I just want to write a brief appreciation for your kind words and professional demeanure. You're one of the few posters here who can disagree without being disagreeable. The respect is certainly mutual, and I just wanted to let you know despite anything I say about your ideas you seem like a really intelligent guy who has sincere beliefs that you stand by instead of... well... someone like Msut.
I can't speak for PAD, or anyone else for that matter, but that's just my take.
[quote name='dennis_t']Tell me how opposition to torture damages our united front. Tell me how having a political argument about how to conduct the War on Terror in any way sends the message that we do not want to conduct that war. That's the logical fallacy that Republicans have been getting folks to swallow -- that opposition to the way they run the war means ipso facto you are against the war itself.[/quote]
No, that's not what I'm saying. Arguments over policies and ideas aren't just good, they're infinitely necessary to keep our country stong as a democratic republic. Again, that's very different from using dangerous language to describe our troops and our position. There's a way to disagree without siding with our country's defeat but the Democrats have lost it. Here, I'll give you a hypothetical example to illustrate what I'm trying to say here:
President Bush: I think our troops should use Plan A.
John Kerry: I think our troops should use Plan B, and I'll explain why Plan B is superior to Plan A.
President Bush: I think our troops should use Plan A.
John Kerry: Our troops are breaking in homes and terrorizing women and children. We will lose in Iraq.
I'd also like to point out that ideally someone who disagrees with the President on policy would have a competitive policy to promote. Do you notice the difference? I'll be more than happy to point out actual examples of constructive criticism on the left if you'd like, but it's very hard to find as the left is largely becoming a bloated political attack machine with nothing to offer in 2006 than, "We hate the President."
For example, am I for rooting out terrorists? Yes. Hell yes. Am I for the war in Iraq? Hell no. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. No ties to Osama, no WMDs, no nothing. Iraq has proven a costly diversion from the War on Terror. Imagine how much better our port security, for example, could be with even a fraction of the money that instead has been poured into Iraq.
No, those are just silly assertions perpetrated by partisan Democrats with little breadth in their arguments.
[quote name='http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9762']
Bruce Tefft, the retired CIA official, described the documents as "accurate." He cited as particularly significant the Iraq link to al-Jihad al Tajdeed. Tajdeed is allied with Mr. al-Zarqawi. Its website currently posts Mr. al-Zarqawi's speeches, messages, and videos—including images portraying the Jordanian terrorist actively participating in the beheading of American Nicholas Berg and, just last month, the beheading of U.S. engineer Eugene Armstrong. At 37, Mr. al-Zarqawi is considered the main instigator behind suicide bombings, assassination attempts, and beheadings in Iraq. The connections "are too close to be accidental," Mr. Tefft told CNS, suggesting "one of the first operational contacts between an al-Qaeda group and Iraq."
Mr. al-Zarqawi is often portrayed as a lone ranger, a cult figure running a nascent uprising in response to so-called U.S. imperialism. Yet these latest documents, along with other emerging reports, reveal Mr. al-Zarqawi's "authority stemmed from specific instructions and guidance" received from Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. According to terror expert Yossef Bodansky in his new book, The Secret History of the Iraq War, intelligence data shows Mr. al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq from Iran shortly before the war to oversee a sophisticated guerrilla-war plan crafted in conjunction with Iraqi intelligence agents and Saddam himself.
In addition to the terror-group connections, several pages of the leaked documents also demonstrate that Saddam possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. They describe Iraq's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas in August 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, a term for anthrax, the following month—all at a time when Saddam prohibited UN weapons inspectors from working in Iraq. The purchase orders include gas masks, filters, sterilization, and decontamination equipment.[/quote]
If you'd like I can also find numerous Syrian journalists describing with shocking detail the rush of weapons from Iraq to Syria. I could find you big wigs in the Iraqi military pre-war who insist the weapons were all taken out of the country into Syria. To say Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction is foolish as there is just as much cooberating evidence of mass transportations of weapons into Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
And am I for torture? Hell no. Because it hurts us in the War on Terror. Because in that war, we need to win the hearts and minds of people who are on the fence regarding whether to support our way of life or support the terrorists. And every time we torture somebody, we make their family and friends and network of acquaintances more inclined to support terrorism. It's the smart way to fight the War on Terror, and the decent way, and if you were thinking with your head instead of with your fear you'd come to the same conclusion.
Soldiers are subject to a set of laws that govern how they conduct themselves in war, Ace. Adding torture to the list of forbidden activities is no different that laws already in place preventing rape or murder, or black marketeering or looting, or desertion. Do those activities take place in war without penalty sometimes? Yes. It's war. It's chaotic and bloody and awful. Should we then just say, oh screw it, what happens in war happens, and we should have no laws governing our soldiers' conduct? I would argue not, because we are a nation of laws. That's how we've won global respect over the years. And if we ignore our principles and morals, we will rightly lose that respect.
Like I said, no one is
for torture. I'm sure you're not
for abortion either, you just support it as an option. That's the same idea here.
Since you ignored my last hypothetical, what about atomic warheads? Again, we have the same issue. No one in this world wants to use atomic warfare, but does that mean we should destroy ours? Absolutely not. It would be ridiculous to paint ourselves in a corner by removing our most powerful defensive manuver.
You have to assume (hopefully) those soldiers had a point breaking into those homes. But every time they break into a home and haul some guy away, scaring his family, our War on Terror is harmed. Are you, as a little kid, liable to grow up to support the country whose soldiers hauled your Dad away in the middle of the night? We need to fight this war smarter than that, Ace.
No, your completely missing the point. You just take for granted that what Sen. Kerry said was one hundred percent accurate without even doing so much as a search for the comment he made. You just take for granted that our soldiers are a bunch of terrorizing thugs who break into homes under the cover of darkness.
That's how the left views our military as a whole[/b].
Is torture something you consider an American tradition, a part of the American fabric of life, something you would read about and say, 'Well, that's my country, damn that makes me proud!' If so, say so. If not, then take the Durbin quote for what it is saying, not for what you wish it would say.
The same principle applies here. You just assume without question that our soldiers are doing nothing but torturing and breaking the law. That's what Sen. Durbin did, expect he took it a step further and equated our soldiers to some of the most evil, disgusting, and vile people in human history. Do you think John Kennedy would have ever said something like that? Absolutely not, I bet that man is rolling over his grave everytime he hears what a travesty this political party has turned into.
