Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5053.pdfOfficial FBI report delivered by the FBI to the ACLU persuant to a FOIA request.

New York TimesABCCNNMSNBCCBSFOX News

Just to let you know, the Fox link (the only one I bothered to check) did not suggest outrage except from Dems and only in a spirit of trying to divide the nation. By the way, since you criticized my state Senator who is actually a pretty good representative, I would like you to now criticize Hastert.The above statement is just as provocative and fallacious, indeed more so as it isn't a distant suggestive connection (as was Durbin's) but an outright accusation.Oh yeah and I love this little piece of objective journalism on Fox's part... Tool.AbE: I just noticed some of the later posts by Crash and I think in a way we both may be right, but in any case I am certainly wrong in part on what he meant. He made a statement identifying that he wanted to see Democratic outrage. That supports your position that doing so would answer a point of his and is not a dodge. To be fair though he made earlier comments about not seeing Rep reaction to Rep hyperbole (or them passing it off). And he is asking for that as well.Thus I apologize for being wrong in my criticism on the point that you were not answering what he was asking for.See, I can admit I am wrong, though I must admit it is without tears.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-25-2005 05:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What I asked for was the same level of outrage. Moreover, what I asked for was historical incidents of outrage at comments Republicans had already made. (What I asked was "have we?")The Rove comments are an emerging situation and not typical of Dem response to the pattern of Republican outrage. Like I said, he's one for twelve. That's hardly the same pattern of consistently feigned offense and posturing coming from the Republicans literally any time the words "Nazi" or "gulag" are used by someone they oppose.Hopefully what's going on with Rove is an example of an emerging Democratic spine. I suspect, however, that what's going to happen is that the White House is going to keep saying "we support Rove's statements" and Rove will be safe behind that invincible bullwark. Rove will not apologize and the Democrats will suffer politically, which is what always seems to happen when they turn Republican tactics against them.Republicans have perfected feigned outrage to a political art. Something unknown among Democrats, as I showed.

Fair enough Holmes, thank you. It’s possible to examine recent events and make an argument for Dems criticizing Dems (Durbin), and Reps being mute or supporting Rep hyperbole (Rove). But I don’t believe you can look at that and draw conclusions in general about historical political practices of any one party. I’ve seen enough of it to know that over the long run, there isn’t that much difference between the parties when it comes to political tactics.I will readily concede the point that Rep reaction to Rep hyperbole is going to be muted just as in general, Dem reaction to Dem hyperbole will also be muted, (Dean). My point all along is that Dems do not hold a superior position over Reps when it comes to slinging mud. I consider both political parties equal to the task.

I'm sorry but you already posted Dems that were critical of Dean's style of commentary. On the flipside its going to be very hard to find anything of that nature against Reps.I agree with you that there are clearly partisans on both sides, and they reach deep down into the barrel to find their tactics.However, I think it can be said though that most Reps within the current administration have been resorting to bottom scratching more often and more heinously then the Dems, and unfortunately more general Rep supporters are letting them get away with it, than general Dem supporters.Frankly, this could be a product of deep denial since nobody wants to have it seen that their man (or administration) was the one that blew it at a critical moment in US History. Or maybe it is a result of the heady giddiness which come with having a lock on all three branches of gov't. Power does tend to corrupt, or at least allows one a sense of greater rightness than one might actually have.And again, I have to point out that while Dems may be resorting to hyperbole to gain attention to a problem, the response from top Reps has consistently been to deride the style of the message instead of addressing the actual contents. Indeed they blow the style of delivery into an issue more important that the contents, which is the height of absurdity.In contrast, Reps have used hyperbolic commentary to hide the lack of content behind proposed policies. When Dems (or anyone) attempt to question the content, they are called to question for supporting whatever hyperbolic boogeyman the Reps have fronted.Thus there really is a qualitative difference. I do not think it is inherent to Reps, nor that Dems could be free of it if they found themselves in a similar situation. Yet the problem which exists right now as a REAL problem, resides with the Reps.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, you say Reps are worse than Dems and are the real problem. I say both sides are the same when it comes to political attacks and both tend to circle the wagons against opposition criticism.Are we done here?

No.1) I am only saying that the Reps are worse than the Dems and are the real problem right now. I fully grant partisanship and hyperbole of the nature we are seeing with Reps right now can be adopted later by some other group.2) Whether they both use it and circle their wagons is not so much important as to how they are using it. I wish you would admit that the Dems have been generally using hyperbole to raise issues that have a valid underpinning, and Reps have been generally using hyperbole to disguise policy with no real support.3) I forgot where we were with the actual topic of this thread. I don't remember if you answered all my questions regarding 911 suggesting neocon policies were correct and so Reps agreed to them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They should be charged with a crime and tried.Do you think they are guilty before being proved innocent?Some of them could very well be innocent.

OK, is this not obvious to you?Just a moment...

quote:

---

In Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World (2004), an essay delivered as the Irving Kristol Lecture at AEI's Annual Dinner, Charles Krauthammer examines four contending schools of American foreign policy: isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism, and democratic globalism. After analyzing the sources and merits of each school, he concludes that a variant of realism and democratic globalism, or democratic realism, is best suited to America's position of preeminent power and the challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism.

---

This translates to me as "damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!"They are very in favor of CAFTA:
Just a moment...

quote:

---

President George W. Bush is pressing Congress to ratify the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The agreement between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua faces a skeptical Congress. But legislators should send CAFTA legislation to the President for his signature for a simple reason: It will improve economic conditions in Central America--and in the U.S.
...
Critics of CAFTA claim that the pact--patterned after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)--will lead to losses of jobs and production in the U.S. But experience suggests otherwise as access to foreign markets allows U.S. producers to expand exports--and hiring{of foriegn workers in countries with little or no labor laws}.
...
{WHO"S AGAINST CAFTA?}
It’s the U.S. sugar industry--legendary for its brazenness in seeking government protections--that has mounted the most vociferous attack on CAFTA.
...
There are foreign policy reasons to favor the CAFTA accord. Since the 1970s, CAFTA nations have moved toward market economies and democracy, becoming commercial and political allies of the U.S.
{{Here's the rub. Most countries of Central America have tried to work toward democracy and market economies in the past, but the US always had a way of interfering probably from advice from AEI). Not even mentioning Nicaragua, are you familiar with the story of Chiquita Bananas and the word slavery?}}

---

Who's really against CAFTA?
http://www.stopcafta.org/

quote:

---

The Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was signed by trade representatives from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the U.S. and later Costa Rica at the end of January. The governments of Central America were forced to concede to the demands of the Bush administration on most key elements of the agreement.

---

quote:

---

Corporate Domination Over Democracy: At the expense of democracy and people's right to self-rule, CAFTA would likely give corporations powers to object to barriers to free trade, including laws people enact for their own protection. For example, NAFTA established the right for companies to sue governments over public-interest laws that may limit their profits. This right has been employed 27 times by companies since 1994.

---

One example of what CAFTA could do:
Alternet.org - 404 Not Found

quote:

---

Harken v. Costa Rica

​

Highlighting one of the flaws in the upcoming CAFTA treaty, Harken Energy sues the nation of Costa Rica for $57 billion for enforcing its own environmental laws.

---

'member who worked for Harken?Anyway, this is one example of corporate expansionism and exploitation supported by the AEI.Another example is the Iraq war, but I just don't have time to get into that one.

hehe on another board I got another guy to admit that we owe our freedom to terrorism.

Then you should get a new translator because you are wrong.You confuse challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism with damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!" Huh?? They have nothing to do with each other. I know it’s easy to equate Arabs with oil and the corporate quest for oil as the only real foreign policy goal of the US. But Arab-Islamic fanaticism and it’s eventual realization in terrorism does not translate into the tired shallow assessment that the US is only interested in Arab oil.Why do you oppose free trade agreements? US corporations and US workers benefit from these trade agreements. Corporations and workers in ALL countries who sign the agreement benefit. The Bush Administration and Congress have made great progress in concluding other free trade agreements with Australia, Chile, Morocco, and Singapore. These trade agreements bring real economic benefits to producers and consumers in the United States and our trade partners.You equate the CAFTA with US corporate expansionism and exploitation. To suggest that the only reason to enter into the agreement is to appease US corporate greed is ridiculous. CAFTA is basically the same as NAFTA, but extended to six central American countries. After 10 years, NAFTA has proven beneficial to all countries involved and there is every expectation that the same will be true for CAFTA.There are problems to be sure, but there will always be problems with multi-national agreements such as these. The US sugar industry is actively lobbying against CAFTA because they stand to loose substantial government subsidies.NAFTA was a Clinton era initiative that has proven successful. Despite the doomsday warnings about what would happen under NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs have not been destroyed, the U.S. manufacturing base has not been weakened, and U.S. sovereignty has not been undermined. Instead, total NAFTA trade has increased, U.S. exports and employment levels have risen significantly, and the average living standards of American workers have improved.To characterize CAFTA as nothing more than US corporate greed and exploitation is a short sighted view that does not acknowledge the benefits accrued from NAFTA. Free trade agreements are not about US corporate expansionism. Corporations in all countries involved benefit from the agreement that’s why CAFTA is being considered because NAFTA was a success.It’s really your misguided rhetoric that's wrong. It’s ridiculous to suggest that US corporations own other countries and that US foreign policy in areas of military occupation exists for the sole purpose of corporate exploitation.

They are not criminals, they are unlawful enemy combatants.

That's what an "unlawful enemy combatant" (a concept, btw, that does not appear in any of the Geneva Conventions) is - a criminal.What it means to be a lawful combatant is that you're immune from criminal prosecution for the "regular" acts involved in prosecuting a war. I.e. you can't be tried for murder for shooting people on a battlefield.On the other hand, if you don't fall under that rubric, then your wartime activities are inherenly criminal acts, and you're a criminal.But to suggest that members of an irregular insurgency have such a unique status that they fall outside of even the universal human rights granted to all individuals regardless of status in the Geneva Conventions is an unsupportable legal fiction. It's an outright lie, and it betrays a staggering ignorance of international wartime law. It's bad enough coming from someone like you. That our government officials also parrot this ridiculous, dangerous lie is one more reason we're losing the war on terror.

quote:

---

They are not criminals, they are unlawful enemy combatants.

---

So, if they are not soldiers, and they are not criminals, what are they?