I was reading
this article that quotes some different opinions about the SCOTUS decision on Guantanamo military tribunes. What struck me was the language used by the people who stood with the President and against the ruling. If the quotes weren't attributed to the people in the article, you'd swear someone was reading you a transcript from Rush, Hannity or any of the other worms who broadcast hate and misinformation for a living.
Contrast that with the people who agreed with the rulings and you will see a very definite difference in the tone and thought they put into their statements.
I'll show you below.
"I hope this signals there will be other limits placed on the Bush Administration," said Ron Ray, a Crestwood lawyer and a deputy assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Ray, a retired Marine Corps colonel, said he fears the Bush administration has gone too far in recent years in the war on terror.
Whenever I hear a Republican I agree with, I can be almost sure that he or she formed his opinions of right and wrong and the way things should be done before talk radio became a propaganda mainstay. This guy served in the Reagan administration and he thinks.
Here's more from Mr. Ray:
"If we want to be a beacon, the shining city on the hill President Reagan talked about, we need to do what's right, even if it is inconvenient," said Ray, a Goldwater/Reagan Republican.
Hello? Any Reagan Democrats out there who still think Bush is carrying on Reagan's legacy?
Let's compare Ray's thoughtful comments to this jackass:
But Louisville lawyer Jim Milliman, another Republican, said the Supreme Court's ruling will only help the country's enemies. He urged Congress to immediately take action to authorize the military commissions that Bush planned to use to prosecute detainees.
"We can either get serious about the war on terror or not, and the liberals on the Supreme Court are not serious about it," Milliman said.
In siding with the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that giving the administration authority to try those held at Guantanamo "puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials."
Spit, froth, submit an "either or" situation and then blame the "liberals" on the Supreme Court. Yeah, the fucking hippies on the Supreme Court just aren't serious about the war.
Mr. Milliman, you sir, are a jackass and a dumb ass. Asses just abound in your personality.
First of all, getting serious about the war really has nothing to do with whether the Constitution supports military tribunals for enemy combatants. Secondly, what fucking Supreme Court are you talking about that's liberal?
You see two Republicans with two very different views. One sees what this country can be, a beacon, the other sees liberals hiding behind every tree waiting to foil his God, Bush.
I'm not sure whether this next quote is from a Republican or a Democrat, but I assume he's a Dem.
acoub E. Yacoub, chairman of the Kentucky chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the Supreme Court decision makes sense.
"Anything that preserves people's rights is a positive thing," said Yacoub, who added that he believes those guilty of taking up arms against the United States should be punished.
"I think the Supreme Court knows what they are doing," he said.
Even liberals (again, I'm assuming) believe that the people who are guilty in Guantanamo should be punished. So this isn't about being soft on our enemies, rather it's about being hard on our insistence that the Constitution and the rule of law are followed. At least one Bush supporter agrees with me on this.
Republican activist Jeff Klusmeier, who has been outspoken in his support of the war effort, said he doesn't believe the ruling will harm the country's efforts to fight terrorism.
"I've got faith in the administration that they will work out the details," said Klusmeier, who believes those held in Guantanamo eventually will be tried by a court. "It doesn't mean they are going to let these people go free without a trial."
Just goes to show that not every Bush supporter is a moran.
This guy puzzles me, however:
Former Jefferson County Republican Party chairman Bill Stone, however, criticized the justices as harming the nation's ability to fight terrorism and for overstepping their authority in striking down Bush.
And he praised justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for their support of Bush's position.
"Judges like Alito, Scalia and Thomas really are the ones that will ultimately protect the separation of powers, but hopefully the arrogant elitists of Europe will realize the level of civility in our society when they see this ruling," Stone said.
Yes, Mr. Stone, I'm sure with non-sequitur rhetoric like that will show those arrogant European elitists that we are indeed a civil society.
Seriously, what the fuck is it with some of these robots that they can't have a civil fucking discussion about the points of policy or law without attacking liberals and Europeans? My guess is that it's the propaganda outlets they listen to. They get all lathered up and just have to spit their venom at someone. I'm not sure whether they care if it's a terrorist, a liberal, a European, a homo, the homeless, the poor or Barbara fucking Streisand. I think these people hate everyone who isn't like them or who doesn't think like them.
From now on when I hear the term "radio programming," I'll have to take it literally.
hink