If that is really your rank. I find it very amusing to me that our government has hailed Amnesty reports in the past but now the reports are pandering to the left. The United States is quick to point out humna rights atrocities committed by others but pooh poohs any mention of wrongdoing on our part.

The quickest way to breed new terrorist is to turn a blind eye to your own wrongdoing. We should take the beam out of our own eye before we go about “spreading Democracy” to others.

As Gov. Dean dives deeper and deeper into his plan to rebuild the grassroots of the party, state by state, those still waiting with their hands out need look no further than the great state of Nebraska. Truth be told, they were getting down to business…

I bet that you were not critizing Amenesty International when Donald Rumsfeld and DOD were using Amenesty International reports while making the case for the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International is a non-partisan organization. Futhermore, the items listed in Amenesty International’s lastest report (pertaining to Gitmo), had also been reported by other sources. I believe that the Gulag characterization is correct and that GITMO needs to be shut down; as Joe Biden has suggested needs to be done.

Also, I would appreciate if you would not come on this board and simply post talking points that are in line with those of Hannity and Limbaugh. Defending the procedures used at GITMO tells the rest of the world that America does not really follow the rule of law; when it comes to international treaties.

It is a fact that the Bush administration used Amnesty International reports to justify going to war with Iraq.

You may say that the Geneva Conventions does not extend to them, but I disagree. My question to you would be, what justifies a LEGAL enemy combatant. The traditional, soldier from a specific country? The fact is we are fighting a different kind of war here. Different war, different type of combatant. We have to set an example and be better than them, even if they don’t treat us the same. I don’t think Amnesty was “trying to make America look bad.” That statement seems a little childish.

Just because someone dissents, doesn’t mean they are unamerican. Amnesty is a HUMANITARIAN organization. They follow that agenda. What is so wrong with that? Am I somehow a bad person because I have passion for how my country is run? Am I unamerican because I don’t like saying someone is an “illegal enemy combatant” and they don’t deserve proper treatment? Am I unamerican because I disagree with the way the situation in Iraq is being handled? Rediculous. It hurts that you don’t even know me, but yet you make assumptions about me and groups I belong to just because you are threatened by dissent for some reason.

I care. I have passion. I have love. And I want peace. I am a democrat and proud of it!

Perhaps you would like to talk more with me? my aol messenger is avriel09, I look forward to more discussion with you, SGT_E.

Respectfully,
Abbey

I did so because my country and this Administration made the American public believe we were going to war under false assumptions. Let’s face it they flat out lied. (see downing street minutes)

I love my country but I don’t love my country right or wrong! what makes us such a great country is that the voice of dissent is suppossed to have a voice. However, I see that voice being dimenished everyday. When we turn a blind eye to injustices being committed by our own against our “enemies” it will not be long before our government Committs those same injustices against its’ own citizens in the name of National Security.

My grandmother always told me two wrongs don’t make a right. Depriving people of human rights or passing our dirty laundry to other countries that have a healthier appetite for for human rights violations makes us no better than the terrorist. It is no wonder why internatioanl support for this war is fading.

This is truly a sad period in our history.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for the service and sacrifice you have given to this country. I have a brother who has done a tour in Iraq and hence I believe that is important that all critisms should be aimed at our politicians and civilian military leadership…….not our fighting men and women.

Thirdly, you refer to the “Euro Weenies” that are undermining our efforts to win the war. In my opinion, this war cannot be won as any guerilla war cannot be won. In Iraq, we cannot distinguish our enenies from friends. We do not have enough troops to stabilize the country for the upcoming years. We do not have the money to be seeking out wars; especially against countries that do not pose a threat to the U.S. or had ties to 9-11(As Iraq had NO WMDS and NO connections to Al Queda). We do not have the resources to morph 3000-year-old civilizations into democracies. It is not just liberal democrats that are saying this; but also noted conservatives such as Gen. Tony McPeak, William F. Buckly, Pat Buchanon, Tucker Carlson, and more. The invasion of Iraq was a tacticle blunder.

Also, on your website, you smeared John Kerry by posted a article by the extreme Right Winger Jeff Jacoby. It may surprise you that John Kerry offered an ammendment to a spending bill that WOULD INCREASE DEATH BENEFITS FOR NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS TO 100,000$$. That amendment failed because ever Republican voted against it. That is why I laugh my ass off when I hear the phrase “Republicans support the troops”. THATS HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

READ THIS: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

thank you for your comments and for posting the Memo. I called it minutes because that is actually a more accurate discription of what the document is. I too believe that you can support the troops but opposse this administration. I am so glad that you made that distinction because the Republicans have done a stellar job in making us look anti troops.

If people only new the number of regular army enlisted families that have to apply for food stamps just to get buy they would be ashamed of the lip service that the GOP pays to our enlisted and the lack of action.

Bottom line is you have been saying what I have said all along Guerilla War is a difficult type of war to fight for this fact alone this administration should be putting its’ money where its chicken hawk mouth is.

Go read the Geneva Conventions. They apply only to the uniformed armies of actual nations with borders. The terrorists we are fighting do not wear uniforms. The cowards hide among civilians disguised as women and shield themselves with children. They do not belong to a nation. They are radical Islamic extremists. This poisoned branch of Islam we are fighting today is the same strain that for a thousand years has tried to convert or destroy all they deem to be infidels. Actually under the Geneva Conventions we are allowed to shoot these people on sight because they fall under the same framework as spies and illegal combatants.

Somebody said Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda. That is a fallacy spread by our incompetent mainstream media. Zarquowi, the chief terrorist operative in Iraq was one of Osama’s goons. Zarquowi was wounded in Afganistan when we were routing the Taliban. He fled to Iraq where he was given safe haven and treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. As for WMD’s, that is something only time can tell. They may be buried under Iraqi sand and will not be discovered for decades. They could be in Syria or Bekka Valley. There is far too much conflicting evidence and I have run over this so many times with air headed liberals posting in MSN Slate Magazine Fray that I really do not care to rehash it. Either way the CIA under George Tenet, who was Clinton’s guy by the way, blew it. They missed 9-11, they bungled the WMD intelligence, and they failed to adequately analyze the temperament on the ground in Iraq

Just for the record by the way, we are winning the war in Iraq. Just because the only news you get is filtered through the “if it bleeds it leads” ratings and liberal bias mentality of the major media does not mean you know what is happening on the ground there. That region is seeing more hope and progress right now than ever before.

amnesty and the red cross both documented abuses at abu g. even AFTER the story had broken on several news agencies. infact, the red cross found abuses even as the last prisoners were being corralled out of there so they could be moved to a place the red cross and amnesty had no access to and abu g could be torn down. so no the army was not taking care of it.

it was liberals who condemned the war ferver of the 4th FDR administration, and conservatives who defended it. note too, that FDR wasn’t exactly responsible for most of the things going on right then, as he was sick, fighting wwii, and abdicating most of his responsibilities to homefront generals. but when things did go wrong (human rights abuses) it was liberals who spoke out. oh yeah, and liberals who finally got the gov. to admit wrongdoing. and liberals like Teddy K. from liberal mass. who got compensation to those surviving japanease-americans.

etc etc

time after time you are just wrong. please leave our website and do not return, you add nothing to this discussion, but insult us and our inteligence.

Second-We have listened to you. Are your posts deleted? NO. But I think we are allowed to contribute our opinions to the conversation if you can. Get used to it. But don’t you DARE forget that there are Conservative extremists out there too.

If you want to say the war is going well, that is your opinion. But what I see is that we are losing americans out there just like my husband and I want to make sure it is being done correctly and for the right reasons.

We do a lot for our community and our country. Think before you fling insults.

However, I did not resort to calling you a jackass which you are most certainly acting like right now. I would say it is you who do not want honest debate you just want everyone to sit back and agree with everything the right has to say about anything that matters in this country.

Well guess what there are some of us who aren’t drinking the kool-aid some of go and research the issues for ourselves.

You see the funny thing is, the press didn’t used to be considered to be required to be centrist. You can trace this back to the Revolutionary War, the foundation of the US journalism. Thomas Jefferson and many other journalists of the time largely printed heresay and their own opinion in their papers. Journalists and their organizations have always had their political views, which is why the practice of papers endorsing candidates and the like still goes on.
It is the responsibility of the consumer of news to differentiate where the news is coming from. The ethical issue is when news outlets pretend to be un-biased (which is impossible) to the point of decieving people. If you really can’t trust them, you might try reading only stories from the AP wire and Reuters. But I choose to extend my infomation sometimes, knowing what I take in is from a journalist who tries HARD to be accurate and fair.

As someone who intends to go into a field working with journalism, I say this: I know people like to think of journalists and the media as scumbags, but its really not like that. Most people try very hard to at least give some information that the reader/viewer can use. Sometimes they make mistakes, but I believe Newsweek believed what they printed. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have risked losing readers and advertisers just because it pissed people off. They also called the gov’t. before the story was printed to verify their source. They were either misinformed by sources or blatently lied to. There were unfortunate events in the aftermath, but it certainly wasn’t the intent of the article.

I’m going to step off my soapbox now, and I hope you will do the same. You know some things, and I know others. The media is what I know.

Quote: “Face SGT_E liberals think what they want to think and say what they want to say and it is always right because they are so much smarter than us. The “right” wing crazies who “drink” the kool-aide and blindly follow the president and his “evil” sneaky plans of destroying the world. We should not even debate these people because they are so close minded and ignorant it makes me sick.”

You’re right I am smarter than you Joe.

And if you don’t want to debate, don’t come here (which you obviously can’t stop yourself from doing).

SGT E- I’m not even going to discuss it anymore because both of us have opposing opinions and can not be moved. But one more thing: As a journalist, as a spouse of an airman, and as a student who has always been against the war, I don’t know where you’re getting all this. I oppose the war, but yet I understand the military has orders to follow and they are just doing their jobs. They do an excellent job, and it is an incerdible sacrifice. I think you are paranoid when you say CNN or CBS or any other network wants to make soldiers look bad. Rediculous.

But I will NOT turn a blind eye to the wrongdoings of this administration. If you can’t see that, well, you’re not as reasonable or objective as you think you are.

The prisoners are being treated very well. Interigation is a legal right, by any means you want to call it. Even the Geneva Convention agrees. We do not give them the ‘legal’ definition, of a POW for the fact, that they are not. They are legally ‘enemy combantants’. Their is no difference in treatmeant. Both legal prisonors can be interegated.

No one is being tortored. That is the hype that is going around. Being forced to look at naked women and listening to bad music is not ‘deemed’ torture. It is a shame and sad to think that torture and abuse now means touching their holy book in an inapproriate manner.

Both sides are misusing and abusing the situation. And both are trying to fix their mistakes, even though both sides will not admit it, exactly, they try to word themselves around, trying to explain things, rather then admit anything.

Gitmo is a prison, it does interegation, it is not a death or torture camp. That is the definition of a ‘gulag’.

Amensty Int. is trying to get as much information out of the area as it can, to try and see if there is any abuse, since so far none, if few, have actually been reported.

They are trying to be good, by making sure we are the humane people we all believe we are.

The admin. is not very forth-telling of anything - until it is confronted about allegations or lies to the contray, just because everyone wants a headline for a story.

And to go back to the Geneva Convention, why is it so important to give them POW status, when they are not. - Change it, if needed, but until then, it does not apply. They still (i believe) are not being tortured…. Isn’t that the only important question?

I do believe that if any abuses to occur they will be found, and so fare, it looks like we have been doing a good job at it, and they will be taken care of. But to make abuses up, just to see if their are any, is wrong.

As long as there is not torture, any other means of interegation, I see is fit to go.
Especially, if it gets us answers, and it seems like it is.

To Abbey, or rather Tony C. Zell Miller is not crazy nor to the same neither is Howard Dean.
Dean may not be a middle person, nor does any more claim to be. Mr. Miller also speaks his mind, with a “little” flare. Bumbling of words happen. It makes for good news, at least the junkies think so. But ridiculing others is never a great tactic.

Both do harm and good for their party. The democrats are losing their ‘heart’. I do seem them leaning towards more of a ‘Socailist’ party. They do need to find those that can speak out for their causes, while not making fun of the other side. Dean did, and they paid for it. Kerry tried to be on both sides, it was not his voting habit or anything else that got people to not vote for him, he did it to himself by trying to talk from both ends. It did not work, he could not communicate well with the people.

Not to say that G.W.Bush is any of articulate, but still….he deals with people on a level they like, and not to demean them.

Both sides need work. Republicans are leaning more towards to a religious party. That I do not like. While the Democrats are leaning more towards a religious hating party. That I hate more.

Where does one choose? It is never simple. And it is never a one issue choice; even if the media thinks so.

Protecting a women’s right to chose what to do with her body?

Seeing that throughout histroy war has been an evil to be avoided and not saught out?

Thinking that social programs like social security, with clear track records of success, should be left intact?

Wanting judges who remind us of Thurgood Marshal on the bench?

Thinking public education is the cornerstone of what created the great american middle class? (and should protect and strengthen it!)

thinking nations should work together to prevent wars and poverty?

Thinking that progressive taxes, (the type that johnson, fdr, and truman used to cut poverty in half) are better than regressive taxes (the ones that reagan and bush are proving lead to vast deficits and increased riches for the rich and poverty for the poor)?

those are the cornerstones of what it means to be an extreme liberal democrat. Most of those positions are actually vastly more liberal than Daschle or Clinton or even Kerry.

Do any of those sound extremist? No. Because they aren’t. They’re rooted in american hitory and values.

And yet, the cornerstones of modern republicans (like Delay, Frist, Bush and Scalia) include preemtive voluntary military actions, extreme regressive taxation. Shifting tax burdens onto work and away from wealth. Eliminatin taxes are excess (like capitol gains taxes) and instiuting taxes on neccesity (like on food). Making abortion 100

The party of extremists is the gop.

Even a parent, which now I finally am one, comes with responsibility. But there is always a time where that responsibility ends.

We do have the obligation to help others, but how far, and to what extent? Evey nation wants us to go deeper and deeper into our pockets to pay for their problems. And we are not just talking about poor nations. We give billions to countries like Germany, France, Italy, Japan, for bases and ‘bribes’ so that we can have influence, etc over there.

They like our money, but then they tell us to go shove off, when we speak our minds.

We give billions of aid to poor nations of corrupt (and non-corrupt) nations, and we are deamed ’stupid’ and un-human because we want - no demand - that we know where the money is going, so the aid actually reaches its people.

That is what happened in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Ethopia, you name it - Look what happened there.

I am all for my tax dollars going to aid people, but sometimes enough is enough. And that includes people that commit crimes in this nation, that are not citizens of this nation.

I am far from being a racist. I hate being called a racist, just because I fell that we pay too much to care for people commit crimes.

I was all for Nafta, I really did think that it would bring jobs down to Mexico, even if that mean US jobs to be cut…. so that there would be a Mexico state that was stable and less corupt, where they would not feel the need to come up here.

I am all for them coming, but sometimes I feel enough can be enough.

Democrats should be for immigration. Republicans should be for immigration. But what I see the party saying, let all come here, we wont care, we will pay for way through life.

Matthew 25:31-46 in particular verse 40

and the King shall answer and say unto them, Verly I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethen, ye have done it unto me.

I am also a parent a parent who is rasing her children to be compassionate human beings. My twelve year old can’t wait to be an official memeber of Young Democrats of America.

I say all of that to say this, I teach my children that we are our brothers keeper. We may not want to be. We may not even think that it is fair but if we don’t help then we will pay for it later.

To whom much is given much is required.

I am also wondering this what exactly is this taxation without represenatation you keep referring to ?

Studies over the last 10 years have found that americans think we spend too much on aid, and then when told how much we really spend, say that it is an acceptable amount. The average over-guess is somewhere usually around a factor of 15! as in most people say we spend 15, and that that’s about twice what we really should spend (7 or 8 percent say most people). But in reality its less than 1, which is obviously seven or eight times less than what people think would be fine. Moreover, republicans are much more likely to a) think we should spend less and b) overestimate how much we spend. With the average republican guessing about 20 percent, and saying we should spend less than 5.

(heres a study from ‘95 till ‘05: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BFW/introduction.html )

people also don’t realise that the vast majority of ”aid” is actually going to military operations. Almost 1/3 of our “humanitarian aid” in south america last year, actually was used to buy military equipment for the oppressive regime in columbia which america has been propping up for many years against rebels. Do i like those rebels? No. Should we be propping up an equally bad (or really much worse) gov’t? No. Do we get to call doing so in our own best interest humanitarian aid? Strangely yes.

The aid we tried to give to brazil to fight aids was so full of strings attached that they decided in brazil that they were better off wihout it and turned it down (see in the real world we know that condoms are actually good for fighting aids, and abstinance only education has a proven track record of failure.)

Of the 15 billion in aids money we pledged to give just before the iraq war, (The Presidents Emergency Plan to Send Aids Relift or PEPFAR or something like that) less than 400 million has even showed up yet, and no money was allocated until over 18 months after it was announced (not a very urgent emergency I guess). Readr about it in last months issue of Rolling Stone, if you want a good concise history of Bush’s allocation of funds to fight aids. I think the original story came from the post or something, but rolling stone reprinted it.

And if all of that doesn’t explain to you that, at the very least, it’s certainly not extremist to think we should spend a little more money on foreign aid (75 percent of americans think 1 percent is “way too little”).

So try again. Tell me some other reason why I’m part of the “extremist left” how I’m “hurting america” how I’m “spurting talking points” “can’t think for myself” “have no facts to support myself” or how my “extremist left” is out of touch with americans and dangerous.

the only extremists with politcal sway in the realm of aid are A) the extrmist christians who’s warped view on the bible is being enforced as public policy shutting down our aid to women’s clinics, rape prevention centers, and helping aids spread. and B) the extremist republicans like orin hatch, and lee terry who think we should cut off all but “christian foreign aid” and stop sending any money to most countries. (I once heard lee terry give a talk where he couldn’t shut up about ‘’spending american money only in america only for americans).

but us on the left, we’re not extremists.

“GOP-led panel slashes foreign aid program”
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/06/16/foreign_aid/index.html

here’s a key quote:
“The initiative announced by Bush in 2002 has been slow to get off the ground, and projects have been approved for just four countries. Presidents of five African nations said in a meeting this week with Bush that bureaucratic bottlenecks made it nearly impossible to access the aid.

Overall, lawmakers are proposing only a tiny increase in U.S. foreign aid in the coming budget year…:

What people forget to mention is that the US is the most generous country there is in private aid. Those #’s practically match what the government spends in aid, contracts, subsidies, etc etc etc.

Why doesnt anyone talk about that? We give out lots of money to other countries and helpful organizations, here and abroad. (we do - not alot, but what/when/where we can)

But why cant we, as citizens decide where the money goes, rather then the government which we know cant do anything right.

That is where my lack of repersentation comes in. I do not get to decide where my tax dollars go. Because if I did, it certainly would not be to some places.

And no, I do not have a lot of time to go around searching one way or another to find out, if we truly are giving out too much aid. I just feel we are being under-appreciated for what we do give out, no one cares about how much we really do spend, via government aid and private aid.

They only want more. And so little of it, now, goes to where it needs to, corruption is rampid. And no one cares about or talks about that.

You can misrepresent what pro-choice means all you want. The problem with parental consent laws is the following……..How do you expect a minor who has been raped by her father to get parental consent? I am getting sick of you people misrepresenting this issue. Also, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. You conservatives always try to get progressives to defend abortion. Progressives believe that women should be able to make their own decisions concerning their health.

Also, there has been no help from the conservatives to reduce the number of abortions. Harry Reid, a democrat who you praised for being “pro-life”, has introduced a bill that would make contraception (including the morning after pill more available) more available; hence reducing the amount of abortions. Yet conservatives block such legislations. The way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Which also means we need comprehensive sex education in high school and more prenatel funding for poor women.

Joe, I would appreciate you not coming in hear and spewing Hannity talking points.

Most democrats support abstinence programs but not abstinence only programs. I was taught when you want to change something, you fix the problem not the symptom. Republicans want to fix the symptom not the problem. Once again Joe you show your close minded ignorance by spewing right-wing rheteroic with no facts.

I had a friend on staff at the Med Center many years ago who also had a private clinic where abortions were performed. He was snubbed by many of the other med center docs. One night he got a call from his biggest critic after his own 16 year old daughter had gotten into “trouble.” Abortions will always be accessible to middle and upper class - its the poor who will be left dangling in the wind.

I don’t like abortions. I didn’t like having mine but I was poor, still in college, and the father had a child from his previous marriage who was dying of cystic fibrosis. (Ever hear a child cough in the middle of the night with cystic fibrosis?) And I hadn’t been careless - I was on the pill and had gotten pregnant. There is no doubt in my mind that I would have sought a back alley abortion and might very well have died from it. There are any myriad of reasons that people seek abortions - I can’t in a million years imagine making that decision for someone else. Unfortunately many of the white rich males making up our congress would have it otherwise.