Posted on 09/08/2006 4:37:06 AM PDT by frankjr
All of the Libs phoney scandals have been exposed (e.g. Plane, terroist surveillance, Ohio 2004 vote process, etc). Now they are back to rehashing old phonely scandals and 3rd grade insults. Let's "Bush is a liar", now that is real clever. Or "Panties on head is torture, but Terrorists beheading folks is ok".
At least Dickie admitted the Dems are weak on National Security (or at least that is how voters view the Dems). With articles like this, Dickie shows why the view exists...and rightfully so.
Nobody got tortured at Abu Ghraib. They got humiliated. There IS a difference!!!! Secondly, if the administration was so keen on it, how come all the soldiers involved are in Leavenworth right now?
Do these guys have even the SLIGHTEST handle on reality?
This guy probably considers it 'torture' if his latte gets cold.
Do these guys have even the SLIGHTEST handle on reality?
NO!
Yet he accuses the President of playing fast and loose with the facts.
Chutzpah, no?
No kiddin'. Yet again, we find that words mean things. If they think what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture, they'd better avoid frat parties at any major university.
Watching Katie Couric on CBS is torture .
Hey Meyer, I don't care if they torture the Islamic pukes. Why should I when I don't care if most were dead, just like they wish on me.
Ironically, there is a large segment of the DemocRat base that actually enjoys having panties on their heads.
You're so right. For the first time in about 10 years I actually recorded the See BS evening news so I could watch Rush's 990 seconds and decided to watch the rest just to see what I was missing. BARF!! I got through the first 90 seconds to 2 minutes and then skipped to Rush. That first two minutes, mostly WOT coverage, was pure 190 proof defeatism and anti-Americanism. Some of us here criticize Fox News for sometimes being too liberal; even at its worst, it's nothing like the pure Marxism on See BS.
Whether you define what occurred there as torture or not it was in such violation of U.S. policy that those participating in it received pretty good jail sentences.
Further, the investigation and action that followed was initiated entirely by the military, and started by an enlisted man who reported the matter to his superiors who jumped on it immediately.
The only thing the media (and Dems) had to do with it was to try to screw it up.
-" Now Abu Ghraib was where torture was photographed and then shown to the world. Similar torture was carried out, we learned, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
But, "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't." -
Isn't this a contradiction?
Paragraph 1: We torture
Paragraph 2: We dont torture
Am I missing something?
Fair and balanced gets my market share .
I couldn't be a liberal. I regard the well-being of my family over that of those who seek to destroy them.
blah blah liberal drivel, mindless inanities liberal leaps of logic — translation: torture.
I couldn't be a liberal. I value the act of war of 9/11 as a breach of human rights, to be defended at any cost.
Can they really not see moral differientiation or does it just not serve their agenda? Can they really be this stupid?
The question answers itself, of course.
The only thing about the aftermath of Abu Ghraib that pissed me off is that reserve General - who looks like a man - got to walk away. She should have stripped of her rank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.