3 Comments
- IrishJoe, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Remember when Republicans went nuts over Clinton's depends on what your definition of the word is is? That was about a blowjob, and this is whether the US will follow the Geneva Conventions or not, because our troops will, in the future, be treated however we treat those in our detention facilities. How about this, let's ask Mike Mukasey if he'd be willing to have someone scoop one of his loved ones off the street take them to an undisclosed location and waterboard them? If he's not, then I think we have our answer. Republicans are very cavalier about how they will allow our troops to be treated because most of them have no loved one serving in combat.
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6bush recently had an open Q & A session and a reporter asked him about his definition of torture, he said, paraphrased, whatever the law is, is my definition, we don't torture, thats illegal.
How handy indeed that his majesty gets to split hairs by saying that he stays within the law, when he alone determines what the law says.
"signing statements," anyone? - IrishJoe, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2And, yes, before you ask, I do have two family members serving in Iraq in harms way. So I *DO* care how they may be treated if taken captive. It's not a game of spy vs. spy to me they way it is for many who throw caution to the wind as far as our troops go because they have no skin in the game.


What is Digg?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the