Political Discussions
Republicans sink to a new low
Posted by satijournal • 4/30/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Democrats, politics, Republicans
Check out this video John Boehner started running today:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21933.html
“What are Democrats doing to keep us safe,” Republicans ask in the video, titled “Day 101,” released Thursday morning.
Complete with dreary background music, the video challenges Obama on his decision to close Guantanamo Bay and release memos detailing the Bush administration’s policies on torture. The video also shows Obama's handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, airs a bunch of headlines and news clips about CIA interrogations and flashes of terrorist training videos.
The image of the Pentagon in flames on 9/11 appears for just an instant at 1:14 in the video, and it’s spliced with images of flag burning protesters and other violent footage from the Middle East.
House Minority Leader John Boehner defended the video today, saying it was perfectly fair game.
It's the non-stop Republican campaign against Democrats. They don't give a damn about the country. All they care about is attacking Democrats.
User Comments
-
No surprise.
Did you see Sean Hannity's 100 day commemorative video yesterday? Fear mongering at best with an Omen type soundtrack. Priceless.
Could not find a link to it yet online. Here's "100 Days of 'Fair & Balanced'":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0-
Those guys are nuts. And Sean Hannity is a coward. What happened to his promise to be waterboarded for charity?
-
Sean Hannity: Right Wing Wuss™
Extremely doubtful he'll go through with it. Glenn Beck will probably be on the sidelines crying if he does.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Ebo4UhloU
LMAO -
What a nut. He's to punditry what professional wrestling is to sports.
-
I found Hannity's 100 day video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=doqYZ0RC7a0
THE END TIMES ARE SURELY UPON US!!
LMAO -
Chickenhawks don't change
-
-
Yep - I have been receiving chain mail after chain mail outlining all of the "horrendous" things that have happened to the country in the last 3 months.
Shhh, I though I heard something...yep, the sound of rats screaming as the ship goes down....
Here's what I wonder - for all intents and purposes the economy has stopped completely plummeting to it's death (regardless of the screams from the right) - and it will take time to recover, and to regain employment, but most people understand that (It would happen faster if Rep governors would accept money to help create employment in their states, but I digress)...the rest of the world is thrilled to see a non arrogant-chest thumping president in office, one who is willing to try peaceful resolutions instead of "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran/Pakistan/China?Russia/Poland/whoever gets in our way".
What are they going to do if and when Obama pulls it all together, and fulfills his promises, and reduces poverty, and finds a way to fix the economy...what are they going to do? Honestly, what can they do? -
I have quite a few friends who are in the unemployment line to include my husband. Things are tight, however they aren't bringing us down. The fear mongering on the right is very sad. I say sad because there are so many people that believe it. Those are the people that will stand in line for the red Koolaide. -
man, all this whining is giving me a headache. No wonder why nobody, including me visits this site anymore.-
I never visit this site either.
-
-
I went and watched the GOP video on Politico.com and saw nothing wrong with it. It simply asks the question, do you feel safer with Obama in office? I personally do not. He takes away the CIA's and FBI's ability to interrogate terror suspects. He wants to only use the army field manual when interrogating detainees. Obama wants to be friends with those who want to kill us. Here is an excerpt from the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation: "A cooperative and friendly source offers little resistance to the interrogation and normally speaks freely on almost any topic introduced, other than that which will tend to incriminate or degrade him personally. To obtain the maximum amount of information from cooperative and friendly sources, the interrogator takes care to establish and to preserve a friendly and cooperative atmosphere by not inquiring into those private affairs which are beyond the scope of the interrogation."
Can't we all be friends? I mean maybe Obama is right, maybe the terrorists are just misunderstood. If we just show them we are nice, then I know they won't want to blow us up.
Give me a break. Showing your enemies weakness only emboldens them. Do any of you really, really think that just because Obama is a nice, friendly guy that al-Qa'ida will reverse THOUSANDS of years of hate towards ANYONE that isn't in the Islam nation? It is written in the Qur'an that the infidels (anyone not a muslim) needs to be killed. Here are two direct quotes from the Qur'an: 1. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.2. War is ordained by Allah.
I am not a war monger, nor do I consider myself a "hawk." But I am a realist and even though the liberals like to think that if we just put daisies in our gun barrels, then the world will stop all evil. It is in the liberal mindset to apologize for America, to blame America. To follow that line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, since EVERYTHING is America's fault, then if we simply play nice, no one will harm us.
Yeaaaah, riiiight.-
You're not a realist. You're living in the world created by right-wing propaganda. The Bush administration wasn't trying to protect our country when they authorized torture. They were trying to obtain information connecting Hussein to Bin-Laden so they could make their case to go to war with Iraq.
Over 3,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died in Iraq for reasons that turned out to be lies. That is the most despicable and un-American thing any president has ever done. Hell, they even outed a CIA officer for political purposes. That's treason!
And Al-Quaeda has only been around for a few decades -- not thousands of years as you claim. Your opinions are based purely on emotion -- mainly fear. Try reading a little. You won't be so afraid. As the old saying goes: ignorance breeds fear. -
And you felt safe when Bush was running The Ministry of Love, and could "dissappear" you at any moment he pleased?
-
Agit8r........... Please come back, you are WAY out there. I am sure someone misses you...
-
listen antics, the first step to the healing process is admitting you've been duped. We all were to some extent. Power begetting corruption has given way to corruption begetting power
-
-
satijournal, can you back up your claims of what type of information was attempting to be gleaned from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other detainees? If you can't, then it is just left wing rhetoric.
What 3,000 Americans do you speak of? The victims in the 9/11 attacks? If so, how did they die because of lies? They died because maniacs hijacked planes and flew them into buildings... I guess you missed the news that day.
You must not have read my post very carefully. I never said that al-Qa'ida had been around for thousands of years, I said that just because Obama is nice to al-Qa'ida it won't make them reverse the thousands of years of hatred that Islamic Extremism preaches.
For the record, Osama bin Laden formed al-Qa'ida in the late 1980's. They grew out of the Mujahideen that bin Laden poured millions of his family's money into in the fight against the Soviets. I got my info on this from "The War Against The Terror Masters" by Michael A. Ledeen. Great book, very informative.
And answer this question for me, if you can or if you dare. If you are against enhanced interrogation techniques, then how would you propose to get information from terrorist detainees?-
"...Obama is nice to al-Qa'ida"
somebody likes their Glenn Beck -
What 3,000 Americans do you speak of?
Actually, I meant over 4,000, and I was talking about the soldiers who died for a lie.
As far as Obama being nice to Al-Quaeda, Obama is doubling the number of troops in Afghanistan. Bush is the one who was "nice" to them by dropping the ball and focusing on Iraq. He never really tried to get the man responsible for the 9/11 attack. Could be because he had business ties to the bin-Laden family or he really didn't care. Bush was determined to go after Hussein even before SCOTUS handed him the presidency.
The situation in Afghanistan has severely deteriorated. Last year was the most deadly year for U.S. military and Obama recognizes that Afghanistan and now Pakistan is the central front for the war on terrorism. -
As far as Michael A. Ledeen, he's a bit of a nut-job. It's obvious to most people that neocon foreign policies are horribly misguided.
-
religious extremist oil-brats protect their own
-
satijournal, you do have a flair with words, but you have yet to back up anything you say. You didn't answer my question that I addressed to you and you keep making claims that seem to come from your own opinion. Tell me, how is it you know what Bush wanted or intended to do before he took office? I wasn't aware that you served on his staff or had inside info about this. Or is it just that you THINK that is what he wanted to do because that makes it easier to hate him?
Again, I ask you, sati - How would you get information from ANY terror detainee? Obama is realizing (thank God) that we cannot pull out of Afghanistan in the near future and that we cannot pull out of Iraq right away, either. So that further begs the question of intelligence questioning of detainees.
satijournal, you have just been made Secretary of Defense after Gates steps down. Your new boss does not allow ANY harsh interrogation techniques, how do you propose to retrieve vital information from the detainees that you acquire in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Remember that the Army Field Manual (FM 34-53) allows for no harsh techniques, it doesn't even allow the interrogator to raise his/her voice to the detainee.
Please, illuminate me as to your method of keeping Americans safe in your intelligence gathering. -
WE ALL know he intended to invade Iraq from day 1, because he hired half of the signees of PNAC's open letter to Bill Clinton--urging HIM to remove Saddam Hussein--to run the Bush Defense Department!
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
note signees! -
Thanks for that link Agit8r. I am ashamed to say that I wasn't aware of that letter. It does shed a different light on our interest in Iraq. But let us not forget that Saddam had fooled the entire world about his capacity for WMD's of all types. I felt from the start that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but not to look for WMD's. Saddam was a cruel and vicious dictator that committed genocide on his own people. He needed to be removed. I make no apologies for saying that or feeling that way.
-
Again, I ask you, sati - How would you get information from ANY terror detainee?
Well, most experts agree that torture is not effective. During WWII, we got a lot of good information by treating the detainees well and showing them that our system is lot better than the one they came from. What torturing does is shows them that we are the evil country they believe us to be.
As far as where I get my information, it's almost always from the N.Y. Times or the Washington Post. There was an editorial where some of the people involved in the interrogations claimed they were told to find a link between Hussein and bin-Laden no matter what it took. I don't have a link because is was a while back. -
Being friendly to WWII POW's might have worked. I mean even though we were fighting a different form of extremism in the Nazi's and the Japanese, they were not taught from childhood to hate America. So the same techniques that worked then don't necessarily apply now. You cannot be friends with someone who wants you dead, no matter what, no matter even if it costs them their own lives. They are taught that to sacrifice their lives sends them to their ultimate reward.
I do not feel safe with Obama in the White House. It is only a matter of time before we are attacked again.
Here is the link you speak of - www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
But that doesn't surprise me, McClatchy is as liberal and left wing as they come. Just because it is in print doesn't mean it is true. However, I asked for a source and you provided one, thank you.
Now let me provide you with a link - 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2237051/posts?page=11
- or two -
www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/24/jonathon-landay-and-mcclatchy-newspapers-st... -
Are you joking, the Japanese invented the suicide bomber and were regarded by the US at the time as being so fanatical they needed to be nuked.
The natzi's considered the US to be a racially degenerate. Also the Natzi's tortured and murdered on an industrial scale, all the time convinced that they were doing the right thing. By any measure they were fanatics. -
First of all, that the Japanese were "so fanatical" that U.S. decided "they needed to be nuked" is an untrue statement. We "nuked" the Japanese to end the war. My father was in Okinawa in WWII, he was 150 miles from the bombings and he told me that his Marine unit already had orders to invade Japan. Millions of more lives would have been lost, but let's not debate that. What I was referring to about the Nazi's and the Japanese during WWII was that they did not have the history of thousands of years of hatred being directed at anyone not like them. The Japanese Kamikaze pilots did what they did not out of hate of Americans, but out of a twisted sense of honor or duty to their Emperor.
Bottom line, I never said Nazi's and Japanese weren't fanatics. What I was saying is that gentler interrogation techniques had a better success rate because they did not have the long standing (years upon years, generation upon generation) of having it drummed into their head to A. get into heaven by suicide and B that America was the great Satan.
-
-
"religious extremist oil brats protect their own" lol!!!!!! excellent-
I get accused of spewing right wing rhetoric and yet replies to my posts consist of "religious extremist oil-brats protect their own" ?? Now that isn't useless rhetoric, is it? But I forget how fashionable it is to just bash the most recent Repub to hold office. Not mention easy, requiring no thought.
For the record, I don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck, he is a bit too weird for me. If weird is the right word, lol.
-
-
To stop Islamic fundamentalist we first need not to be terrorist and second we need to go back to the time where are agents actually knew the cultures like the back of their hand and spoke the languages. Starting with Reagan there was a significant decrease in the number of those working for those department who could speak Arabic, Farsi...even Spanish and French. This is part of what hurts us. The stats I ead on that were abysmal, though I don't have them now they are easy enough to find I imagine.
I have a lot of family who either work abroad or travel abroad routinely for their careers, the difference in how people feel about us - in countries formerly rather unhappy with us - is astounding, according to them, and I have heard the same from a couple of my professors, many of whom spend large chunks of time in Arab countries. It certainly isn't going to stop Al-Qaeda, but it makes it more difficult for them to recruit out of their realm.-
I agree that we need more Arabic/Farsi speaking people on the payroll. That is a given, but when you say 'starting with Reagan,' it seems like you are implying that he fired a bunch of translators. Fact is, every US President since Carter has declared war on terrorism. (Well, except for Obama, where the only mention of the phrase 'War On Terror' refers to home-grown, right wing terrorists that evidently recruit our veterans upon their return home.) The difference is that Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton realized that aggressively fighting terrorism would not sit well with the liberal, left wing media. Simply put, it was not politically expedient. So that would seem to suggest that that course of action, or rather inaction, crosses party lines and ideologies.
As far as your professors telling you how many people hate this country, tell me why millions of people come to the United States every year? I really am not surprised that people in Arab countries don't like us. Saudi Arabia alone has spent several billion dollars on their worldwide network of mosques and schools that teach children from the very start that American is the great Satan, the evil country. Do you really think that you are going to find many friends in an atmosphere like that? -
Come on anticsrocks! The Republican Party have had and continue to have very close ties to the Saudi royal family.
-
The Republican Party, the Democratic Party.........the United States for that matter. I think we have too close of a relationship with Saudi Arabia.
theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/republicans-demand-probe-of-free...
----
elect2009.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/breaking-obama-had-close-ties-to-top-sau...
---
Just a couple links I found.
-
-
I do agree we need to do more domestic drilling in a safe and responsible way. But we also need to move forward. The 1975 gas shortage should have taught every member of Congress and the Senate that and it should have started then, not 34 years later...
In regards to the Republican Party, they have become a disgrace and a pathetic miserable failure. They have failed countless times and screaming about the barn door being left open when THEY are the ones that forgot to close it is deplorable.
Where are the Republican Conservatives? Speaking as a true Conservative, the Republican Party hasn't been conservative about anything in over 20 years.
tr.im/pbLF -
"I do agree we need to do more domestic drilling in a safe and responsible way."
Darned straight! Do it at home, people... and wear protection!
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
