“If a knew then, what a know now, a would have authorized torture, even though this would now torture friends laak Aaaandrew Sullivan”

Entelechy on October 19, 2006 at 1:01 AM

Remember, boys and girls, Clinton became President because some of you were unhappy with George H. W. Bush’s deal with the Democrats to increase taxes. So, you decided to PUNISH the Republicans for voting for the little fruitcake — Perot.

Well, thanks for nothing, fools. Because of YOU, we got Clinton AND his wife.

Because of you we got to watch numerous acts of terrorism against the United States go unanswered because that whore-mongering, draft dodging, military hating, serial sexual predator, clown “President” from Arkansas was unwilling (or incapable) of responding to ACTS OF WAR, something that he swore an oath do do.

And some of you are planing to do it again because you panties are in a knot that George W. Bush is not quite your PERFECT SPECIMIN of a conservative Republican.

I advise everybody to read Tony Blankley’s column titled Conservatives Will Regret Putting Dems in Power

America can’t stand your stupidity this time.

georgej on October 19, 2006 at 2:07 AM

Hey George, don’t blame me-I’ve been voting Republican since 1984 when I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan. Hell, I even voted for Dole. I don’t like everything W has done and I honestly don’t have any respect for much of Congress but George Allen & Thelma Drake already have my vote as my absentee ballot was sent in weeks ago.

Catie96706 on October 19, 2006 at 3:01 AM

That Clinton pose w/ the Nuance caption?
I can practically see the French chef’s hat.

Stephen M on October 19, 2006 at 5:11 AM

I advise everybody to read Tony Blankley’s column titled Conservatives Will Regret Putting Dems in Power

America can’t stand your stupidity this time.

georgej on October 19, 2006 at 2:07 AM

Georgej, Great reminder of the consequences of staying home on Nov. 7th. Anyone who is thinking of “protesting” by not voting this year should read Blankly’s column very slowly.

Yes, we may have some problems, but if casting my vote for a Republican avoids a tax increase, then that one single issue is enough for me.

If you want higher taxes, stay home. If you want endless investigations and non-stop partisianship on legislative matters, stay home. If you want to be sure that absolutely ZERO percent of the issues important to conservatives get advanced, stay home. We really can be stupid and be our own worst enemy.

The self-flagellation has to stop. VOTE, or don’t whine here on Nov 8th.

BacaDog on October 19, 2006 at 8:38 AM

I prefer Blankley’s column titled, No thanks, we’re stupid. It makes a good point.

DannoJyd on October 19, 2006 at 8:55 AM

I guess that the torture BJ Clinton has in mind is biting their lips.

chsw

chsw on October 19, 2006 at 9:06 AM

I do not like him, Sam-I-am. I do not like the billy jeff man.

tormod on October 19, 2006 at 9:41 AM

If the Republicans aren’t giving us what we want, then the Democrats might as well be in power.

(Holding up Rosie sign) WRONG!

The defeatocrats should never be handed back some power in the country, and by not voting at least against them (if not FOR Republicans) you’re giving them power because they have certainly not earned it.

SouthernGent on October 19, 2006 at 10:44 AM

So, you decided to PUNISH the Republicans for voting for the little fruitcake — Perot.
Well, thanks for nothing, fools. Because of YOU you, we got Clinton AND his wife. georgej

General cleanup based upon the assumption that the greatest enemies of America are not recalcitrant conservative voters. IMHO it was not a punishment vote, it was a trust vote.

some of you are planing to do it again because you panties are in a knot that George W. Bush is not quite your PERFECT SPECIMIN of a conservative Republican.
…
America can’t stand your stupidity needs your vote this time.
georgej on October 19, 2006 at 2:07 AM

It is not that George Bush is an imperfect specimen, it is the fact that he by word and deed approves the merger of America with Mexico without the consent of the governed. The party he controls is pushing out any candidates who disagree on this issue. Bush denounces as vigilantes citizens who are attempting to stand at the border.

He has created a terrible conundrum for those voters stupid enough to want to own their own nation:

They can vote for Bush’s candidates who will hand this nation over to Mexico and deconstruct the one-language melting-pot culture, or they can vote for the Leftists who will hand this nation over to the terrorists, and totally deconstruct the culture.

Some voters will be lucky enough to have conservative candidates who are neither Bush, nor Left.

IMHO, if you wish to get folks to vote your way, don’t twist their long johns.

Meanwhile Clinton shows amazing consistency. He considers acts of terrorism to be police problems, subject to legal review as shown by his sending the FBI to ‘investigate’ the Cole bombing as if they had jurisdiction there without a declaration of war. The only use he sees for military is to suppress religious extremists as at Waco, or to preserve the growth of multiculturalism against recalcitrant religious extremists as in Kosovo. Useless coward.

entagor on October 19, 2006 at 10:53 AM

I forgot to mention that after surviving eight years of this creep that having to see and hear him again is really awful.

Hening on October 19, 2006 at 11:06 AM

As Clinton said, no sane person would go against the scenario he talked about. Of course, people on the Left will kill their first-born before admitting that to you. Trust me, I’ve asked many liberals the exact scenario that Clinton laid out in detail, and precisely zero answered the question straight up.

Why? Well, because in the liberal world, choosing between two evils is never needed as there is always a utopian magical third choice that makes everyone feel good.

Homework for today: ask a liberal about the exact scenario that Clinton laid out and try to get them to answer yes or no to whether they would go along with torture in that situation.

Good luck!

PS. Wow, I get to comment at Hot Air! Weeeee.

Seixon on October 19, 2006 at 11:13 AM

Of course Clinton believes in torture: we had to endure months of the Monica Lewinksy scandal.

ahem on October 19, 2006 at 11:22 AM

GregH, explain how the democrats would be good for us. I don’t know about you but eight years of Bill was enough for me. Maybe Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer would be better for us. I hope you get that GregH, because then you will get what you deserve, the only problem is that I will along my family, loved ones will have to suffer because of you idealistic beliefs. Thanks

locwilliam on October 19, 2006 at 12:02 PM

“Some voters will be lucky enough to have conservative candidates who are neither Bush, nor Left.” entagor
-
I am fortunate to have a real conservative Congresscritter here in Ilinois (!) who favors and votes for strong border control, against high taxes, and against gun-control. I could not even find a pork project in our area sponsored by him or voted for by him on PorkBusters. Don Manzullo rocks!

salomeh on October 19, 2006 at 12:04 PM

I am reaaly tired of hearing this guy spout off his BS. I would never let this idiot come within a mile of the white house, even as first lady.

dcolecch on October 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM

I am strongly opposed to torture. It would be outside the definition of human to take accused terrorists and subject them to intolerable cruelty. Imagine forcing someone to watch Rosie on “The View” or Olbermann. Katie Couric and Dan Rather reruns repeated with the drip, drip, drip regularity of water torture…Call the Human Rights Commission. Compared to these threats a little Jack Bauer persuasion seems a kindness.

mkstach on October 19, 2006 at 12:16 PM

GregH wrote: “Please walk me through how a vote for the GOP is good for our troops.”

Well, this part is easy enough to understand: A vote for the GOP is a vote that the Democrats won’t get.

Now, why should this matter?

Have you forgotten how your party’s last standard bearer for President — the one who, to the delight of the convention delegates, saluted and “reported for duty” — voted against EACH AND EVERY weapons system in today’s arsenal? A man who supported the “nuclear freeze” that would have left the Soviet Union with a permanent superiority, while delaying the ultimate Soviet collapse, perhaps indefinitely? Did you forget this man?

Have you forgotten how said former standard bearer introduced and sponsored legislation to gut the intelligence community?

Have you forgotten how selfsame said former standard bearer went before a Senate subcommittee and SLANDERED each and every one of his fellow Vietnam veterans? Have you forgotten how he convened a “tribunal” that took “testimony” of shills and liars pretending to admit to have committed war atrocities?

Have you forgotten how this very same former standard bearer and candidate for President, who as chair of the Select Committee on POWs/MIAs not only ignored sightings of live POWs left behind in Vietnam, but ordered the destruction of evidence concerning the location of living US POWS still held by the Vietnamese?

You might want to re-read Pulitzer Prize winner Sidney Schanberg’s 2/24/2004 article When John Kerry’s Courage Went M.I.A. in the Village Voice.

Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners?perhaps hundreds were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee’s final report when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

and here is another:

He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal memos calling for a criminal investigation. One such memo—from John F. McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analyst—reported that the committee’s chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a longtime Kerry friend, “ridiculed the staff members” and said, “Who’s the injured party?” When staffers cited “the 2,494 families of the unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others,” the McCreary memo continued, Codinha said: “Who’s going to tell them? It’s classified.”

Some say that he did so in order to speed up “normalization” of relations with our former enemy — over the still living bodies of men he betrayed. Others say that it was to enable a cousin (one of the “Forbes”) to land a $900 million development deal with the Vietnamese government that couldn’t go forward until normal relations were established.

BTW, that could be part of the reason that this selfsame former standard bearer of the Democratic Party’s picture is on the wall of the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), in addition to their recognition of his efforts in helping Hanoi achieve victory.

Maybe, Greggy, I ought to simply restate the comment in terms that even you could understand:

Vote Democrat and vote for the party who nominated a man who betrayed the POWS he was entrusted to help, who voted to disarm his country, who worked ceaselessly for the enemy in Vietnam, and who slandered his fellow veterans in the cause of securing a Communist victory.

A party that would nominate such a man to run for President only two years ago is a party that despises the military and who would do them harm if put in power. Such a party still can not be trusted with our nation’s security.

Does clear up your confusion?

georgej on October 19, 2006 at 1:03 PM

yeah i’m so glad clinton is out of the white house. When he was there america was a mess, always at war, the economy was horrible and the world hated us…

That’s true. Bin Laden didn’t appear until January 20, 2001. Islamic fundamentalism? A creation of the last three years.

Thanks for joining us!

Allahpundit on October 19, 2006 at 1:09 PM

no one said islamic fundamentalism is a creation of the past 3 years…but boy has it intensified!

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 1:17 PM

Gotta love it when liberals struggle to justify Slick Willy’s blatant inconsistencies (and outright lies) as “nuanced” but Dubya’s actual nuanced thinking is automatically a lie or stupidity.

The Master on October 19, 2006 at 1:22 PM

aw, c’mon, pulling… hit ‘em with homework on the first day… I’ve told you that it’ll scare ‘em away!

dalewalt on October 19, 2006 at 1:23 PM

yeah i’m so glad clinton is out of the white house. When he was there america was a mess, always at war, the economy was horrible and the world hated us…

oh wait

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 1:07 PM

Oh wait is this the same economy that is setting records now ? Or is this the same world in 1996 that caleld the US and NATO murders for their campaign in Kosovo and branded Clinton a war criminal ?

Oh wait is this the peace where osama was blowing up the US Cole, Attacking the WTC in 1993, behind the Kholbar towers, Behind the Afgan Embassy attacks ? The peace we had THEN where we only shot a few missiles at Osama and argued “I at least TRIED” ?

IS that what your arguing ?

William Amos on October 19, 2006 at 1:27 PM

yes willam i am actually. Comparing the war in Iraq to the events you listed is laughable. All were tragedies of course, but none caused anywhere near loss of American life that Iraq has. The thing is that I don’t think Clinton was a perfect president, its certainly arguable that he wasnt a even a good president. But I think our current commander in chief pales in comparison. By the way, think many of you would be better served at directing the level of dissent you’ve directed at me within your own ranks…just a suggestion.

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Shame on anyone who votes for a party whose leading representative openly endorses torture!

We must punish this party in November!

Will Cindy Shi’itehand and Rosie O’Dogfood be excoriating Clinton and the Dems for this Nazi-like stance!

Here’s a slogan they can chant, in four-part harmony (since they’re both schizo):

“Abu Bill want to kill! Throw the Dems all off the Hill!“

profitsbeard on October 19, 2006 at 1:43 PM

All were tragedies of course, but none caused anywhere near loss of American life that Iraq has.

And while the 2000 or so lives lost at Pearl Harbor were tragic, many many more were lost in the battle in the Pacific. crr6, we’re in a WAR here; one which we (the U.S.) did NOT start. They came after us, remember? The events William mentioned (plus many more), 9/11. And make no mistake, this is about much MORE than Iraq. But don’t give me that tired old argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Disregarding any points about Al Qaeda having contact with Iraqi intelligence, we’re talking about a tyrant who gassed his own people, who paid terrorists’ families $35k (a HUGE sum of money for the Third World), who had numerous terrorist training camps.

So… in your original post you’ve mentioned the war in Iraq, the world ‘hating’ us, and the economy. Can you please enlighten us as to how Pres. Bush:

* Made our economy worse.
* Made the ‘world hate us’ more than it already did?
* Has failed in Iraq? (Remember, most people, including leading Democrats and the leaders of France/Germany/Russia/China/etc believed that Hussein had WMD’s.)

Facts, crr6, don’t just regurgitate liberal talking points.

dalewalt on October 19, 2006 at 1:55 PM

To be sure, Billy Jeff is experienced in dealing with torture and learning how to ignore the pain. Der Slickmeister has dealt with the most gruesome of all torture …. a life sentence with Hillary.

fogw on October 19, 2006 at 2:11 PM

no one said islamic fundamentalism is a creation of the past 3 years…but boy has it intensified!

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 1:17 PM

19 deadly snakes devastated my country and killed many innocent people. What would you do?

1. ignore that they and theirs came and hope they retreat and never surface again, or
2. find their nest/s and exterminate it/them/theirs, even if they’ll fight back

Entelechy on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM

New poster. Thanks for the invite Hot Air. I see the liberals spouting their same rhetoric as usual. Seems that they all forget they we are at war. Seems they all forget that our president told us back in 2001 that this would be a long, drawn out war the likes we’ve never seen before. Seems they all forget he stated we would have to deal with multiple terrorist supporting nations (IMHO we’ve only hit upon the tip of the iceberg thus far). Islamic fundamentalism has NOT increased in the last three years. Read some history books people. It’s been going on for decades and decades. It’s just now being followed a lot more closely as we all of a sudden have developed a vested interest in it’s extermination.

rayvet on October 19, 2006 at 3:09 PM

GregH wrote: “Please walk me through how a vote for the GOP is good for our troops.”

Well, this part is easy enough to understand: A vote for the GOP is a vote that the Democrats won’t get.

Now, why should this matter?

Have you forgotten how your party’s last standard bearer for President — the one who, to the delight of the convention delegates, saluted and “reported for duty” — voted against EACH AND EVERY weapons system in today’s arsenal? A man who supported the “nuclear freeze” that would have left the Soviet Union with a permanent superiority, while delaying the ultimate Soviet collapse, perhaps indefinitely? Did you forget this man?

Have you forgotten how said former standard bearer introduced and sponsored legislation to gut the intelligence community?

Have you forgotten how selfsame said former standard bearer went before a Senate subcommittee and SLANDERED each and every one of his fellow Vietnam veterans? Have you forgotten how he convened a “tribunal” that took “testimony” of shills and liars pretending to admit to have committed war atrocities?

Have you forgotten how this very same former standard bearer and candidate for President, who as chair of the Select Committee on POWs/MIAs not only ignored sightings of live POWs left behind in Vietnam, but ordered the destruction of evidence concerning the location of living US POWS still held by the Vietnamese?

You might want to re-read Pulitzer Prize winner Sidney Schanberg’s 2/24/2004 article When John Kerry’s Courage Went M.I.A. in the Village Voice.

Here’s an excerpt from that article:

“Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners?perhaps hundreds were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.”

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee’s final report when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
and here is another:

“He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal memos calling for a criminal investigation. One such memo—from John F. McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analyst—reported that the committee’s chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a longtime Kerry friend, “ridiculed the staff members” and said, “Who’s the injured party?” When staffers cited “the 2,494 families of the unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others,” the McCreary memo continued, Codinha said: “Who’s going to tell them? It’s classified.””

Some say that he did so in order to speed up “normalization” of relations with our former enemy — over the still living bodies of men he betrayed. Others say that it was to enable a cousin (one of the “Forbes”) to land a $900 million development deal with the Vietnamese government that couldn’t go forward until normal relations were established.

BTW, that could be part of the reason that this selfsame former standard bearer of the Democratic Party’s picture is on the wall of the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), in addition to their recognition of his efforts in helping Hanoi achieve victory.

Maybe, Greggy, I ought to simply restate the comment in terms that even you could understand:

Vote Democrat and vote for the party who nominated a man who betrayed the POWS he was entrusted to help, who voted to disarm his country, who worked ceaselessly for the enemy in Vietnam, and who slandered his fellow veterans in the cause of securing a Communist victory.

A party that would nominate such a man to run for President only two years ago is a party that despises the military and who would do them harm if put in power. Such a party still can not be trusted with our nation’s security.

Does clear up your confusion?

georgej on October 19, 2006 at 1:03 PM

Wow. Good job georgej.

To sum it up: georgej = Hopkins, Greggie-poo = Lipsey.

thirteen28 on October 19, 2006 at 3:40 PM

Boy… Bill’s thumb squeezin’ technique has sure suffered since he left office - eh?

I remember back in the day… he’d get on a tear and squeeze that puppy so hard you’d feel sorry for it.

I blame the European influences… probably the French.

Foz-E_Waz on October 19, 2006 at 3:47 PM

uhh william, the reason we’re fighting al queda in Iraq is because they came there after we did…they weren’t there beforehand. I do agree that we should fight back, and the war in Afghanistan was on the right track to doing so, but Iraq is unjustifiable. And please don’t give me the old “hussein killed people” bait and switch argument. He was a horrible tyrant, but there are many like him around the world, by that logic we should go after all of them…

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 3:43 PM

you dont get it do you ? Saddam wasnt attacked for 9/11 he had no role in that.

nor was he attacked just because of supposedly getting WMDs.

Saddam was a threat to many. He invaded two neighbor. He shot at Coalition aircraft. he repeatedly violated the ceasefire he had with the Coalition after Gulf War I.

osama with just 19 hijackers with knives killed almost 3,000 americans. How many americans could Saddam have killed with his millions of troops and aircraft and attempts to get even more dangerous weapons.

Libs and Euros have always treated the Un inspections like a game. The idea for UN inspections was NEVER to make saddam pass them. the whole IDEA was to prevent Saddam from ever GETTING them.

So as long as Saddam was in power there was always the threat of him getting WMDs. The invasion of Iraq was the only way to stop that.

William Amos on October 19, 2006 at 4:03 PM

al queda hated Hussein’s secular government, hussein and al queda have vastly different ideologies…they took real interest in Iraq after the U.S came. Terrorist movements are nearly always based around and strengthened by occupations. Al queda and hussein may have met prior to our occupation (who can be sure?) but the 9/11 comission reported they never had an operational relationship. Al Queda, and terrorisim in general are certainly operational in Iraq now. All of these facts are easily accessible.

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 5:27 PM

al queda hated Hussein’s secular government, hussein and al queda have vastly different ideologies…they took real interest in Iraq after the U.S came. Terrorist movements are nearly always based around and strengthened by occupations. Al queda and hussein may have met prior to our occupation (who can be sure?) but the 9/11 comission reported they never had an operational relationship. Al Queda, and terrorisim in general are certainly operational in Iraq now. All of these facts are easily accessible.

This is the biggest pile of horseshit that I’ve seen posted here. I’ll Fisk it.

hussein and al queda have vastly different ideologies
So? The Soviets and the U.S. had different ideologies, yet they allied to defeat the Nazis. You’re stupid.
Terrorist movements are nearly always based around and strengthened by occupations. Al queda and hussein may have met prior to our occupation
Oh, so that must explain why attacks against Israel from Gaza have increased since Israel pulled out. Dumbass.
All of these facts are easily accessible
But apparently not to you. Moron.

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 19, 2006 at 5:53 PM

good job “fisking it”. so according to your logic, because there is one example contrary to my assertion, my entire argument is wrong. Here’s an example of your mistake. Most of the time, the home teams win in the NFL. But lets say the Bears lost at home last week. That means that home teams never win? take a basic politics course and you’ll understand I’m right. And whats up with the condescending tone? opposing viewpoint gettin to ya?

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 6:10 PM

Heh that is logic ?

So tell me what occupation was going on inside Afganistan in 2001 that caused Osama and his ilk to come to power ?

Tell me what occupation caused Osama to attack the US over and over again in the 1990s ?

Are you going to suggest Israeli occupation of Palistine ? When did Osama become a Palistinian ?

So tell me again what gives you the silly idea that occupation creates terrorism ?

BTW will add there is no occupation. Even the UN stated it long ago. Once the Iraqi people elected their government it asked the US military to stay. There is no occupation in Iraq.

William Amos on October 19, 2006 at 6:18 PM

Hey Georgej - Gives us some candidates who give a crap about the country,instead of the the trolls who only mouth the party line for deals. Both the Republicans and Democrats show us on a daily basis that they are there to 1) Enrich themselves, 2) Enrich their kids and 3) Enrich themselves. Apathy is killing this country. The sad fact is that we have voters who worry about how a candidate looks for 30 seconds on TV, and dont give a crap about real issues. The average American male can name all the starting quarterbacks for the NFL but cant even name their congressman. As it stand now, we, the voters of America, are getting the government we want and deserve.

dagosaur on October 19, 2006 at 8:09 PM

Clinton never says anything unless the polling numbers indicate a favorable response to it. Believe it or not the majority of Americans want to be kept safe and our soldiers protected as much as possible and don’t care about how our government treats captured terrorists.

Buzzy on October 19, 2006 at 8:48 PM

“And please don’t give me the old “hussein killed people” bait and switch argument. He was a horrible tyrant, but there are many like him around the world, by that logic we should go after all of them… ”

crr6 on October 19, 2006 at 3:43 PM

crr6,

We’re working our way up the list. Be patient. You wouldn’t want us to go all medieval on everyone all at once, without giving them a chance to shape up first, now would you?

Subsunk

Subsunk on October 19, 2006 at 9:26 PM

I have no idea what his ultimate point was other than there should be a system to document when “torture” does occur and an after-event evaulation of the case be done.

VinceP1974 on October 19, 2006 at 11:09 PM

New poster - Did he really say that ‘if we captured the #2 man to Osama….. no one would disagree with using torture.” HELLLLOOOO - what about Kalid Shek Mohammad? The Feingold - Rangle gang are still whining and crying foul because we used waterboarding - hardly torture. Wonder what Billy Boys answer would be on THe View? or to Chris Wallace?

iam7545 on October 19, 2006 at 11:51 PM

Is listening to Fat Bill speak, considered torture?

JackM on October 20, 2006 at 7:30 AM

“Imminent attacks” can be so subjective… After all, what’s the meaning of “now”, now?

Left_Behind on October 20, 2006 at 10:21 AM