Bush goes begging to Congress for TORTURE and SS arrest and eternal detention powers. Dems tepid or MIA...
wp: "A DEFINING MOMENT FOR AMERICA." Democrats... NOT INVITED!
Yesterday Senator John Kerry came out, in rather timid and tepid fashion, to detail how the Bush administration has botched the war in Afghanistan. This is certainly a step in the right direction for Mr. Kerry, but his clumsy attempt to hijack the Bush-Rove-Cheney propaganda term "CUT and RUN" by applying it to the Bush admin's failing efforts in Afghanistan will backfire; because #1. "cut and run" is ingrained in the American media (by force of endless Repug. repetion) as applying to Democrats; #2. Kerry does not have the force, projection, or relentless tenacity to reverse that image; #3. and anyways, Bush-Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld would LOVE to send ten million US men and women in uniform over to Afghanistan (sort of like running the Cherokees out of the Carolinas) IF THEY COULD, so "cut and run" really doesn't apply.
Try something original, Mr. Kerry... like "Mr. Bush's war of gross INCOMPETENCE!" or "Mr. Bush ALLOWED Osama bin Laden TO ESCAPE the US noose at Tora Bora!" or "Mr. Bush has turned Afghanistan INTO A NARCO-TERRORIST's fantasyland!" (Afghanistan didn't earn its sobriquet "The Graveyard of Empires" overnight, and the Bush administration, having DISBANDED the US Army office of Peacekeeping, will have to sustain Assyrian/Alexander the Great/Mongol levels of administering death by sword-and-fire to quell the resistance... and even that for only a relatively short term until the native cultures persevere and prevail over any outside invaders..)
-----------------------------
Today the Washington Post in their normal, cowardly "he said, she said" fashion, wrote an article about the President of the United States going to Congress, hat in hand, TO BEG for OFFICIAL PERMISSION to have US men and women conduct systematic TORTURE - unsupervised, unoverseen, not answerable to anyone - and the Post headlines the article "A DEFINING MOMENT FOR AMERICA." OK, they give it an honest subtitle "The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture."
But you can tell where their sympathies lie: "Bush is DEFINING AMERICA!" one might read if only glancing at the headline; a rather positive spin for a US president requesting Gestapo/SS powers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401587.html
Over at the craven, lying NEW YORK TIMES the Times' editors are even more craven than the Post's editors, THEIR headline is so confusing and miseading as to be completely divorced from the actual story... except, oh yeah, in that "he said, she said" fashion that the Whore Times also prefers for mis-informing the American public:
"An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees"
...the Times headlines, to a story about INDEFINATE DETENTIONS and the summar ARREST, IMPRISONMENT, and, yes TORTURE powers that go with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/politics/15assess.html
This is how the POST and TIMES (and lesser American media/press) LOVE to "REPORT" the 'news' - SPIN EVERYTHING into a he-said, she-said story, shove bunches of quotes from high-ranking muckety-mucks, and make it sound like the US is working its tail off in the "War on terror," WHEN IN FACT a.) Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff DOES NOT want to fund PORT SECURITY!, b.) Afhanistan has degenerated to a guerrilla-training narco-funded terrorist wet-dream; c.) the Repubican dominated government is LYING about Iran's nuclear program; d.) and bin Laden is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, and e.) William Kristol, the right-wing cowardly chickenhawk who has been WRONG about EVERYTHING he has written or said about Iraq, is now calling for "MORE US TROOPS FOR IRAQ!" which if enacted must require a military draft - Double Time!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301575.html
Which only makes this comment by NY Rep. Peter King (Rethuglican) about potentially dunking bin Laden's head under water as a day at the waterpark all the more ridiculous:
<< Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: “I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it.” >>
Well, the editorial doesn't have the time or space to go into ALL the Bush-Cheney-Chertoff-Rove-Rusmfeld (etc) CORRUPTIONS, INCOMPETENCE, LIES, DISTORTIONS, INCOMPETENCE, and other COMPROMISES of national security, but let's look again at that NYT (or WP) article(s):
NOTE: NOTE ONE DEMOCRAT is mentioned in EITHER ARTICLE!
The Democrats, by REFUSING to use the FILIBUSTER over the past 5 years, HAVE BEEN FROZEN OUT of discussions of issues that the Washington Post defines as "A DEFINING MOMENT FOR AMERICA"!
SO MUCH FOR REPRESENTATIVE politics and OPPOSITION PARTY Democracy... on the eve (7 weeks out) of a crucial midterm election, neither the POST, the TIMES, nor the Republican administration feels ANY NEED to so much AS MENTION any Democratic "leader' on the shaping of policies that will DEFINE America for GENERATIONS TO COME!
==========================================
An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees
'News Analysis' 14 Sept. 2006
By CARL HULSE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/politics/15assess.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — President Bush and Congressional Republicans spent the last 10 days laying the foundation for a titanic pre-election struggle over national security, and now they have one. But the fight playing out this week on Capitol Hill is not what they had in mind.
Instead of drawing contrasts with Democrats, the president’s call for creating military tribunals to try terror suspects — a key substantive and political component of his fall agenda — has erupted into a remarkably intense clash pitting some of the best-known warriors in the Republican Party against Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership.
At issue are definitions of what is permissible in trials and interrogations that both sides view as central to the character of the nation, the way the United States is perceived abroad and the rules of the game for what Mr. Bush has said will be a multigenerational battle against Islamic terrorists.
Democrats have so far remained on the sidelines, sidestepping Republican efforts to draw them into a fight over Mr. Bush’s leadership on national security heading toward the midterm election. Democrats are rapt spectators, however, shielded by the stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration’s approach.
It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services, arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment.
On the other are the Bush administration and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate who say new tools are urgently needed to pursue and interrogate terror suspects and to protect the covert operatives who play an increasingly important role in chasing them.
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a major political distraction, particularly given the credentials of the Republican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war in Vietnam who was tortured in captivity.
“It is a big problem,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, a senior House Republican. “These guys have a lot of weight and a lot of standing. McCain is a tough guy to beat on this.”
But Mr. Bush, who visited the Capitol on Thursday to rally House Republicans behind his approach, is also tough. He will no doubt do everything possible to get a deal, if not on the floor of the Senate then in conference between the House and the Senate. But the immediate result in political terms has been to create a battle among Republicans about core principles less than eight weeks before Election Day.
“This whole issue is going to send a signal about who America is in 2006,” Mr. Graham said.
Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.
House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to “the lawyer brigade” being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: “I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it.”
Mr. McCain’s opponents acknowledge that, given his experiences, he is a powerful advocate on this subject, but that the shadow war against terrorists has new legal complexities.
“I have never led in combat, but I do have some experience with the law,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a former State Supreme Court justice who has jousted with Mr. McCain over the legislation.
Yesterday Senator John Kerry came out, in rather timid and tepid fashion, to detail how the Bush administration has botched the war in Afghanistan. This is certainly a step in the right direction for Mr. Kerry, but his clumsy attempt to hijack the Bush-Rove-Cheney propaganda term "CUT and RUN" by applying it to the Bush admin's failing efforts in Afghanistan will backfire; because #1. "cut and run" is ingrained in the American media (by force of endless Repug. repetion) as applying to Democrats; #2. Kerry does not have the force, projection, or relentless tenacity to reverse that image; #3. and anyways, Bush-Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld would LOVE to send ten million US men and women in uniform over to Afghanistan (sort of like running the Cherokees out of the Carolinas) IF THEY COULD, so "cut and run" really doesn't apply.
Try something original, Mr. Kerry... like "Mr. Bush's war of gross INCOMPETENCE!" or "Mr. Bush ALLOWED Osama bin Laden TO ESCAPE the US noose at Tora Bora!" or "Mr. Bush has turned Afghanistan INTO A NARCO-TERRORIST's fantasyland!" (Afghanistan didn't earn its sobriquet "The Graveyard of Empires" overnight, and the Bush administration, having DISBANDED the US Army office of Peacekeeping, will have to sustain Assyrian/Alexander the Great/Mongol levels of administering death by sword-and-fire to quell the resistance... and even that for only a relatively short term until the native cultures persevere and prevail over any outside invaders..)
-----------------------------
Today the Washington Post in their normal, cowardly "he said, she said" fashion, wrote an article about the President of the United States going to Congress, hat in hand, TO BEG for OFFICIAL PERMISSION to have US men and women conduct systematic TORTURE - unsupervised, unoverseen, not answerable to anyone - and the Post headlines the article "A DEFINING MOMENT FOR AMERICA." OK, they give it an honest subtitle "The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture."
But you can tell where their sympathies lie: "Bush is DEFINING AMERICA!" one might read if only glancing at the headline; a rather positive spin for a US president requesting Gestapo/SS powers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401587.html
Over at the craven, lying NEW YORK TIMES the Times' editors are even more craven than the Post's editors, THEIR headline is so confusing and miseading as to be completely divorced from the actual story... except, oh yeah, in that "he said, she said" fashion that the Whore Times also prefers for mis-informing the American public:
"An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees"
...the Times headlines, to a story about INDEFINATE DETENTIONS and the summar ARREST, IMPRISONMENT, and, yes TORTURE powers that go with it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/politics/15assess.html
This is how the POST and TIMES (and lesser American media/press) LOVE to "REPORT" the 'news' - SPIN EVERYTHING into a he-said, she-said story, shove bunches of quotes from high-ranking muckety-mucks, and make it sound like the US is working its tail off in the "War on terror," WHEN IN FACT a.) Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff DOES NOT want to fund PORT SECURITY!, b.) Afhanistan has degenerated to a guerrilla-training narco-funded terrorist wet-dream; c.) the Repubican dominated government is LYING about Iran's nuclear program; d.) and bin Laden is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, and e.) William Kristol, the right-wing cowardly chickenhawk who has been WRONG about EVERYTHING he has written or said about Iraq, is now calling for "MORE US TROOPS FOR IRAQ!" which if enacted must require a military draft - Double Time!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301575.html
Which only makes this comment by NY Rep. Peter King (Rethuglican) about potentially dunking bin Laden's head under water as a day at the waterpark all the more ridiculous:
<< Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: “I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it.” >>
Well, the editorial doesn't have the time or space to go into ALL the Bush-Cheney-Chertoff-Rove-Rusmfeld (etc) CORRUPTIONS, INCOMPETENCE, LIES, DISTORTIONS, INCOMPETENCE, and other COMPROMISES of national security, but let's look again at that NYT (or WP) article(s):
NOTE: NOTE ONE DEMOCRAT is mentioned in EITHER ARTICLE!
The Democrats, by REFUSING to use the FILIBUSTER over the past 5 years, HAVE BEEN FROZEN OUT of discussions of issues that the Washington Post defines as "A DEFINING MOMENT FOR AMERICA"!
SO MUCH FOR REPRESENTATIVE politics and OPPOSITION PARTY Democracy... on the eve (7 weeks out) of a crucial midterm election, neither the POST, the TIMES, nor the Republican administration feels ANY NEED to so much AS MENTION any Democratic "leader' on the shaping of policies that will DEFINE America for GENERATIONS TO COME!
==========================================
An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees
'News Analysis' 14 Sept. 2006
By CARL HULSE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/politics/15assess.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — President Bush and Congressional Republicans spent the last 10 days laying the foundation for a titanic pre-election struggle over national security, and now they have one. But the fight playing out this week on Capitol Hill is not what they had in mind.
Instead of drawing contrasts with Democrats, the president’s call for creating military tribunals to try terror suspects — a key substantive and political component of his fall agenda — has erupted into a remarkably intense clash pitting some of the best-known warriors in the Republican Party against Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership.
At issue are definitions of what is permissible in trials and interrogations that both sides view as central to the character of the nation, the way the United States is perceived abroad and the rules of the game for what Mr. Bush has said will be a multigenerational battle against Islamic terrorists.
Democrats have so far remained on the sidelines, sidestepping Republican efforts to draw them into a fight over Mr. Bush’s leadership on national security heading toward the midterm election. Democrats are rapt spectators, however, shielded by the stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration’s approach.
It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services, arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment.
On the other are the Bush administration and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate who say new tools are urgently needed to pursue and interrogate terror suspects and to protect the covert operatives who play an increasingly important role in chasing them.
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a major political distraction, particularly given the credentials of the Republican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war in Vietnam who was tortured in captivity.
“It is a big problem,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, a senior House Republican. “These guys have a lot of weight and a lot of standing. McCain is a tough guy to beat on this.”
But Mr. Bush, who visited the Capitol on Thursday to rally House Republicans behind his approach, is also tough. He will no doubt do everything possible to get a deal, if not on the floor of the Senate then in conference between the House and the Senate. But the immediate result in political terms has been to create a battle among Republicans about core principles less than eight weeks before Election Day.
“This whole issue is going to send a signal about who America is in 2006,” Mr. Graham said.
Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.
House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to “the lawyer brigade” being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: “I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it.”
Mr. McCain’s opponents acknowledge that, given his experiences, he is a powerful advocate on this subject, but that the shadow war against terrorists has new legal complexities.
“I have never led in combat, but I do have some experience with the law,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a former State Supreme Court justice who has jousted with Mr. McCain over the legislation.
posted by verifi at 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home