Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
boston university
politics
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- U.S. retailers are on sale
- The Rivalry: 145 games strong
- Slideshow: Lehigh-Laf week
- HAWKS SKIN LEOPARDS
- Macys thanksgiving day history
Recent Comments »
Page 5/6
Post Your Comments Below
Previous 20 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments
jim
7:32PM 7:32PM Apr 29th 2009
thank you max, to hell with these socialists!!!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Dean
10:20AM 10:20AM Apr 30th 2009
since when is any form of torture a Cristian value??? our lives, their lives, it all human life here , we as American should be better then that, we were better then that, and one day can be better then that again... we are not republicans and Democrats, we are Americans, this all the north vs the south stuff re-spun re-done and it is getting old , while we platy the he said ,she said game, slowly the fear creeps in to everyday life, and we lose freedom as fear takes control of common sense... life has no grey area , it is either right , it is wrong, or it it is rationalized into being right for the situation. and the sheep move on....
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Brad Herman
1:12AM 1:12AM Apr 30th 2009
These terrorist countries torture our young men and women so the least we can do to "return the favor" is to simulate torture!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
William Bischoff
1:14AM 1:14AM May 3rd 2009
I feel that MOST of the reasons for supporting the torture of POW's and NOT SUPPORTING the release of information about it are nothing more than FEAR that the Republicans will see it for what it was. A vain attempt by a frustrated President to FIND SOMETHING which would justify his war in Iraq. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THE FACT THAT WATERBOARDING WAS USED SO MANY, MANY TIMES ON THE SAME SUBJECTS, PROVES, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. If it DID WORK, the Republicans would be clammering to get the memos released to PROVE their claim that it saved lives. It is just not true. Information given under duress is just ANYTHING the informant can think of which will mislead us, and SAVE HIMSELF FROM THE TORTURE. By the way, waterboarding was NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF EXTREME TORTURE BUSH AUTHORIZED. Remember the Iraqi prison tortures which Bush proclaimed so much shock about? Bush didn't "prevent another attack" using this torture, as some have said here. At least not in the way they are saying. Bush gave Osama Bin Ladin just exactly what he wanted without another attack. So Osama just went about attacking other countries around the world. HE DID PLAN ANOTHER ATTACK USING PLANES, BUT IT WASN'T BUSH WHO "PREVENTED IT". It was Brittish Intelligence WHO LEARNED ABOUT IT AND PREVENTED IT. Without using torture, by the way. Bush also destroyed our economy better than Osama could have hoped to do with the attack on our WTC. Bush then went to war with one of OSAMA BIN LADIN'S worst enemies. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was helping Bin Ladin, and was a risk to our nation's security, but the truth is, Osama hated Saddam Hussein for stiffling the extremist type of Muslim religion in Iraq, which Osama, himself, practiced. Bush secured more followers for Bin Ladin by that unprovoked attack on an innocent country, than Osama could have done in a century. Bin Ladin's followers grew from a few hundred, to thousands in a matter of months. The torture in Abu Ghrieb then handed Osama more followers who had come to hate the USA. They had welcomed us for freeing them from a tyrant leader, but then BUSH LITTERALLY DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR PEOPLE FOR NO REASON. Osamaa Bin Ladin couldn't THINK OF ANY ATTACK WHICH COULD DO MORE FOR HIS CAUSE THAN BUSH WAS DOING HIMSELF.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
ABh1171
4:32PM 4:32PM Apr 30th 2009
Regardelss of the self-preserving declarations in this post related 'no' aversion to releasing information, I firmly believe that some who live on the political and social 'right' are, in fact, opposed to releasing information. There are manny non-conservatives who also do not wish to have 'our laundry' displayed to the world. Sometimes, we appear to want to not believe that Americans are capable of doing things that are illegal, and reprehensible acts. Well, WE as a people sometimes DO JUST THAT and I feel the information should be released in total. It does not matter to me if all memos and info. are released. If our government authorized, sanctioned or condoned torutre in any form, we have stepped back into the realm of the unacceptable. And the behavior should be ferreted out and distinguished never to be done again. The only way to accomplish that is to have full disclosure with some form of disciplinary action associated with the findings, if the findings reveal that we broke laws.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
For beginners, only 44% we're talking about so stuff it on Why "Americans" oppose! They don't! The info. to be released covers more than just interrogations and this is information that is critical to see the immense damage done by the Bushnazis's! Exposing this will help America to understand what has been covered up and help to put us on the right path to recovery! The crimes committed by the Bush admin. brought us close to disaster and we must know which way to go from this investigation! Opposing the release? Thats rediculous! Not happening! LOL!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
IcyNDicy
6:06AM 6:06AM May 1st 2009
Because Americans LOVE to be lied to. It's the land of sell em illusions and delusions. Nuff said!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Georgia
6:59AM 6:59AM May 1st 2009
DUh? Now, why would we oppose Obama's betrayal of America? Maybe, just maybe, we like the idea that we didn't have another 9/11 during the Bush years. Maybe we'd rather see the enemy have some discomfort than to see thousands of innocent people killed. Maybe we love our country and want to protect it. I'm not sure that is true of the leader You elected. I certainly am not responsible for him being in office!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
8:52PM 8:52PM May 1st 2009
Georgia
6:59AM 6:59AM May 1st 2009
DUh? Now, why would we oppose Obama's betrayal of America? Maybe, just maybe, we like the idea that we didn't have another 9/11 during the Bush years.
#####################################################
The release of torture memos is NOT a betrayal of AMERICA, it it an INDICTMENT of Bush43 and his administration! Furthermore, the idea that Bush kept us safe by using these techniques is absurd and totally unproven.
The United States of America used to shine like a beacon of hope for all the world. We were a nation of laws meant to protect and serve ALL people with equality and justice. We were the nation others always wanted to come to or, at least, have THEIR nations follow our lead.
Today we are nothing more than a nation of belligerent and arrogant people that are more scared of the world then the world is of us. The Bush43 administration set new levels of secrecy, back room deals, tearing out pieces of our Constitution and began the era of you're either with us or you are against us... if you are against us, you better watch your back or we might just bomb you into eternity!
Personally, THIS is NOT an the America where I am proud to live. We need to tear down the walls of secrecy that were built the last 8 years and once again become the shining beacon of hope and peace in the world. Until We, as a People, come clean and face the reality of what has occurred in OUR name and fight to win back our once proud standing in the international community, we will remain but a hollow shell of what used to be respected, NOT feared... peaceful.. not a threat to world peace and a bright hope for ALL the world and future generations.
If all anyone seems to remember Bush43 as is the man that kept us safe after 9/11, then he was a dismal failure as a man and doubly so as a United States President. If THIS is HIS legacy, then you MUST include Bill Clinton as an equal because he ALSO kept us safe after the FIRST attack on the WTC Towers.
Rating :
Report!
g yarberry
4:20AM 4:20AM May 3rd 2009
I'm totally against the releasing of these controversial items. They shouldn't come out until the trials. If there are any! I would like to be sure that Bush and his gang get fair trials. We'll have to leave that up to our highly admired and trusted elected officials, that will no doubt lead us to the promised land. blindly we go. left, right, left...
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
falling
8:27AM 8:27AM May 2nd 2009
The greatest majority of people on here appear to have no idea what they are talking about...read the so called "torture" memos. Politically partisan Negrin tells us that 2 of the men were "waterboarded" 266 times!!! But what he doesn't say is that each time the bucket of water was tipped up an "incident" of waterboarding was recorded! He also doesn't tell you that the interrogators could only interrogate prisons 5 out of 30 days an no more than 2 days in a row. They had to tell the prison he would not be drowned! They had a doctor standing by! They could not waterboard more than 12 minutes at a time and could only "pour" between 10 and 40 seconds at a time with only ONE longer pour per 12 minutes! When they used to flexible sound wall, they had to make sure the prisoner had a special collar on so he could not hurt his neck! He had to be told that the insect put in with him did not sting and could not harm him!
Obama did serious damage to our ability to gain information in the future...he did serious damage to the confidence of our CIA and military agents who now fear doing their job, because some future adminstration might release their names, their pictures and their acts as Obama has now done with any agent involved in these acts.
In my personal opinion...what Obama did goes far beyond dangerous...he has given aid and comfort to our enemies by assuring they have no fear of being captured and questioned and endangered the lives of our operatives and our military, who currently have boots on the ground in two war zones.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Dennis
11:46AM 11:46AM May 4th 2009
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
For beginners, only 44% we're talking about so stuff it on Why "Americans" oppose! They don't! The info. to be released covers more than just interrogations and this is information that is critical to see the immense damage done by the Bushnazis's! Exposing this will help America to understand what has been covered up and help to put us on the right path to recovery! The crimes committed by the Bush admin. brought us close to disaster and we must know which way to go from this investigation! Opposing the release? Thats rediculous! Not happening! LOL!
Clay, some of you seem to be pre-school, kindergarten, or juvenile. Welcome to the REAL world. There are people who want to kill you. Someone needs to intercede, in order to save your life. When terrorists begin setting off bombs, in your neighborhood, perhaps, you'll realize that it's reality setting in, perhaps not. You're fortunate, that you don't have to participate in open warfare, or all out, war. You'd never survive it. Those under your care, and responsibility would not likely survive. You should read about some of the events/incidents that we used, during WWI, ii, and Korea. The dropping of the two Atom Bombs, No Gun RI, in Korea, even My Lai, or closer to home, the killing of Pablo Escobar. We committed murder, many times over, as usually happens, in war. Does anyone who's read about our bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, all before annihilating, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, think that we won WWII, because we're "nice," and "law abiding?" Welcome to the real world, where people kill, and murder each other. There are "still" people who want to kill you, and your offspring, Clay.
Dennis
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
6:03PM 6:03PM May 2nd 2009
Dennis
9:12AM 9:12AM May 2nd 2009
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
You're fortunate, that you don't have to participate in open warfare, or all out, war. You'd never survive it. Those under your care, and responsibility would not likely survive. You should read about some of the events/incidents that we used, during WWI, ii, and Korea. The dropping of the two Atom Bombs, No Gun RI, in Korea, even My Lai, or closer to home, the killing of Pablo Escobar. We committed murder, many times over, as usually happens, in war. Does anyone who's read about our bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, all before annihilating, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, think that we won WWII, because we're "nice," and "law abiding?" Welcome to the real world, where people kill, and murder each other.
####################################################
If I was in "open warfare, or all out, war" I would do as well as any other regardless of how I feel about torture and murder. What I find truely disturbing is how you seem to defend outright murder as, somehow, being righteous. You defend the murder of an entire village of unarmed men, women and children simply because WE, as a Nation, did these things! In case you forgot, the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians did NOTHING to help us in Viet Nam and, in reality, we did NOT win that war.
You also seem to confuse "all out war" with interrogation of POSSIBLE agents of terror. In reality, the MAJORITY of those labeled "detainees" or "enemy combatants" were totally innocent of any wrong doing. The U.S. Government started handing out "rewards" to people willing to turn in the "enemy combatants" which lead to people turning in ANYONE they may have had a disagreement with JUST for the money!
If this Nation cannot defend itself by sticking to it's moral codes and ideals, WE end up being NO BETTER than ANY OTHER despotic nation of thugs and murderers! If we cannot stand by the treaties and agreements we have signed and ratified, then we have NO RIGHT whatsoever trying to force OTHER nations to abide by those agreements and treaties. If WE degrade, humiliate and torture suspects and if WE have NO moral imperative to uphold basic human standards, then WE are just any other nation and we have lost all principals and standards on which this nation was founded.
Rating :
Report!
Dennis
9:23AM 9:23AM May 2nd 2009
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
For beginners, only 44% we're talking about so stuff it on Why "Americans" oppose! They don't! The info. to be released covers more than just interrogations and this is information that is critical to see the immense damage done by the Bushnazis's! Exposing this will help America to understand what has been covered up and help to put us on the right path to recovery! The crimes committed by the Bush admin. brought us close to disaster and we must know which way to go from this investigation! Opposing the release? Thats rediculous! Not happening! LOL!
-----------------------------------------------------
Clay, some of you seem to be pre-school, kindergarten, or juvenile. Welcome to the REAL world. There are people who want to kill you. Someone needs to intercede, in order to save your life. When terrorists begin setting off bombs, in your neighborhood, perhaps, you'll realize that it's reality setting in, perhaps not. You're fortunate, that you don't have to participate in open warfare, or all out, war. You'd never survive it. Those under your care, and responsibility would not likely survive. You should read about some of the events/incidents that we used, during WWI, ii, and Korea. The dropping of the two Atom Bombs, No Gun RI, in Korea, even My Lai, or closer to home, the killing of Pablo Escobar. We committed murder, many times over, as usually happens, in war. Does anyone who's read about our bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, all before annihilating, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, think that we won WWII, because we're "nice," and "law abiding?" Welcome to the real world, where people kill, and murder each other. There are "still" people who want to kill you, and your offspring, Clay.
Dennis
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Dennis
9:33AM 9:33AM May 2nd 2009
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
For beginners, only 44% we're talking about so stuff it on Why "Americans" oppose! They don't! The info. to be released covers more than just interrogations and this is information that is critical to see the immense damage done by the Bushnazis's! Exposing this will help America to understand what has been covered up and help to put us on the right path to recovery! The crimes committed by the Bush admin. brought us close to disaster and we must know which way to go from this investigation! Opposing the release? Thats rediculous! Not happening! LOL!
-----------------------------------------------------
Clay, some of you seem to be pre-school, kindergarten, or juvenile. Welcome to the REAL world. There are people who want to kill you. Someone needs to intercede, in order to save your life. When terrorists begin setting off bombs, in your neighborhood, perhaps, you'll realize that it's reality setting in, perhaps not. You're fortunate, that you don't have to participate in open warfare, or all out, war. You'd never survive it. Those under your care, and responsibility would not likely survive. You should read about some of the events/incidents that we used, during WWI, ii, and Korea. The dropping of the two Atom Bombs, No Gun RI, in Korea, even My Lai, or closer to home, the killing of Pablo Escobar. We committed murder, many times over, as usually happens, in war. Does anyone who's read about our bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, all before annihilating, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, think that we won WWII, because we're "nice," and "law abiding?" Welcome to the real world, where people kill, and murder each other. There are "still" people who want to kill you, and your offspring, Clay.
Dennis
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Dennis
9:40AM 9:40AM May 2nd 2009
Clay
12:11AM 12:11AM May 1st 2009
For beginners, only 44% we're talking about so stuff it on Why
"Americans" oppose! They don't! The info. to be released covers more
than just interrogations and this is information that is critical to
see the immense damage done by the Bushnazis's! Exposing this will
help America to understand what has been covered up and help to put
us on the right path to recovery! The crimes committed by the Bush
admin. brought us close to disaster and we must know which way to go
from this investigation! Opposing the release? Thats rediculous! Not
happening! LOL!
Clay, some of you seem to be pre-school, kindergarten, or juvenile.
Welcome to the REAL world. There are people who want to kill you.
Someone needs to intercede, in order to save your life. When
terrorists begin setting off bombs, in your neighborhood, perhaps,
you'll realize that it's reality setting in, perhaps not. You're
fortunate, that you don't have to participate in open warfare, or all
out, war. You'd never survive it. Those under your care, and
responsibility would not likely survive. You should read about some
of the events/incidents that we used, during WWI, ii, and Korea. The
dropping of the two Atom Bombs, No Gun RI, in Korea, even My Lai, or
closer to home, the killing of Pablo Escobar. We committed murder,
many times over, as usually happens, in war. Does anyone who's read
about our bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, all before
annihilating, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, think that we won WWII,
because we're "nice," and "law abiding?" Welcome to the real world,
where people kill, and murder each other. There are "still" people
who want to kill you, and your offspring, Clay.
Dennis
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
E.A.U.M.
1:48PM 1:48PM May 2nd 2009
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Could it be that they understand the difference between their safety and the safety of their nation, as opposed to the lefts politically motivated agenda to try and embarrass the former president at the expense of America's safety. The war on terrorism completely confounds the minds of liberal Democrats. In their liberal backward thinking views, no one will act irrationally based on a religious belief. These liberal Democrats, and the anti-American left cannot rationalize why Islamic extremists would kill for no other reason than because their religious beliefs compel them to do so. In a liberal Democrats mind, terrorists kill because they want something or because we did something that makes them kill and if we only gave them something or stopped doing whatever it is that they don’t like, they would be happy and stop killing. But, the rest of America understands that Islamic terrorists would kill millions if they simply had the means to do so. Like president Bush, they understand that Negotiating or appeasing those whose position is non-negotiable and are willing to die for their cause is no different than trying to negotiate with a hungry lion who has you cornered in the jungle. The liberal way of thinking is incompatible with the realities of the world. Liberals will never solve problems and, in fact, will cause and perpetuate them because they cannot and do not understand how the world works. The assault on president Bush’s national security apparatus proves this...
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
galletta61
1:51PM 1:51PM May 2nd 2009
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Could it be that they understand the difference between their safety and the safety of their nation, as opposed to the lefts politically motivated agenda to try and embarrass the former president at the expense of America's safety. The war on terrorism completely confounds the minds of liberal Democrats. In their liberal backward thinking views, no one will act irrationally based on a religious belief. These liberal Democrats, and the anti-American left cannot rationalize why Islamic extremists would kill for no other reason than because their religious beliefs compel them to do so. In a liberal Democrats mind, terrorists kill because they want something or because we did something that makes them kill and if we only gave them something or stopped doing whatever it is that they don’t like, they would be happy and stop killing. But, the rest of America understands that Islamic terrorists would kill millions if they simply had the means to do so. Like president Bush, they understand that Negotiating or appeasing those whose position is non-negotiable and are willing to die for their cause is no different than trying to negotiate with a hungry lion who has you cornered in the jungle. The liberal way of thinking is incompatible with the realities of the world. Liberals will never solve problems and, in fact, will cause and perpetuate them because they cannot and do not understand how the world works. The assault on president Bush’s national security apparatus proves this...
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
galletta61
1:58PM 1:58PM May 2nd 2009
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Could it be that they understand the difference between their safety and the safety of their nation, as opposed to the lefts politically motivated agenda to try and embarrass the former president at the expense of America's safety. The war on terrorism completely confounds the minds of liberal Democrats. In their liberal backward thinking views, no one will act irrationally based on a religious belief. These liberal Democrats, and the anti-American left cannot rationalize why Islamic extremists would kill for no other reason than because their religious beliefs compel them to do so. In a liberal Democrats mind, terrorists kill because they want something or because we did something that makes them kill and if we only gave them something or stopped doing whatever it is that they don’t like, they would be happy and stop killing. But, the rest of America understands that Islamic terrorists would kill millions if they simply had the means to do so. Like president Bush, they understand that Negotiating or appeasing those whose position is non-negotiable and are willing to die for their cause is no different than trying to negotiate with a hungry lion who has you cornered in the jungle. The liberal way of thinking is incompatible with the realities of the world. Liberals will never solve problems and, in fact, will cause and perpetuate them because they cannot and do not understand how the world works. The assault on president Bush’s national security apparatus proves this...
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
E.A.U.M.
11:45AM 11:45AM May 4th 2009
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Could it be that they understand the difference between their safety and the safety of their nation, as opposed to the lefts politically motivated agenda to try and embarrass the former president at the expense of America's safety. The war on terrorism completely confounds the minds of liberal Democrats. In their liberal backward thinking views, no one will act irrationally based on a religious belief. These liberal Democrats, and the anti-American left cannot rationalize why Islamic extremists would kill for no other reason than because their religious beliefs compel them to do so. In a liberal Democrats mind, terrorists kill because they want something or because we did something that makes them kill and if we only gave them something or stopped doing whatever it is that they don’t like, they would be happy and stop killing. But, the rest of America understands that Islamic terrorists would kill millions if they simply had the means to do so. Like president Bush, they understand that Negotiating or appeasing those whose position is non-negotiable and are willing to die for their cause is no different than trying to negotiate with a hungry lion who has you cornered in the jungle. The liberal way of thinking is incompatible with the realities of the world. Liberals will never solve problems and, in fact, will cause and perpetuate them because they cannot and do not understand how the world works. The assault on president Bush’s national security apparatus proves this...
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Previous 20 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments