Pedro Martínez: #1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime
#2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court

Artful Dodger: ..I.. (the finger) HAHAHAHAH

Artful Dodger

1. In America a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.
2. I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo. And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial.

Putting 1 and 2 together, you don't regard Guantánamo detainees as "persons". :)

Bernice:

Pedro Martínez:61 of those released went back into terrorism.  I doubt Obama will release any of them without some sort of hearing.  I personally don't think they deserve a civic hearing but would agree that in some cases a military hearing would be appropriate.  As far as I'm concerned, if they were captured in a military operation/conflict, they are military combatants and should be treated as such.  I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo.  And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial.  With all due respect, it's not the same thing as being falsely accused of an illegal act by someone.  There are very specifc reasons these guys were detained in the first place.  And the fact that many of those previously released have gone back into terrorism and participated in the killing of innocent people should give us all pause before we release any more.  Of course I could be missing some important point here and maybe should rethink my position.  But at the moment, I can't think of any reason to alter my view. 

Pedro Martínez: I agree with you ROFL........

Artful Dodger: In America a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.

I'm sure Guantánamo detainees would agree with that. :)

Bernice: Far too often people speak out of ideology, ignorance, or emotion.  In America (as in many countries) a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.  All facts are considered, and testimony is heard.  Political discussions should follow this model.  Opinions are for flavors of ice cream, but history should be about facts.  It's probably my biggest beef with some of the liberals I have run into.  Something is either true, or not true.  Some things are not a matter of opinion.  And if a claim is made, the facts must bear it out.  Otherwise the claim should be rejected.  If I'm falsely accused of something, I don't want my accusers hiding behind the "it's my opinion" excuse.   I would think that most people see it this way.  ;)

Artful Dodger: sometimes I wish I knew more about your political situation, cause I would love to get INTO it with ya HAHAHAHAHA......

Bernice:  politics is infamous for that sort of thing  :) lol

Artful Dodger: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

It never ceases to amaze me how people can GIVE criticism but can't TAKE it.............

The facts tell a different story than the left wing spin.  It's a legitimate war and was fully supported by congress after full disclosure.  The fact of the matter is that congress had all the intelligence it needed to make intelligent decisions with respect to Iraq and any possible invasion.  The following if from a speech President Bush gave.  The link will appear at the bottom and contains the entire speech.




While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/bush200511111418.asp

Impeached Gov. Blagojevich, on the first leg of his media blitz timed to the start of his impeachment trial, in an NBC interview broadcast on The Today Show Sunday compared himself to human rights heros Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
...
As he was taken from his home by federal agents on Dec. 9, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/25/blagojevich-compares-hims_n_160666.html

Bwild:Good point.  He handled it well in the beginning too. 

Artful Dodger:Bush had it...we call it 911

Bernice:I knew it.  On the job training! 

Artful Dodger: give him time, he is still learning :)

Commentary: Obama breaks his own rule

Will this become a problem for the Obama administration?

CNN Commentary

Artful Dodger: I tried to read it but it wouldn't load for me, but if that is what it is he should be ashamed of himself.....

Foxy Lady:Have you heard of it?

Artful Dodger:

Has anyone read Atlas Shrugged?

Artful Dodger: uh uh i use the

Bernice:

Foxy Lady:  And when the gun is on lock, use  then resort to   and if you're still losing, go 

Foxy Lady: ma cud.............

Artful Dodger:

Foxy Lady: GUN CONTROL: "A steady grip and hit your target on the first shot"

Ok, not exactly that but close :)

Artful Dodger: Sure why not.

BadBoy7: No, it was to do with "gun control" :)

Bernice: What cha chewin?

BadBoy7: I don't know. Usually the guys making the decisions are out of the way of the bullets. But I suspect there would be plenty of men willing to lead the charge. But in reality, it would be irresponsible for any leader to put themselves in harms way since killing them could lose the war for their side (or at least seriously jeopardize things)

Artful Dodger: the bumper sticker said...if they outlaw guns then i will be an outlaw and they will have to pry the gun from my cold hands

Seriously I wonder how many president we would go through in a year if the commander in chief had to lead the armed forces in battle at the front of the lines as they do in tv movies with the leader leading the charge...think about that he has the power to send our men and women over to war and to kill and get killed BUT he is never there leading the charges

Foxy Lady: I've never owned a gun but I saw a bumber sticker I really liked (ok, I do own a pellet gun and I shoot at the racoons butts when they come in my back yard). Wanna hear what the bumper sticker said?

Foxy Lady: ROFL..........

Artful Dodger: Oohhhhhhhhhhhhh puleassse don't go there.

BadBoy7: Wanna hear my views on gun control?

the only cabinet you would have is a GUN CABINET

Bernice: Thing is, I actually like Obama. :)
(update) but I no longer do...along with thousands of others who have seen his true colors. He's and incompetent loser and proof that the Peter principle is true.

Bernice: I just wish people would argue their case on its merits and remain consistent. Obama has the backing of the government in Afghanistan but because people see that war as necessary, when innocent people are killed it's considered differently. I don't get the double standard.

pppptoooooooeeeeeee........now that the dummy spitting is finished, lets carry on ROFLMBO

coan.net: This is the problem with these kinds of discussions. It was said that Bush is a war criminal. Then you support it by asking a question on whether Hitler could be considered a war criminal for his actions (because he had the backing of his government). But his government was very different for one. And Hitler invaded countries that were no threat to anyone. He had treaties with them and yet he attacked them anyway. He bombed cities relentlessly. He didn't go for military targets, he bombed cities and infrastructures. Then he ordered his soldiers to kill everyone. He did this with the backing of the government (because he was a dictator).

If Bush is a war criminal, then so are all the democrats and republicans that gave approval for the war. It's not a stretch to suggest you were comparing Bush with Hitler since that is exactly what you did. Otherwise, why bring him up?

Artful Dodger: Ok Czuch... I did not compare Bush with Hitler.

I was simply pointing out that just because ones own country backs a war DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

Tuesday & anastasia: Now I remember why I stopped in the fellowship political boards - everyone nit-picks and starts to put words in my mouth. I think I'm done also.

Artful Dodger: Sorry that I started - please just ignore my comments below. I will stay out of the rest of the conversations also.

coan.net: Comparing Bush to Hitler is just such a cheap comparison. Bush never ordered the murder of millions of people (as a matter of policy, that is exactly what Hitler did). Bush attacked an outlaw government after 18 years of defiance, murder, and invasion of allies. How many more years of actively pursuing weapons programs were we to tolerate?

As for the statement, how it can not be a lie, but yet a distortion? What facts were distorted?

Tuesday: I'm finished posting on this board.
I'm with you on this one...enough already

Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it.

So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.]

I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries).

Let me back up a minute:

I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US.

Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries.

=======
You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war.

coan.net: I see. So the fact that the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, and other members of his administration called for military action against Saddam (well before Bush came along) and the fact that they all claimed a connection to terrorism and the fact that they all claimed over and over about WMD, just because Bush acts upon those facts, with the backing of congress, democrats and republicans, the war is somehow "elective?"

And that in and "elective" war, it's not ok to kill innocent women and children but in a correct war, it's ok to kill innocent women and children.

Yeah, that sounds like a liberals way of thinking.

So tell me BBW, was the president lying when he said the following:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."