re: #438 korla pundit

guantanamo and abu garib were used as recruitment tools

Without such hysteria and enemy propaganda from our own ‘loyal opposition,’ these would not have such appeal as recruitment tool.

I agree that there were some false statements made (the Koran flushing) and some opinions that were tough … but rape and slaughter happened at Abu Garib — that is the bigger picture. You would be similarly outraged had that occurred to our people in a jail that had been taken over by foreigners on our soil.

Also, thanks for proving my point about the left’s swiftness to compare Abu Graib and Guantanamo.

I did not compare Abu Graib and Gitmo. I merely said they were both used as recruitment tools. Do you disagree?

The abuses were pretty serious. No one said concentration camps.

Actually, I believe many did. Our own beloved Dick Durban even, I think, compared it to the Gulag and Pol Pot. Don’t say “no one” if you don’t know for sure.

Two things: “concentration camps” have a connotation above and beyond most heinous crimes (or even the gulag/pol pot). Also, “no one” is a phrase used to show that it isn’t a common belief. For instance “No one believes the earth is flat anymore” — it turns out some people do, but are nut cases and so with-out the need for a lengthy lawyer-like exception clause we can say “no one”.

Well. we should follow the law no matter what we do.

I think they came to some very restrained conclusions, and a policy that kept the nation safe while adhering to our principles.

We disagree. Torture is one of those things you don’t dance on the line about (and that is exactly what they were trying to do). Waterboarding is torture, and is seen as torture by the international community as well as our own government (who has prosecuted people for committing it for more than 100 years). We did not adhere to our principles.

If that causes us to be seen as pathetic then there is a remedy: change the law.

That would be nice, but try that with a Congress half of which had only one goal: sabotage the war to cause a disastrous retreat and send Bush down in flames. We did not see a lot of bipartisan potential.

From my point of view: Congress forced President Bush to reconsider his options in Iraq. Instead of following the course of failure he employed and surge of troops. This didn’t seem like the course he was going to take before the Democrats won in 2006. The Democrats helped him win in Iraq, and did not cut funding (which would have be the undercutting you are talking about)

But they did change the law, mind you, by fiat. Now we have more rights for illegal enemy combatants,

Revisionist. They had those rights all along. The Bush white house was incorrect when they tried to strip them of those rights. You disagreement isn’t with me on this, it is with the Supreme Court.

I don’t think we are seen as weak or easy when we follow our principles.

we are seen as weak when we announce that we will never, ever make a terrorist uncomfortable or humiliated, and we introduce Miranda rights for non-American citizens in foreign venues

Strawman: there is a difference between torture and “uncomfortable or humiliated”. Your attempt at ridiculing a widely held moral belief that some things are unacceptable even when committed against accused/convicted terrorists will not enlighten our discussions. Please stick to facts or clearly call out your opinions. Please assume I’m a thinking person that can grasp alternative view points.