Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Box Burner]

As long as you believe there never can be a perfect world, there never will be.

[DVD Burner]

Politics & especially religion is for suckers.

makes no difference what religion it is.

[littleflower]

no, i am not a fan of the MSM, although i do read some of their stuff. i basically read all over the place, and if something grabs me, i'll dig. earlier to-day i found myself reading pravda, for instance. i love a good essay, especially if it's written by someone who has some clue as to the ideas on multiple facets of the political spectrum. and i know some people who are pretty well connected, so i get input from them, as well.

[can't sit still]

Box, my view is that mankind is in his adolescence as a species. He has lots of strength but not too much experience. Often unkind, but often good intentions. Looking for a good time... doesn't want to work. Looking for guidance but doesn't want to be told what to do.
We're all going to die. We just need to think about being a little more considerate to things around us while we're here.

[Box Burner]

Box, my view is that mankind is in his adolescence as a species. He has lots of strength but not too much experience. Often unkind, but often good intentions. Looking for a good time... doesn't want to work. Looking for guidance but doesn't want to be told what to do.
We're all going to die. We just need to think about being a little more considerate to things around us while we're here.

You may be right about that. We have it in our grasp. but no-one is paying attention, so we will most likely get blasted back to the stone age once again to start over.

[littleflower]

We're all going to die. We just need to think about being a little more considerate to things around us while we're here.

i was just about to post the same thing ..........

[Oldguy]

From the Jerusalem Post

Iran warns Hamas not to accept Egyptian truce proposal
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH


Iran is exerting heavy pressure on Hamas not to accept the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel, an Egyptian government official said on Sunday.

Day 16 The official told The Jerusalem Post by phone that two senior Iranian officials who visited Damascus recently warned Hamas leaders against accepting the proposal.

His remarks came as Hamas representatives met in Cairo with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman and his aides to discuss ways of ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

The Hamas representatives reiterated their opposition to a cease-fire that did not include the reopening of all the border crossings into the Gaza Strip, Hamas spokesmen said on Sunday.

RELATED
Egypt sees progress in ceasefire talks with Hamas
The spokesmen said Hamas voiced its strong opposition to the idea of deploying an international force inside the Gaza Strip.

The Egyptian official said that the two Iranian emissaries, Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and Said Jalili of the Iranian Intelligence Service, met in the Syrian capital with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ramadan Shallah.



"As soon as the Iranians heard about the Egyptian cease-fire initiative, they dispatched the two officials to Damascus on an urgent mission to warn the Palestinians against accepting it," the Egyptian government official told the Post.

"The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon."

The official pointed out that the Iranians were applying "double standards" regarding the current conflict - on the one hand, they encouraged Iranian men to volunteer to fight alongside Hamas; on the other hand, Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, told the volunteers that they would not be permitted to join the fight against Israel.

"The Iranians never fired one bullet at Israel," he said. "But now they are trying to appear as if they are participating in the war against Israel. The leaders of Teheran don't care about the innocent civilians who are being killed in the Gaza Strip."

The Egyptian official accused Iran of "encouraging" Hamas to continue firing rockets at Israel with the hope that this would trigger a war that would divert attention from Iran's nuclear plans.

"This conflict serves the interests of the Iranians," he said. "They are satisfied because the violence in the Gaza Strip has diverted attention from their nuclear ambitions. The Iranians are also hoping to use the Palestinian issue as a 'powerful card' in future talks with the Americans.

"They want to show that they have control over Hamas and many Palestinians."

Karam Jaber, editor of the semi-official Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssef magazine, said that Hamas was caught between the Syrian anvil and the Iranian hammer. The Iranians, he said, prevented Hamas from negotiating a cease-fire with Israel, while the Syrians were blackmailing and intimidating the Hamas leaders in Damascus.

"History won't forget to mention that Hamas had inflicted death and destruction on the Palestinians," he said. "We hope that Hamas has learned the lesson and realizes that it has been fighting a war on behalf of others. We hope the Hamas leaders will realize that they are fighting a destructive war on behalf of the Iranians and Syrians."

Egyptian political analyst Magdi Khalil said he shared the view of the Palestinian Authority and Egypt that Hamas was responsible for the war in the Gaza Strip. "Ever since Hamas seized control over the Gaza Strip in 2007, they turned the area into hell," he said. "They imposed restrictions on the people there and even prevented them from performing the pilgrimage to Mecca."

The analyst said that the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service was right when he recently described Hamas as a group of gangsters. "Hamas and its masters in Damascus and Teheran want to spread chaos in Egypt," he said. "They want to solve the problem of the Gaza Strip by handing the area over to Egypt. They want to create a homeland for the Palestinians in Sinai."

He said that Hamas was not only jeopardizing Egypt's national security, but had also destroyed the Palestinians' dream of statehood. "By endorsing the Iranian agenda, Hamas has brought the Iranians to Egypt's eastern border," he said. "Hamas has also copied Hizbullah's policy of entering into pointless adventures."
__________________________________________________________

It appears the Egyptions don't trust the Iranians or the Syrians.

[DVD Burner]

Yes, I saw this article earlier today and noticed it was the Jerusalem Post.

Took it with a grain of salt.

especially towards the bottom. New and harsh language:

The analyst said that the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service was right when he recently described Hamas as a group of gangsters. "Hamas and its masters in Damascus and Teheran want to spread chaos in Egypt," he said. "They want to solve the problem of the Gaza Strip by handing the area over to Egypt. They want to create a homeland for the Palestinians in Sinai."

He said that Hamas was not only jeopardizing Egypt's national security, but had also destroyed the Palestinians' dream of statehood. "By endorsing the Iranian agenda, Hamas has brought the Iranians to Egypt's eastern border," he said. "Hamas has also copied Hizbullah's policy of entering into pointless adventures."
_______________

[Oldguy]

Jan 12, 2009 0:31 | Updated Jan 12, 2009 8:54
Egypt rethinks Philadelphi Corridor moat
By YAAKOV KATZ


Egypt is considering a range of proposals on how to stop weapons smuggling through tunnels along the Philadelphi Corridor into Gaza, including the construction of a moat along the border that separates the Sinai desert from the Gaza Strip, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Israel has destroyed close to 150 tunnels since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead but estimates that there are at least another 150 tunnels along the 14-kilometer corridor. On Sunday, the Air Force bombed close to 30 tunnels that it said were used by Hamas to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip.

Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, is scheduled to travel to Egypt later this week to hear Cairo's offer concerning the tunnels.

Since the operation began, Hamas has made attempts to smuggle weapons into Gaza through the remaining tunnels, officials said. Iran, they added, was trying to get explosives and weaponry - including long-range rockets - to the Sinai, from where supplies are transferred into the Gaza Strip.

RELATED
Analysis: The Egyptian tightrope act between Israel and Hamas
Egypt sees progress in ceasefire talks with Hamas

While Israel has conditioned its acceptance of a cease-fire on an end to smuggling, the Egyptians have made clear that it will not permit the deployment of a foreign military presence on its sovereign territory. Egypt has however agreed to receive technological assistance from different countries including Germany and the United States, which has already sent combat engineers to Rafah in an advisory capacity.

Last year, the US allocated $23 million to help train Egyptian officials to stop smuggling and Egypt claimed to have spent as much as $30 m. in foreign military aid it receives from the US in purchasing advanced tunnel-detection equipment.



"The Egyptians said they are open to many different ideas of how to stop the smuggling," a senior official said, adding that Cairo was also requesting that Israel permit expansion of the Egyptian force of 750 policemen currently deployed along the border.

The idea of a moat along the corridor as a way to stop the tunnel industry is not new. In April 2007, Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, then head of the IDF's Planning Division, raised the possibility with the Egyptians during high-level security talks in Cairo and was told at the time that it would be considered.

In 2004, the Israeli Defense Ministry issued a tender for the digging of the moat along the border. The specifications given at the time were that the ditch would be four kilometers long, 25 meters deep and 100 meters wide.

There are mixed opinions in the IDF over what needs to be done to stop the smuggling. Some generals in the Air Force believe that it is possible to severely damage the tunnel industry by the air alone and without needing to send ground forces into the corridor. Other senior officers are of the opinion that only ground forces can effectively locate and destroy the tunnels.
_____________________________________________________________
Yep, I think the shits about ready to hit the fan. It has been stated that Egypt is walking a tightrope between calming Arab public opinion and its hatred of Hamas that has brought down heat on all Muslims. It will be interesting to see how all this animosity plays out in the coming weeks. Dark of the moon in two weeks... Possibly a two front attack with Egypt on the south and the IDF on the north. The UN is setting up a centre at Tel Aviv. I believe the IDF will be going for a Carthegenian Peace. You know, a surrender or die thing... If that happens, maybe Syria and Lebanon will head south. 1948 all over again.

[Oldguy]

Obama and the Gaza crisis

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent, Washington



Violence has erupted as Obama's administration prepares to take office

US President-elect Barack Obama has signalled clearly that he intends to grapple with the problems of the Middle East from the outset of his presidency.

Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, underlined the point.

"What the Gaza crisis has done is to remind us - as if anyone really needed reminding - that the Middle East is not stable," he said.

"And it won't wait for the new administration to decide when it is ready to address it."

But what can the Obama administration do differently?

'Other ways'

There has been a good deal of speculation - especially in the British press - about the possibility that the Obama team might take the unprecedented step of seeking direct talks with Hamas.

Everyone I have spoken to here rules this out - certainly unless Hamas renounces violence and meets a variety of other conditions.

But Robert Malley, head of the International Crisis Group's Middle East programme, said: "This is not an on and off switch, where you either embrace Hamas or necessarily boycott it. There may be other ways."

He spoke of his hope that the incoming Obama administration would "show some creativity in terms of allowing third parties to talk to Hamas and not trying to stand in their way".


Hamas may not see any sense in reconciliation with Fatah

If, for example, there were to be a Palestinian national unity government encompassing Hamas members, he hoped that an Obama administration would "judge it by its behaviour and what it does on the ground".

Does it adhere to its ceasefire? Does it allow the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organisation] chairman to negotiate an agreement with Israel? Does it say that it will allow that agreement to be put to a popular referendum and adhere to the results of that referendum?

"That's how the next administration may in fact want to deal with this problem without tackling that very poisonous question of whether you actually engage with Hamas," Mr Malley said.

'Bankrupt policy'

For Mr Haass, the shift in US foreign policy towards the Middle East is a matter of tone as well as substance. He believes that the new president should move swiftly to set out his thinking on the region.

Such a step, he says, would underscore "a new American activism and a new American emphasis on diplomacy".

We have been seeing over the past two years the impossibility of half a Palestinian entity making peace with Israel

Robert Malley, International Crisis Group

What is absolutely clear, though, is that the existing policies of the Bush era cannot continue, especially those that sought to capitalise on Palestinian division.

According to Mr Malley this was a "bankrupt policy" right from the outset.

"It wasn't simply accepting Palestinian divisions, it was encouraging them," he said.

"We have been seeing over the past two years the impossibility of half a Palestinian entity making peace with Israel, especially when we are talking about fundamental issues like Jerusalem, statehood, borders, refugees and so on."

Indeed, Mr Malley believes the Bush administration's position has shifted slightly in recent days.

The recent United Nations Security Council resolution on the Gaza fighting, which the US supported even though it abstained, calls for Palestinian national reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

This, he says, "is an extraordinary turnaround for the Bush administration, something which they fought tooth and nail against for two years.

"Clearly it is something that is going to have to happen if the goal is to have genuine, meaningful negotiations on existential issues between Israel and the Palestinians."

How that gets translated into policy, Mr Malley says, will be crucial.


The new president faces many challenges in the Middle East

"How do you actually say you want unity, but at the same time you don't want to deal with one party to that unity?

"That's the dilemma that the Obama administration is going to face and I don't know, right now, if they know how they will deal with it."

But all this talk of Palestinian unity as the principal way ahead begs a fundamental question - one that is even more stark in the wake of the fighting in the Gaza Strip.

Why should Hamas in particular, which may well emerge from this experience bloodied but with its reputation bolstered, agree to seek reconciliation with its Fatah rival?

"That's a very interesting question," Mr Malley said. "There are things that were possible two years ago which may not be possible now."

Gloomy conclusion

There were, he said, "various different soundings coming from Hamas". With the right mix of inducements and pressure, he hoped Hamas could be brought round to see the benefits of reconciliation with Fatah.

But his overall conclusion is gloomy.

"At this point my fear and my suspicion is that neither Hamas nor Fatah sees a real benefit in reconciliation, because each side would have to give up something that is far too precious.

"Hamas would have to give up monopoly control over the Gaza Strip and Fatah would have to give up its virtual monopoly control over West Bank and the PLO.

"And those are assets that both would be very hard-pressed to relinquish."

_____________________________________________________________A turnaround from Bush?...a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is desired but highly unlikly IMHO. Perhaps Obama can be the catalyst for renegotiation. Perhaps the new President will be in direct talks at that new centre in Tel Aviv. But will they come? If we build it, will they come?

[joel the ornery]

Politics & especially religion is for suckers.

makes no difference what religion it is.

i know i am going to regret asking this questionm yet here goes...

if politics and religion is for suckers.... why do you post here so dagburn much?

not really expecting an answer.... just posing the rhetorical question.

[ygmir]

Politics & especially religion is for suckers.

makes no difference what religion it is.

i know i am going to regret asking this questionm yet here goes...

if politics and religion is for suckers.... why do you post here so dagburn much?

not really expecting an answer.... just posing the rhetorical question.

nice, Joel..........open the bag of "Trollchow".........

[Elderberry]

Politics & especially religion is for suckers.

makes no difference what religion it is.

i know i am going to regret asking this questionm yet here goes...

if politics and religion is for suckers.... why do you post here so dagburn much?

not really expecting an answer.... just posing the rhetorical question.

nice, Joel..........open the bag of "Trollchow".........

JK

[DVD Burner]

Politics & especially religion is for suckers.

makes no difference what religion it is.

i know i am going to regret asking this questionm yet here goes...

if politics and religion is for suckers.... why do you post here so dagburn much?

not really expecting an answer.... just posing the rhetorical question.

I already answered this many times in this thread but since you dont even read your own thread I'll repost one of the times I posted this answer:

This is a burning man website. Not DVD Burners place to rant and rave.

And yep, I had some time to think about this one.

I have created some of the most, if not the most successful happiest Burner related, interactive threads on eplaya ever next to the bar. And they were very well thought out threads as anyone can see. Most all of my posts are well thought out before I post.

I did not create this thread.

Why?

Because my motto for the past 7 years on eplaya has always been, "politics and religion is for suckers".

All I have been proving all these years is my point seems to be correct.

After all, I am the original one that did not want a politics thread in the first place. Joel did and then started back peddling after he created it


Read the begining of this thread 6 years ago.

Seems like every time my points seem to be winning is when the most complaints come and get called a "Troll" by the trolls.

[DVD Burner]

Not only that but I actually get a kick out of letting those that have not a fucking clue what they are talking about the facts when they decide to talk out their butts.

After all, if I did not correct these idiots, who would?

[DVD Burner]

Officials turn down Franken request in Minn. race

By BRIAN BAKST – 59 minutes ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD95LPC0O0

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Democrat Al Franken was quickly turned down Monday when he asked Minnesota's governor and secretary of state to issue an election certificate that would let him take office in the Senate.

In letters the campaign sent to Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Franken's lawyers argued that a seven-day waiting period for issuing the certificate after an election has passed and he should get the signed certificate. But the state officials said their hands were tied by state law and they could not act.

Franken led Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes after a statewide recount that was completed Jan. 5.

Coleman is suing over the result, claiming there were irregularities on Election Day and during the recount.

Minnesota law prevents officials from issuing an election certificate until legal matters are resolved. But Franken's legal team argues that federal election law entitles Franken to receive the certificate before the lawsuit is settled.

"The people of Minnesota are down a senator in the U.S. Senate. This is an opportunity for Governor Pawlenty and Secretary Ritchie to ensure the interests of all Minnesotans are represented in Washington," Franken lawyer Marc Elias told reporters in a conference call. He didn't rule out a lawsuit.

In a statement, Ritchie said state law requires him and the governor to turn down Franken's request.

"Minnesota law is very clear on when a certificate of election can be issued. Neither the governor nor I may sign a certificate of election in the U.S. Senate race until all election contests have reached a final determination," Ritchie's statement read.

The statement didn't specifically address Franken's argument that federal law supecede the state law.

Pawlenty echoed Ritchie, saying it is clear the law won't allow him to issue a certificate while the race is being contested in court.

A spokesmen for Coleman had no comment.

Franken's campaign was due to file a response to Coleman's lawsuit later Monday. Elias characterized the Coleman action as "riddled with errors that are fatal to much if not all of the claims made in the petition."

By law, a trial on the lawsuit must start within three weeks of its filing, which occurred last Tuesday. It will be heard by a three-judge panel that has not yet been named.

[DVD Burner]

So Franken won fair and square and these guys are gonna be sore loosers.

Well now they are looking like Israel.

[DVD Burner]

actually, the Jews have always been hated.

Wonder why that is?

they have always been wealthy. and that continues.

Uuuummmm, I dont think that's the reason......... but usually what comes along with wealth comes greed.

I need to add the for the Little one.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6269455aB2GpNyn

And you wonder why Jews and Israel are hated?

Mind you, I say the same about all religious nut cases. ALL RELIGIONS ARE FOR SUCKERS. But right now we are talking about Israel.

Enjoy the clip. I didn't make it. The Rabbi did.

[DVD Burner]

WOW!

Time has passed and no one has anything to say about the racist statements the Rabi had to say.

Amazing!

[DVD Burner]

Proud images of da Bush!

[DVD Burner]

British Telecom Firm severs ties with Israeli firm over Gaza

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4950/53/

British telecommunications firm FreedomCall has terminated its cooperation with Israel's MobileMax due to the IDF operation in Gaza.

"We received an email from the British company informing us that it is severing all ties with us and any other Israeli company following Israel's strike in Gaza," said CEO Raanan Cohen.

"We weren't expecting this from them and there was no prior warning. I don't intend to appeal to them or answer the letter." The email from FreedomCall said, "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

MobileMax, established in 2004, produces a program providing cellular phones with inexpensive international service. //01.03.09


Finally a conglomerate with balls.

[DVD Burner]

[youtube][/youtube]

Gazan 5 month baby ran over by satanic Israeli driving a 70 ton tank!!!

[Sail Man]

HEY WAIT A MINUTE YOU DUMB FUCK. YOU REARRANGED AND EDITED THE ARTICLE.

NICE TRY ASSHOLE!

Just how fucking desperate are you?

You wait a minute dip shit. All I did was quote YOUR post and highlight pertinent statements which show your weird twisting of reality. Nothing was rearranged or edited. I added a comment of my own- IN BRACKETS & FONT CHANGED- to denote as not part of the quote. other than cutting out the bullshit propaganda, its your quote, boy. If he's wrong: why did you quote him?

[Ugly Dougly]

With such sagacious souls in our midst, surely peace in the Mid-East shall be within our grasp?

As soon as we get rid of all the people.

[Oldguy]

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor
Editor's Note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Ronald Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.


Ed Rollins says failing to find the WMDs in Iraq was far more than a disappointment.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- One week from today, a historic presidency begins and a tarnished presidency ends.

The inauguration of Barack Obama, the first African-American president, cannot come quickly enough for the vast majority of Americans.

This young man with the keen disciplined mind and the buffed body begins a presidency with high hopes, goodwill and a never-ending list of problems left on the Oval Office desk by George Walker Bush, the ever-confident occupant of that high office who seems like the dinner guest who will not leave.

In all my years around Washington as an observer and as a member of several administrations, I have rarely witnessed an event as bizarre as President Bush's farewell press conference yesterday.

It reminded me of Richard Nixon's November 17, 1973, question and answer session before 400 Associated Press managing editors at the height of the Watergate scandal, in which he declared: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook."

Well, to the best of my knowledge, Nixon wasn't a crook (in the technical sense). He was dishonest, he abused the office of the presidency, and telling the truth wasn't his strong suit. And he resigned in disgrace and would have been impeached if he hadn't. But there were also periods in his presidency that were very good for this country and the world.

President Bush is not a crook either. And even more importantly, I don't believe he is dishonest or an incompetent. The mistakes of his presidency were caused by overconfidence, bad information or a certain arrogance that was still fully on display yesterday.

How can you reflect on going to war, a war of choice, and argue that "not finding weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment," as President Bush did yesterday? And putting the "not finding the weapons" in the same breath as "We shouldn't have hung the sign, 'Mission Accomplished' "!

A disappointment is when you're a football fan and your team lost in the playoffs or in the national championship game. Eliminating weapons of mass destruction was the rationale for sending hundreds of thousands of men and women to Iraq to risk their lives and spending billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. Find out how some readers are angry over Bush's legacy

The rationale for the war wasn't that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy -- which he was -- and that he violated every sanction and agreement that the United Nations put on him.

President Bush went on to say: "One thing about the presidency is that you can only make decisions based on the information at hand. You don't get to have information after you make the decision -- that's not the way it works."

That is correct and that may be the most important lesson our new president can learn from the failures of the last. Make sure you get the information to make the right decisions.

President Bush, referring to the Abu Ghraib scandal and the missing weapons of mass destruction, said, "I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but things didn't go as planned, let's put it that way."

The lesson for President-elect Obama is often things don't go as planned.

Last week four men who have been president had lunch in the White House with the newly elected president. As I looked at the picture of the five members of the most exclusive club in the world standing in the Oval Office, I felt sad.

Two of the men, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, now in their 80s, had been overwhelmingly defeated in their bids for re-election. President Clinton and President Bush, both in their 60s, had periods of great failure.

President Clinton was impeached. The present president leaves office with the lowest approval ratings in modern history. None of these were bad men -- just the opposite.

Why did their presidencies not live up to those high expectations that we all have for our new leaders on Inauguration Day?

In some cases, they fought their natural allies. President Carter was particularly inept at dealing with Congress; so was the current President Bush. Carter and the two Bushes failed at communicating with the public and were unable to articulate what their programs were and build support for them in Congress. Clinton, a good communicator, was terribly undisciplined.

President Obama will need to set his priorities early. He can't do all he's promised in the first term. He needs to build strong relationships with the Congress and let them play a big role in setting his agenda.

He needs to use his tremendous communication skills and continually explain to the country what he wants to do and why. Then he needs to take his campaign machine and motivate the grassroots organization he built to get Congress to support his programs. He must be patient but persistent in making his case.

As we hope for the change which is coming next week, I just want to pause and reflect and say to President Bush, "Thank you, for serving your country." To our new president: Best of luck and you have our prayers.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ed Rollins.
________________________________

I hope other republicans in Congress will listen to this guy...

[ygmir]

[ygmir]

HEY WAIT A MINUTE YOU DUMB FUCK. YOU REARRANGED AND EDITED THE ARTICLE.

NICE TRY ASSHOLE!

Just how fucking desperate are you?

You wait a minute dip shit. All I did was quote YOUR post and highlight pertinent statements which show your weird twisting of reality. Nothing was rearranged or edited. I added a comment of my own- IN BRACKETS & FONT CHANGED- to denote as not part of the quote. other than cutting out the bullshit propaganda, its your quote, boy. If he's wrong: why did you quote him?

I'm with you, Sail Man............

[can't sit still]

I just love the semantics out of Washington. Obama said that he was going to pay off my mortgage. Now, I'm not so sure Obama Announces "Grand Bargain" of Sacrifice from Americans to Save Economy
Grand bargain of sacrifice sounds like something invented by the mafia or the IRS. Ever had that feeling that someone had a barrel and a jar of Vaseline,,,,, just for you?

[ygmir]

I just love the semantics out of Washington. Obama said that he was going to pay off my mortgage. Now, I'm not so sure Obama Announces "Grand Bargain" of Sacrifice from Americans to Save Economy
Grand bargain of sacrifice sounds like something invented by the mafia or the IRS. Ever had that feeling that someone had a barrel and a jar of Vaseline,,,,, just for you?

yeah, except, I think its Boraxo and, learn to "squeal like a pig"..........

[Simon of the Playa]

the reason why we shouldnt "JACK BAUER" our detainees is because WE are now open to the same treatment. The Geneva Convention was set up to insure a certain protiocol in the treatment of prisoners...We have thrown that and protection for our own people right the fuck out the window.

i am afraid for an active duty military who might be captured, the sky is the limit now...

George, Don, Dick, Karl....Fuck you, all of you, you motherfucking Chicken-Hawks.

A senior Bush administration official has admitted that a Guantánamo Bay detainee was tortured by the US military, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition".

Susan Crawford, the Pentagon official in charge of military tribunals at the camp, said Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi suspected of involvement in the September 11 terrorist plot, was subject to sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold. She said the torture meant he could not be prosecuted.

"We tortured Qahtani," she told the Washington Post. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]."

Crawford is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantánamo to admit publicly that a detainee was tortured.

Speaking publicly for the first time since her appointment two years ago, Crawford said the physical harm suffered by Qahtani – as well as the combination and duration of interrogation techniques used against him – took his treatment into the threshold of torture.

"The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," she said. "You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive."

Crawford added that "it was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture.

Qahtani, 30, was barred entry to America in August 2001 and is alleged by US authorities to be the 9/11 plot's "20th hijacker". He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and brutally interrogated for 48 days using a plan approved by the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"For 160 days [Qahtani's] only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18- to 20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches and insults to his mother and sister."

His treatment twice resulted in his hospitalisation with serious heart problems. A military report shows Qahtani was threatened with a military dog, forced to wear a bra and told his mother and sister "were whores". He was attached to a leash and "forced to perform a series of dog tricks".

The US dropped the death penalty case against Qahtani in May last year without explanation. His lawyers at the time attributed it to evidence he had been tortured while in US custody.

In November, military prosecutors said they would seek to renew charges based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. Crawford said she would block that prosecution.

The US president-elect, Barack Obama, who has promised to close Guantánamo Bay, hinted at the weekend at the difficulties his incoming administration will face in dealing with "very dangerous" terrorist suspects who have been tortured.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realise," he told ABC News, "and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true."