Thursday, September 07, 2006

George W. Bush believes holding someone's head underwater until they think they're going to die isn't torture.

I give credit to former supporters Bush who recognize they made a mistake. Andrew Sullivan went from an unabashed supporter of Bush and the Iraq War (While for obvious reasons opposing his social agenda) to becoming one of his most caustic critics.

He's been savaging Bush's human rights record and his recent admissions of the existence American Gulags and farcical denials of torture have engendered some of the most furiously, coldly sarcastic condemnatory writing I've seen from him.



jacobin said...

911 was an inside job

and bush is also guilty of war crimes

Cliff said...

If its a choice between incompetance and conspiracy - you'll never go broke betting on incompetance.

Anonymous said...

When you talk about human rights records think of those who claim war on us (and yes, no matter how much you claim your heart bleeds for them, you're one of us).

They do not debate interally whether beheading a man is torture.

You choose to champion a cause that could one day affect how you continue to live your life.

Think before you speak.

Cliff said...

Take your own advice. Condemning torture makes me a champion of the terrorists? Do you even read the crap you type?

Oh and please take note, I have the guts to sign my name to my opinions. Further comments from you will require similar intestinal fortitude.

Cliff said...

Well Gutless came back and still lacks ... well I'll say guts as he complained bitterly about the big words 'intestinal fortitude.'

And this is the price of posting anonomously here: I will cheerfully paraphrase and mock you.

Oh, just one more direct taste then: "Perhaps the "intestinal fortitude" (why use a $1.50 word when a $0.25 one will do, especially with you) you mention could apply to the comment moderation you have turned on.
Approving the ideas and voice of the individual before delivery to the mass? Sound like classic socialism."

Apparently gutless has never heard of 'comment spam'. It's because I have no desire for this blog to become, even temporarily, a platform for penis enlargement or pyramid schemes that I use comment moderation. I will offer my thanks for his assumption that my audience qualifies as 'the mass' - I think he probably meant masses - either way vastly over-estimating my readership stats, flattering and a bit amusing.

I do get and purge junkmail 'comments' regularly, and that alone would justify having comment moderation on, but I also get the occaisional waterheaded little anonymous troll who thinks his words are worth anything without his name behind them.

I will print anything with a real name on it that isn't actively illegal - start a profile empty blogger account that day and expect to be sissy-smacked for it, but an opinion backed up with an identity will be printed. Anonymous posters will be paraphrased and mocked.

Oh and doing what I want with my blog? That would actually more closely resemble capitalism than socialism you nit.

calgal said...

Wow, remind me never to piss you off, lmao!! Sullivan's piece was really good, thanks for putting it up.

Popular Posts