Our enemies *aren't* sympathetic towards us, sorta kinda, gee, by definition. Especially the opium fiends with the semtex undies. This isn't some role-plaing game where you can win back enemies' trust after X turns of cease-fire.
For a number already in the tens/hundreds of thousands, it is ON like Mao Zedong. We can wait till that number swells to the millions, we can try to talk it down, or we can lance it now. You pays yer money (and lives), and you takes yer chance.

(On a completely other topic: the canard about sending "young people" to die is less accurate for Iraq than other wars. An astonishing number of the dead are well into their thirties. Yes, completely other.)

SS:

Two things. First: are you honestly willing to believe that OBL was just another peaceful muslim following the law, until the evil facist (insert asshat word for America) ocupied saudi arabia, thus enraging him to the point that he became a vicious murderer? Come on. Do you remember in Nov. of '04 when reports coming from AQ stated that OBL was telling the American people to vote Dem, or else he would attack America again? Given that example of his knowledge of American politics, is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a man smart enough to evade capture for so long might actually be smart enough to realize that, by blaming his actions on the world renoun feeling that American is an imperialist nation, may help to further divide the very people he set out to defeat?

I think it was on this blog (you'll have to forgive me, I read a lot of'em) that someone stated OBL knows he cannot beat us in a straight up fight, (to paraphrase), so he resorts to any and all means available to do so. Again knowing this, it is fairly reasonable to question if this theory that appeasement is better that attack actually works.

Secondly: Your "terrorists are not born, they are made" is not entirely true. Sure there are those who became terrorists as a result of the actions of another group, BUT, if there is any a better defination of a religon or idea that fosters terrorism, it is found in the teachings of the imams.

Let me be clear: I am not saying all muslims are terrorists. So no cemantic games, please. What I am saying is that, if you seek to base your idea for a peaceful resolution around the idea that the only reason there are terrorists in the world is because we put them there, so we should just stop fighting because they will leave us alone, then I hope they teach arabic in your hometown.

Bottom line, no one way is 100% right. But, I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by while we get hung out to dry by cowardly shitholes who have no qualms with taking our money, but don't have the balls to stand up with us (Canada, France, Mexico i'm talking to you). I also refuse to watch a country I bled on the battlefield for be sold out by America-bashing trash who think that a daisy in the rifle barrel is the ticket away from getting our head chopped off. We didn't run a fucking plane into their building. We don't kill their civilians. Its about damn time to draw the line in the sand and show those who dare to fuck with us who's boss

Son of America