« President Bush's Kind Words for Former Texas Governor Ann Richards | Main | The Media and the Not-So-Intelligent Intelligence Committee Report »

Republicans in the Senate Armed Services Committee Pass Alternative Bill on Terror Tribunals

This is just breaking on Fox News: Armed Services Committee Republicans John McCain, John Warner, Lindsay Graham, and Susan Collins have joined the Democrats in voting on an alternative bill for terror tribunals that President Bush and the White House say provides too many rights to terror suspects.

Here's the report from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, a U.S. Senate committee on Thursday approved legislation setting up trials for foreign terrorism suspects that Bush says could compromise the war on terrorism.


Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners.

This bill still has to pass the Senate; however, Lindsay Graham and Susan Collins have said that they are not budging on this bill. Senator Graham is not happy with President Bush's legislation that allows the jury to see sensitive national security measures that were used to capture the terror suspect, but doesn't allow the suspect to see it himself. He says that this provision is in opposition to America's history as a beacon for freedom and civil rights. I heard an interview with Senator Graham on XM last week in which, I think, he also said that he was concerned about terrorists' convictions being overturned if they are convicted with the procedures President Bush wants.

Added: The second issue McCain & Co. has with Bush's request is that they don't want to clearly define the phrase "outrage upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" as it's written in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. They are arguing that to further define the term is to pull out of the Geneva Convention altogether, which is competeley ludicrous. What's so difficult about outlining exactly what interrogation techniques are legal and not legal for our American interrogators? The House passed its version already. Why is the Senate balking at doing something that is so simple to understand?

Commenter Heralder reminds us of one of Cox and Forkum's political cartoon from June:

06.07.18.AsymmetWarfare-X.gif


Update: Here's the AP report:

WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over a key issue in the middle of congressional campaigns.


Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, pushed the measure through his panel by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Earlier in the day, Bush had journeyed to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against legal prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.

The business of protecting the American people from terrorist attacks involves taking a very tough stance against terrorists, and allowing our national security secrets to be viewed by terrorists who are being tried for conspiring to kill us en mass is simply foolhardy. These terrorists will get that information to their cohorts who will then use it to their advantage. We can't allow our judicial process to become a weapon that can be used against us.

Update II: Thanks to Wizbang reader Peter F. for pointing me to this article by Andrew McCarthy who expresses the same concerns I have about this bill. Read all of it, but I'm supplying a portion here:

It was to be expected that Democrats would complain. They have not supported a sensible national-security initiative since President Clinton bombed Iraq and Kosovo without U.N. approval and had his Justice Department claim a right to conduct foreign-intelligence searches without court approval. It's an election year and, in the thrall of the hard Left, Democrats are playing to type.


No, the problem here is McCain & Co. Yet again, they appear poised to risk our security in the service of a purportedly pro-military standard that won't protect a single member of the armed forces.

The president's Code for Military Commissions would vest jihadists -- unlawful enemy combatants who scoff at the dignity of true soldiers and intentionally target civilians -- with a plethora of rights: fair notice of the charges, counsel paid for by the American taxpayers they are trying to murder, the presumption of innocence (notwithstanding that they were presumed guilty on the battlefield), lavish discovery of the prosecution's case, and more.

Nonetheless, the trial rules would allow evidence to which the accused has been denied personal access. Not denied all access, mind you; just personal access. (More on that in a moment.) This suggestion, naturally, has led to star-chamber claims by McCain, Graham, and Warner. ("It would be unacceptable, legally," Graham blustered, "to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them.")

Update III: Fred Barnes on Special Report just made a great point. He said the Senators have forgotten what their obligation is. Their obligation isn't to appease international opinion; it's to guarantee the security of America and its citizens. Senators McCain, Warner, Graham, and Collins are completely misguided on this issue.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republicans in the Senate Armed Services Committee Pass Alternative Bill on Terror Tribunals:

» Flopping Aces linked with The Cowards In The Senate

» bRight & Early linked with Senate Outrage

» A Blog For All linked with Priorities

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Senate Panel Passes Bush-Opposed Detainee Treatment Bill

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with McCain's Hubris

Comments (50)

Now where did I put my VETO... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Now where did I put my VETO stamp....

<a href="http://www.coxandf... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
I think that Maj. Leader Bo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I think that Maj. Leader Boehner said it best when he said: “Republicans seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people..”

Andrew McCarthy over at NRO... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Andrew McCarthy over at NRO online also dissects this inspid legislation

this if properly explained ... (Below threshold)
jp:

this if properly explained to the American public, is a big winner for bush...thats a big if given the nature and the media...

what the dems and rino's want to do is suicide

Lindsay Graham, a mainstrea... (Below threshold)
NavyHelo:

Lindsay Graham, a mainstream Republican has experience in Military Law; I tend to pay attention to comments by someone with his overall background on this issue.

Many of this bill's detractors in Congress have never served in the military in combat, unlike Sen. McCain, another bill supporter. Since Sen. McCain is a vocal supporter of the Iraq War, do you think he may have something here?

BarneyG2000, did you notice... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

BarneyG2000, did you notice what it said in the main article? Four Republicans join Democrats in passing this bill. By your account, 11 Democrats are invisable and the 4 Republicans make it a Republican idea. My only question is de Denocrats ever take responsibly for their acts? Clinton was the perfect President, according to Clinton. History gives a somewhat different picture. I believe the problem lies in the fact that you people are constitutionally incapable of honesty, and think that everyone is just like you.

Was Chafee back in DC for t... (Below threshold)
Dominick:

Was Chafee back in DC for the vote? It doesn't appear that he was listed with the defectors. Did he vote against this alternative?

In the last couple of days I've been hoping that maybe Chafee will have a "moment" and realize that the folks back home (46% of the primary voters - and most likely most actual Republicans) want him to be more right of center than he is. And that the Party deserves more support given their efforts to save his sorry butt. Some folks need to sit down with him and explain that if he keeps up his antics then there won't be any help in 2012 when he faces another primary challenge.

no McCain/Graham don't have... (Below threshold)
jp:

no McCain/Graham don't have anything, except using this issue to try to setup their moderate Presidential Campaign in 2008


read that National Review Link on the matter, the libs are out there flat out lying about what the Tribunals are....its insane not to call this a war and treat it as such.

The administration talks re... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

The administration talks real tough, and wants all sorts of extra-constitutional powers, but when it comes to getting the ACTUAL ENEMY who attacked us, the Bush administration is filled with wimps.

If they spent HALF the effort on getting bin Laden then they did on the thoroughly impotent and irrelevent Saddam Hussein, we'd be in much better shape today.

On bin Laden, Bush cut and ran.

Whoa....it's a well known f... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Whoa....it's a well known fact that Graham is NOT a mainstream Republican.

Serving in the military in the Senate is not a pre-requiste to defending the borders or the country. Think of what you are saying, do you have to live the experience before you can write a bill?

It is being reported that B... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

It is being reported that Bush got Abu Ghraib on the JAGS.

Hey raghead the III, I don't remember Clinton ever saying that. You got a quote/link that you can share?

NavyHelo - Militar... (Below threshold)
Dominick:

NavyHelo -

Military Law is not some ethereal creature. It is created the same way all law is - by statute. So if Congress passed a statute that changed the law, then the new statute becomes Military Law. Military law would not be a club with which to attack the new statute.

And my question is - who's going to strike down the convictions? The Supreme Court? Simple language removing their jurisdiction would fix that problem - especially if the bill also provided language by which to interpret the Geneva Conventions.

The operative phrase here i... (Below threshold)
WD:

The operative phrase here is, "terror suspects." We live with the rule of law here; the presumption of innocence is a keystone of that law. Suspects may therefore indeed be innocent; if so, would you say that innocent people have too many rights?

Dominick --Why not... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Dominick --

Why not just put in a few words repealing the Constitution, declaring martial law, and openly establishing a police state? If the administration gets to unilaterally strip suspects of their right to defend themselves (only he has to call these people "terror suspects"), what's the point of pretending anything else? Lets be open about it...

WD:The "terror sus... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

WD:

The "terror suspects" are pretty well known—like KSM— and are being held at Gitmo or that have been transfered to Gitmo from secret locations. KSM is not a suspect; he and his other brethren are known AQ terrorists whose innocence cannot be presumed with any reasonable pretense. As Andy McCarthy points out that we don't owe "jihadists the same trial rights that we owe any honorable combatants."

If, however, we are talking about people involved in terrorist plots, like those involved in the Lodi Terror cell, then, yes, as American citizens they should be presumed innocent and afforded rights under our constitution.

The fact that Graham, McCain and Warner (whom I'm very surprised would support such legislation) pushed this measure through smacks of election-year grandstanding and attempt at gaining centrist votes.

Let them pass the bill. Aft... (Below threshold)
Scott in CA:

Let them pass the bill. After it passes, we should see a big reduction in the number of terrorist "suspects" in custody.

Capture them. Send them to Egypt, or Jordan, or Thailand, or wherever information can be obtained from them.

Then shoot them.

the thoroughly impotent ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

the thoroughly impotent and irrelevent Saddam Hussein

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power. Uh-huh. Pretty impotent if you ask me. I wonder how irrelevant the victims thought he was.

Yeah. Libs like to wring their hands when human rights are being violated. But, just try to do something about it...

But, the really cool... (Below threshold)
Clay:

But, the really cool thing about living in Arizona is the opportunity to send a message to McCain come Election Day.

Clay:If you don't ... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Clay:

If you don't mind, I'll hijack the threads around here. The subject was "terror suspects."

Unless, of course, you're trying to link 9/11 with Saddam.

And at this stage, that would just be silly. Even for a neocon shithead.

If you don't mind, I'll ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

If you don't mind, I'll hijack the threads around here.

Sorry, bitch. But, your assertion of a franchise is denied.

trying to link 9/11 with Saddam.

WTF? You don't read very well, dummy. Now, you go back and read my post and then decide what I was saying.

Peter F.Not trying... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter F.

Not trying to pick a fight, just an obervation. Did you misspell insipis in grade school or something and get punished for it? You sure do like to use it...sounds like one of those "effete" liberal words

oopsi missspelled ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

oops

i missspelled it....lol insipid

A presumptive moral leap ma... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

A presumptive moral leap made by the WaPo regarding this bill:

The bill would also effectively reinterpret U.S. treaty obligations under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, allowing the CIA to conduct tougher interrogations of suspected terrorists than the treaty permits.

It doesn't seem that "reinterpreting U.S. treaty obligations" necessarily leads to tougher interrogations. Could it in certain cases? Sure. Is that a bad thing? No, not always. Might it be warranted? Absolutely.

And "reinterpreting" is a misleading word; "defining" how US treaty obligations apply to non-state combatants who have not signed the GC is a perfectly legit question to ask. Why they are even afforded rights under the GC is puzzling, yet we do so—testimony to our inherent sense of justice and fairness. Even more perplexing is how far we are bending over backwards to apply the GC, the rules of engagment and war, civil liberties and so on to an enemy who has shown an utter disregard for every one of them. Actually, it's mindboggling...

Hugh,Well, if it's... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh,

Well, if it's bugging you that much, I'll happily share it with you. I was having a window issue during the "preview" mode where I was attempting to check and make sure the link was working AND correct my misspelling which I had caught. However, the Wizbang window, for lack of a better term, was freakin' out on me (that's as far as my techspeak goes), so I had to close and restart my ISP. My second attempt to correct not only the link, but my misspelling, also failed. After that I said "screw it, maybe Kim will still get the gist of my post." And she did.

Does satisfy your petty complaint?

P.S. I'm not sure you'd want to pick a spelling fight with this Seattle-area Scrabble champion...

IN a couple of years Presid... (Below threshold)
gozorak:

IN a couple of years President Bush will be out of office leaving the prosecution of this war to in all likelyhood the very assholes who are doing their best to undermine the President from doing his duty. Good, let them deal with it. I guess its going to take another 9/11 for the American people to wake up and realize that we are at war with savages so there are no rules.

they don't want to clear... (Below threshold)
Brian:

they don't want to clearly define the phrase "outrage on personal dignity" as it's written in Section 3 of the Geneva Convention. They are arguing that to further define the term is to pull out of the Geneva Convention altogether, which is competeley ludicrous. What's so difficult about outlining exactly what interrogation techniques are legal and not legal for our American interrogators?

The issue is not the American definition. The issue is whether the US wants to set the precedent that any country can redefine that phrase as it sees fit. If we accept that that's OK to do so, then some other country can explicitly make torture legal and claim they are abiding by the Geneva Conventions, an argument we would be in no position to refute. The US has long held the moral high-ground on such issues. Again, not that we would ourselves necessarily torture, but that we would be giving the go-ahead for other countries to do so if they made it legal.

Whether we should be following the GC for certain combatants at all, or whether the GC should be scrapped altogether, are separate debates. But if the playing field is that we will continue to operate under the GC, then it would be dangerous for us to lead the way for others to twist it to their desires.

Publicus -I think ... (Below threshold)
Dominick:

Publicus -

I think you are a troll - but you seem to be responding to only half of the arguments.

My comment was to say that Military Law (as in the legal code that governs the military) is a creation of statute - it is therefore amendable by Congress. I was not arguing that the President could unilaterally strip anybody of anything. I was saying that if the Congress passed a law that governed this situation that dealt with the interpretation of the Geneva Convention that the political branches possess, then there would be little room for judicial reversals (and such reversals seem to be the reason this alternative was supported in the first place).

The power to bind the United States to international agreements is left to the President and the Senate. If Congress by law (signed by the PResident) made a clear statement about the effect the Geneva Convention (an international agreeement) is to have they would effectively be declaring exactly WHAT agreement they have entered into with the world. The point of such an explanation is to limit the power of the courts (who are not empowered to bind the US to international agreements) to randomly decide what they want the G.C. to mean.

The fact is, there is no clear indication that the US Constitution applies to those captured in armed conflict with the US. German/Japanese POWs in WWII did not get the full rights of criminal defendants. They got those rights that the US had agreed to in the Geneva Convention. Now we have a situation where the US Supreme Court has expanded that Convention beyond what the political branches have ever agreed to. Those political branhes are well within their rights to reign in the judiciary on this matter.

Let's put it this way. Just as the President ended our participation in the Misle Test Ban Treaty, he could likewise withdraw us from the Geneva Convention. If he can completely eliminate the protections by ending the treaty - why exactly can't we pass a law stating what we consider the Conventions to mean?

This is the official Whiteh... (Below threshold)
Drew:

This is the official Whitehouse position as of yesterday's "press gaggle"

Q Let me ask you about this debate the President said is so important with regard to interrogation techniques, because he wants now for Congress to clarify what's permissible. The President said he did not authorize torture.

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q What did he authorize?

MR. SNOW: Can't tell you.

Q Why can't you say that, given that the President wants a national debate about what's permissible?

MR. SNOW: Because there are also classifications. I think if you listen to what the President said last week, you have a conversation that's permissible -- you have a conversation about what's permissible and a lot of that is classified, and for a very good reason. You do not want to tell the enemy what you do in terms of interrogation because they will adjust and you won't get information. Indeed, some of the al Qaeda training manuals went in great detail about ways to resist known interrogation methods that have been used in the past. So, yes, it's important to consult with Congress; no, it's not advisable to advertise it to the entire world. "

Still we are supposed to "trust" that it is ok...we as a nation do not deserve to know the facts...
However,;
No Way will we become a nation that condones a "whatever it takes" law...Ya see...maybe individuals (including our President) may think..or even act upon that..but we will never set an example for other nations that this attitude is acceptable...


On behalf of the people of ... (Below threshold)

On behalf of the people of South Carolina, I once again apologize to America for sending that insufferable blowhard, that arrogant gasbag, that self-important bloviating buffoon, that braying jackass, Lindsey Graham to the US Senate.

He holds Strom Thurmond's seat, you know. I keep waiting for ol' Strom to return and kick Graham's ass from DC to "South of the Border," but he may be confined to merely spinning futilely in his grave over it.

Anyone who runs against Graham gets my vote. He's an embarassment.

McCain said on the nightly ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

McCain said on the nightly news that he feared that if we tried to interpret the G. Convention other nations might do the same, and some theoretical soldier in the future might suffer because of it. Is it just me, or is this man the dumbest person on earth? First the threat to American citizens is real both here and now! Secondly, our enemies are going to treat prisoners any damn way they see fit.

McCarthy is getting dumber ... (Below threshold)
jpe:

McCarthy is getting dumber by the day.

Mccain is a blithering Idio... (Below threshold)
914:

Mccain is a blithering Idiottytt!

PeterYou misunders... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter

You misunderstood me, but after all I am but a simple liberal. I was joshing you for heaven's sake. I have noticed that you frequently use the word insipid and I was simply trying to find out why. Thought maybe cause you misspelled it as a youth and that has left you with a life time hangup re the word.

Then I joshed you again, i.e the "efette" word

Lighten up man. I don't bite. :)...although I disagree with about 99.99% of what you have to say.

Hugh

Senator Graham was a JAG Co... (Below threshold)
NavyHelo:

Senator Graham was a JAG Corps Lawyer in the military. That does not mean he is THE authority on military tribunals, merely that there is a good chance that he has a valuable perspective on this issue.

Similarly, we have heard comments from a couple former heads of the Joint Chiefs, especially Colin Powell who have opposed the Administration's version of the tribunals bill.

I do think it is particularly interesting that many of the politicians who are supporting the Administration version have not had the military experience that the above-mentioned men have had.

This is going to make it re... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

This is going to make it really hard for the republicans to maintain a majority in Nov. I, and I suspect millions just like me, won't be voting for a democrat puke, but I will vote, and I will vote against the republicans. They need an education in common sense and loyalty. I'll try to get everyone I know to vote against the republicans in Nov and against Warner when he comes up for re-election which won't be hard since almost everyone considers him a RINO and slightly more repulsive than any democrat. No wonder Liz Taylor dumped him.

Who the hell cares what bil... (Below threshold)
nihilistic_disintegration:

Who the hell cares what bill the Senate does or doesn't pass? King George will simply attach a signing statement saying, "screw you, I'll torture whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want, nine-eleven, nine-eleven, terrah, stay the course."

Why don't we just start suicide-bombing the Islamofascists? That would TOTALLY [email protected] with their heads, right? We start exploding ourselves in front of their malls, mosques, etc, and then finally, the war would be even, or symmetrical, as some would say.

I mean, it's good enough for them, so it's good enough for us, right?

Hugh:Perhaps I use... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh:

Perhaps I use the word "insipid" because it's less insulting and vulgar than calling someone "stupid" or a "halfwit" or "fucking moron". Which too many liberals, including Lee, astifiga and yourself, are these days. You're wasting valuable air by breathing...Al Gore would be pissed...

Peter;You got no s... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter;

You got no sense of humor man. Thanks for the return mail insulting post. The last time I checked I don't use those words....one person's moron is another person's insipid. You, my friend (and I use that term lightly) are no better than the rest of us. You're just misguided,and insulting...perhaps like well, others.

Talk about an "effete" snob. I'm trying to be light with you and you respond with an "insipid" response that makes you look stupid. Oh gee did I say that woord? My bad. Get a life and look under a rock for a sense of humor.

No wonder we are as we are. People like you uses banal, trite and vacuous arguments in response to a friendly poke. Go play scrabble buddy.

P.S. Are you so damned wrapped up in your ideology you can't carry on a conversation with someone who dares to disagree with your side. That's pathetic.

Hugh:Your slip is ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

Your slip is showing.

BTW: "Slip" is a code word for "Self righteous attitude".

the argument is really simp... (Below threshold)
jp:

the argument is really simple, are we at war or are we merely fighting crime?

if its War, you obviously use Military Tribunals

if we are fighting crime, then we let the terrorist make a mockery of our judicial system

I think you are out of your mine if you think the terrorist aren't soldiers fighting a war for allah, as they identify themselves.

Can anyone explain what Art... (Below threshold)
JamesonLewis3rd:

Can anyone explain what Article Three of the Geneva Conventions actually means?

That's all Bush wants: Clarification.

Hugh:Geezus... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hugh:


Geezus, you want to talk about banal? This entire scree of yours is banal. What's the point of bringing up a misspelling in the first place if not to belittle and demean and prove how much better you are than someone else. I can't tell you how often I've seen misspellings and lousy grammar used by countless commenters. And do I point them out? No. Why? Because what's the point? To show how much smarter I am? To make myself feel bigger and better than some one else? How would that make someone feel? Defensive and stupid and embarassed, no doubt. (I can assure you that your pointing out my frequent use of insipid does not bother me in the least.) As USMC said, it was the whole self-righteous nature of your bringing it up in the first place that bugs the crap out of me. I should not have address such true triteness and banalness in the first place--and that is the only thing I'm sorry over.

You wouldn't know humor if a drunk clown dressed in women's clothing came up and hit in the face with a shitpie. Now THAT would be funny...at least to a lot of us in here.

P.S. You didn't even address a single issue that ANY of us raised in this post. So there's nothing to disagree or possibly agree with you about...

That's all Bush wants: C... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That's all Bush wants: Clarification.

No, what he wants is an Americanized definition. Which opens the door for an Iranified definition, a North Koreafied definition, a Chinese definition, etc.

If Bush really wanted a clarification, he would be pushing for an international review and update to the existing treaty. That's not what he's interested in.

Good grief Peter I think yo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Good grief Peter I think you might actually be crazy.

Here's what I said:

"Not trying to pick a fight, just an observation. Did you misspell insipid in grade school or something and get punished for it? You sure do like to use it...sounds like one of those "effete" liberal words."
Notice the reference to grade school and the segway to your use of it today?

It was an attempt at humor Peter. Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was an attempt. Maybe even trying to make nice, inject some levity between sides who disagree with one another.

But I give up. You are clearly a tightass...a humorless tightass. And I now doubt your reading comprehension ability. You must get wound so tight at the mere sight of a liberal that you take your head and stick it up your ass...where it can be as "insipid" as it you want it to be. Do me a favor and keep it there in the darkness you must see in life.

Sheesh.

Go fuck yourself, Hugh. It ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Go fuck yourself, Hugh. It might be the only time you ever get laid.

Peter, peter, little peter ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Peter, peter, little peter (no pun intended)

An insipid response if ever there was one. Bend over, reach up and take your insipid head out of your insipid ass.

From Kim -Senat... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

From Kim -

Senators McCain, Warner, Graham, and Collins are completely misguided on this issue.


Completely misguided?

Honestly, Kim, the arrogance behind that.

I would be more open to your point if:

1) You (or Fred Barnes, or that political cartoonist) had comparable military experience as McCain, Graham, Warner (or Powell who's supporting them). OR

2) You could cite any major military-legal authority who can explain how they are "completely misguided".

Imagine being held as a prisoner of war for years(McCain) or serving in Korea (Warner) or serving in Vietnam and on the joint chiefs (Powell) and being told by the administration that you're sympathizing with the enemy.

Absolutely disgraceful.

But I suppose you, "Kim the blogger", could sit down with these war heroes and explain why they're not helping our country.

Benedict Arnold was, arguab... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Benedict Arnold was, arguably, the best military man we had in the Revolution.

I guess nobody outside of a 5 star general has any right to call him a traitor.
-=Mike

Mike,Your point wo... (Below threshold)
matty:

Mike,

Your point would be legitimate if there were no difference between SIMPLE FACT and QUESTIONS OF MORAL JUDGEMENT AND EXPERTISE.

But, in the spirit of what you are advocating, I will say this:

MikeSC is an asshole to members of his family.

Though:
1) I am not in Mike's family
2) I have no evidence from someone who IS in his family.
3) I make no attempt to acknowlegde that Mike has spent his life being a loving and loyal family member.

How is that NOT arrogant and presumptuous?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy