You won't see anything in the press about how well Alberto Gonzales is handling the grilling mostly by Democrap senators. The press also want give you any of flavor of the questioning that clearly is rooted in concern for our enemies over our citizens. The tone in this hearing is that torture is condoned by the administration and by Gonzales.....you'll note that much of the press got it wrong saying that Gonzales wrote a memo to the president that terrorist prisoners were not protected by the Geneva convention. The fact is that Gonzales received the memo from the Justice Department and then gave his opinion (which is correct) of the memo to the president. Of course the press seems to ignore when people are doing their jobs and not trying to figure out how to torture people with impunity. The president's statement on this memo was;
"I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
Of course this is interpreted by the left as an edict to torture terrorist and suspected terrorist prisoners. IDIOTS!....powerlineblog.com has a nice piece on this and points out one of Gonzales' responses to the idiocy he is being subjected to, in this case from Senator Lindsay Graham:
"Senator, there is a lot to respond to in your statement. I would respectfully disagree with your statement that we're becoming more like our enemy. We are nothing like our enemy, Senator. While we are struggling, mightily, trying to find out what happened at Abu Ghraib, they are beheading people like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. We are nothing like our enemies, Senator."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Tiny,
I agree again. Man, when are we just going to get rid of these liberals and RINOs? If they have less than 50% of the population I say they should have no voice in Congress. We need to put them into some kind of ghetto and let them do their stupid liberal things without hurting America.
When you have a group of people who are willing to follow the likes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, and a host of other worthless Hollywood morons what do you really expect? This party has traveled so far off the reality map that it's now somewhere in Middle Earth searching for help in the Shire.
The fact that we have people in our government who believe that these murdering SOB's deserve Geneva Convention consideration is ludicrous. The fact that this is even being discussed is nauseating.
We have the ability to strip felons of their voting rights. Illegals (at least now) can't vote despite residency. I think we need to start considering stripping liberals of voting rights if they have excessively anti-American tendencies. I mean, I'd prefer to get rid of them altogether, but you have to start somewhere.
If you think about it, this whole problem started because we swayed from the Constitution. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of equal rights here, but we started with a very restrictive set of rules for who could vote and who couldn't. In the original plan stemming from the British model, you had to be a reasonably educated landowner. That weeded out the crazies effectively. We have too many uneducated/undesirable voters now(if you get what I mean).
And those guys are just diluting our pool badly and making less desirable candidates rise up. Bush is too liberal for real conservatives if you think about it. But we need someone with leftist tendencies to really get the idiots in the middle to take our side.
hmm, so are these comments all from the same anonymous user? Are they sarcastic? Regardless, I actually agree with the sentiment behind the last post and being more restrictive on who can vote. The perfect example is a college town where a large university student body can be 25% or more of an entire cities population. It's not their hometown, the vast majority don't pay taxes (income or property), and they are neophytes on all things (although they believe they are all knowing)...so why should this person vote on spending my tax money, increasing or decreasing my taxes, on what my schools may or may not do, whether I should pay for a new bridge for the next 20 yrs, and so on? The additional unfortunate fact is that many who by age alone should no longer be neophytes still are.
Post a Comment