double meat!

Heh. The only thing that isn't quite right about all that is that the information was accurate.

Actually I don't want to stop it from happening. It might actually make people *gasp* accountable for themselves. Especially with regards to health care and insurance premiums.

I say let 'er rip and unleash the dogs of war.

It's too bad the ACLU is a Fascist Organization.

Every time I turn around, another anti-war person is saying how much he or she "supports" the troops. No matter how vicious the attack on the policy in Iraq or the Afghanistan situation or the proactive strategy to confront worldwide terror, it always seems there's a "support the troops" caveat at the end of the blistering dissent. Okay, fine, opposing the Iraq war doesn't mean disrespect for the military, that's true. But the benefit of the doubt only goes so far. Now there's a litmus test, a way to expose the folks who really don't support the troops no matter what they tell you.

As you know may know, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding the release of all Abu Ghraib photographs and videotapes and any other damning evidence of prisoner abuse by the American military. The ACLU filed suit last year and the case is now coming to a head in New York City.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the judge that any further public exposition of prisoner abuse could endanger the lives of U.S. and allied troops. He is livid about the ACLU's action.

Of course, Myers is right, and the Newsweek Quran fiasco proved it. Looney Muslims rampaged in a number of countries after that magazine falsely reported the holy book had been abused at Guantanamo Bay. At least 15 people were killed, hundreds injured.

Myers, himself, has seen the abuse images that have not been made public and says, "The release (of them) would aid the recruitment efforts and other activities of insurgent elements, weaken the new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ... and increase the likelihood of violence against the United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide."

But the ACLU does not care what Myers thinks - it wants to embarrass the Bush administration, and if people die because of that, tough.

This despicable attitude is being enabled by some interesting ACLU allies. In a "friend-of-the-court" brief, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and a few other media outfits urged the judge to reject Myers' argument and dump 87 Abu Ghraib photos and four videos into the public square.

As an American journalist, I am simply ashamed that some of my colleagues have sided with the ACLU and would risk further endangering Americans fighting this brutal war on terror. An action of this type would have been unthinkable during World War II. But, today, the media operates outside patriotic constraints or even public safety considerations.

What is the point of more Abu Ghraib pictures? We all know what happened there, how dismal and inexcusable it was. If the pictures advanced the story I could understand it, but this is just more of the same according to General Myers and his staff. And in a time of war, you give the benefit of any doubt to the top military commander, don't you?

The mainstream media, on the whole, has consistently underestimated the danger America is facing from the Islama-fascists. Most press outlets supported John Kerry for President when the Senator could not articulate a single strategy to fight the enemy other than enlisting the help of France and going to his website. That's why Kerry lost. He had absolutely no war plan.

The elite media doesn't have one, either. They love the Abu Ghraib story, the chaos in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the "abuses" at Guantanamo Bay. They run with those stories all day long.

But ask them how they would protect Americans from killers who obey no rules, who believe Allah wants them to murder babies, who are willing to die themselves while slaughtering innocent civilians - and you get blather about the "international community" and "constitutional rights."

The truth is that the ACLU and its "friends" don't care if they help the jihadists and don't know how to defeat the enemy. Those who are demanding more abuse pictures are not supporting the troops and are not looking out for everyday Americans. They are putting our fighting people and U.S. civilians in even more danger. And there is no excuse for doing that.


Thursday, Aug 25, 2005
By: "Your Favorite" Bill O'Reilly

How about posting your own opinion for a change, rather than cutting and pasting someone else's opinion (particularly when you already know the board's opinion on the person whose opinion you are posting)? In fact, how about giving us some of your background, like age, education etc.? It might stop the rest of us seeing you as some homeschooled 17 year old redneck.

But then again posting your own opinion would mean you would have to write it yourself, which would expose the fact that you can't spell or form a proper sentence, as your previous oneliners have already shown.

quote:

That's why Kerry lost. He had absolutely no war plan.

While Bush's war plan was to send too few troops to do the job and ignore all the advice the military gave him.

quote:

The elite media doesn't have one, either. They love the Abu Ghraib story, the chaos in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the "abuses" at Guantanamo Bay. They run with those stories all day long.

Interesting phrase, "the elite media". Care to expound?

quote:

Originally posted by Crash:
Actually I don't want to stop it from happening. It might actually make people *gasp* accountable for themselves. Especially with regards to health care and insurance premiums.

I say let 'er rip and unleash the dogs of war.

I'LL SUE YOU FOR THAT!!! IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

Scooter links to NewsMax.
Scooter links to Reclaim America.

Geez, Scooter, I'm not sure there's anywhere you can go from there - unless you're a fan of David Icke.

The problem with the ACLU is that in fighting for freedom of speech, you end up having to fight for speech that people find distateful, or even horrific. I agree with Bill O'Reilly, that there is probably no good use to which those pictures can be put, and publishing those pictures will probably only serve to fuel rage in the Arab world (and elsewhere).

However, the other side of it is that by giving the government the right to tell us which pictures can or cannot be released, we give them a tool to deflect criticism and to surpress uncomfortable facts. These pictures are, arguably, a legitimate tool for criticism of the government, and although I would not support their use, neither can I condone giving the responsibility to the government to decide that for the citizens.

Let me repeat: I don't want to see those pictures published. I do believe they will do more harm than good. However, I don't want the government deciding which pictures can be published, and which pictures will do more harm than good, because that is government censorship.

It's a quandry. I'd almost suggest someone should threaten to sue any newspaper that publishes the pictures for recklessly endangering lives. At least then it would be the citizens, and not the government, that determined to what use the pictures could be put, and it would be a court of law that would judge whether the act of publishing those pictures justified the risk. As it stands, nobody but government and military officials have seen the pictures, so we must take their word for it that there is nothing important left to see.

quote:

But ask [the "elite media"] how they would protect Americans from killers who obey no rules, who believe Allah wants them to murder babies, who are willing to die themselves while slaughtering innocent civilians - and you get blather about the "international community" and "constitutional rights."

Well, Bill, I'd suggest going after the terrorists first. What is the US doing in Iraq? What was the justification again? Terrorists, or was it WMDs? Was it to bring democracy to an oppressed people? What will the answer be next month? I actually supported the invasion of Afghanistan, because it seemed to make sense. Iraq doesn't make so much sense to me. (I think there may indeed be some good reasons for going to Iraq, but I'm not so sure those goals are actually being persued, especially since they were never clearly articulated goals of the administration.)

It's also enlightening to see how highly Bill regards such "blather" as "international community" and "constitutional rights". Yeah, who needs constitutional rights?

Now, slightly off topic, I'll tell you what disgusts me. It disgusts me that some people will trivialise the deaths of thousands of troops and tens of thousands of civilians by using them in their game of rile-up-the-liberal on internet message boards. Show some goddamn respect.

"That's why Kerry lost. He had absolutely no war plan."

Really? I always thought war was a solution to when all other plans failed.

Bush won because they propagated severe fear into the people. You can watch all the lead-up video and hear the bullet points ("9/11" "Al-Qu'eda" "Terrorism" "anthrax"). Voting, at that point, became a knee-jerk reaction - that and the awful, awful media coverage. If it were up to me, there would news blackouts before, during, and after the election but I am just a fascist at heart, after all.

Anyone else notice that there are no more news of anthrax attacks? Have they really tightened shit up so well that this will never happen again? I bloody well doubt it.

quote:

I'LL SUE YOU FOR THAT!!! IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!
Wink

Get on a treadmill, you fat bastard! You're keeping my premiums up.

Just think of the peer pressure. It could be a good thing. Friends encouraging friends to exercise, better food quality, healthier lifestyles...

*sigh* It would be like Sweden. Only friendlier.

Was the link about food (I'm guessing from the title)? My Opera doesn't like embedded Windows Media files, so it crashed when I clicked the link. That and I have dialup.

(More to the point, it's probably WM that doesn't like Opera).

I'm now suing you for "emotional distress".

Use Firefox with the Media Player Connectivity extension.
That way, the WM content will be opened in MPC or VLC.
Muha!

Don't like Firefox.

But where is the pouty face, Lithos? Gonna take your ball and go home now?

Thanks for the info. ArkanGL. I can now watch the Daily Show again. WooT!!!

ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union

To be against the ACLU is to basically be against freedom. Since "freedom" is what the Bush administration keeps telling us they're all about, then not supporting the ACLU means you don't support the Bush administration. Which makes you a fucking traitor! You fucking traitor!

But seriously, how do you justify being opposed to the ACLU?

Then again, the neocons are really only interested in freedom for certain people. Y'know, all Americans are free, but some Americans are more free than others. Like free to pillage. Like free to ignore the law.

But hey, some people have different ideas of what's ethical, or decent, or truthful.

Didn't I read that somewhere before?

Oh yeah, that's right. "Animal Farm".