Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Fred Garvin's picture

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

Of course they are cowards. They are liars and theives as well.

Fred Garvin's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by AtHomeGym on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:32pm.

Didn't you forget "Gypsies" and "Tramps"?

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:06pm.

I love it! People like "Fred" singing the praises of one of the absolute looniest of the extreme far-right wing: Lord Christopher Monckton.

Monckton is a journalist by trade who fashions himself as an "expert" on denying global warming. His "research" consists primarily of publicity stunts, such as challenging Al Gore with anecdotal "evidence" supporting his position.

Lord Monckton also has a rather peculiar Malkinesque view of HIV and AIDS ("Put 'em in concentration camps!").

Thank you Democrats for NOT giving this idiot a platform and the legitimacy he craves!!

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:36pm.

The pissant sniffles prefers that genius Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.

Yep, good ol' Al who said:

"I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

"We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be e pluribus unum -- out of one, many." E Pluribus Unum is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States of America, and is Latin for "out of many, one," not "out of one, many."

"Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full."

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."

Yeah, good ol' Al Gore - a real man of genius. What a friggin loon.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Sat, 04/25/2009 - 8:26am.

You blame the Dems for recalling Bushes failures less than 100 days after Obama took over the whole mess. Yet you guys continue to bring up such absurd quotes as Gore's Internet reference. So instead of being a Limbaugh Dittohead or worshiping every Sean Hannity word (I hope he takes Olbermann up on his challenge and gets waterboarded), try actually learning something. So here is lesson #1, a link to Snopes that actually discusses the famous internet quote. Read it and weep.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 7:06pm.

er....I mean bird-brain.

Al's statement clearly implies that he invented the internet. Just because Snopes disagrees is nothing but a matter of interpretation.

Al Gore in nothing but a left-wing, unhinged loon. He had to use Hollywood fakery in his "inconvenient truth" movie to scare the dumb masses into thinking all of the glaciers were melting. (He betrayed our country!! He preyed on our fears!!! - sound familiar?)

Besides that, his goal is to do nothing but make people pay for carbon credits so that a company that he is part owner in can make money.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 3:26pm.

Regardless of whether he actually made the comment about inventing the internet or not, he is most certainly a certified hypocrit of the grandest order. Preaching all that "green" stuff and meanwhile,living large on his estate, using huge amounts of energy to run it all and he has no qualms about flying about in planes that pollute mucho. In my book, that's called a "Phony." PS: He probably BELIVES he created the Internet and probably doesn't have a clue what "DARPA" is.

Submitted by Blah Blah on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 6:46am.

You cant even spell *believes* right.

Former Vice President Gore has done more to save this planet than any other person on earth. And the only reason Mr Gore has to travel like he does and is protected like he is is becase the Retard Right Wingnuts will try to kill him.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 1:17pm.

Irena Sendler

There recently was a death of a 98 year old lady named Irena. During WWII, Iliana, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive...

She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German).

Iliana smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she carried, and she carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack,(for larger kids).

She also had a dog in the back, that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in, and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, and arms, and beat her severely.

Iliana kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out, and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family.

Most of course had been gassed.

Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes, or adopted.

Last year Iliana was up for the Nobel Peace Prize....


Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project

Snopes version for birdman the bird-brain

Meanwhile, Gore continues to profit from his Carbon Credit company that dumb masses pay into so that they can feel better about themselves.
Gore's 'carbon offsets'
paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

Submitted by AtHomeGym on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:17am.

So I fat-fingered one word--he's still a huge hypocrit. Now why don't you come up with an excuse for all the energy he uses for his personal lifestyle.

Submitted by MacTheKnife on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:40am.

If he can't spell he certainly doesn't know as much about global warming as say, a guy who graduated from Harvard in 1969 with a B.A. in Government. Enlisted in the United States Army as a photo journalist and attended Vanderbilt School of Religion (1971-72) and Vanderbilt School of Law (1974-76).

Yep, if ever there was a resume' that spelled out Meteorology, Climatology and Global Climate trends it would be that of Al Gore.

I mean, who would believe that 17,200 scientists would ever hope to have the insight and scientific knowledge of Mr. Gore.

Submitted by Blah Blah on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:57am.

It has become obvious that if Mr. Gore would not have been cheated out of his rightful presidential post our world would be greener, more peaceful, and more prosperous for millions of people around the world. Instead of the world living in fear of rising sea waters we would be enjoying the benefits of rising standards of livings for everyone in the world. Bush cheated our future peaceful lifestyles and opportunities by securing power for the capitalist facist rulers of our day.

And no I am not be buying your right wingnut talking points of the morning on your phony 17,200 scientists.

And yes Al is and expert in Government, he served his country honorably in the Army, and he studied law and apparently religion too. He is very well rounded. And in recent years his studies and learning have been directed toward the climate change that is endangering each and every one of us and the future of our childern. He has spent more time studying Global Warming than he any other subject he knows. He is perhaps one of the most well rounded men in the world and loved my nearly everyone in the world besides you right wing haters.

A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.

Submitted by Spyglass on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 9:32am.

I don't care who you are.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 11:33pm.

WOW..I am glad he swings for the other side..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


Submitted by Blah Blah on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 7:17am.

Truth speaks. And we won. The lies and crimnal acts of Bush and Cheney, Rove, and the Retards are a thing of the past. Guess whose having the last laugh? There are some on here that understand the ramifications of a kingdom government that robs the people for the rich. Now we are a free country at last. The constitution will now be followed greedy people will be put in there place. better times are coming.

A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:53am.

17,200 "Scientists"?

Wow, seems like quite a big number of experts signing that infamous "Oregon Petition".

Let's take a look at some of the famous "scientists" on that list:

  • Perry Mason
  • author John Grisham
  • actor Michael J. Fox
  • Dr. Geri "Ginger Spice" Haliwell

Mighty credible list you have there, buddy!

Submitted by MacTheKnife on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:14am.

Senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon ... (hurry and google him!)

Okay, so 17,200 is over the top ... you caught the tater ... let's cut the number in half..... are you saying Al Gore is more qualified than 8,600 of those on the list?

Or even a peanut salesman masquerading as Michael J. Fox? I notice you certainly didn't include a few of the other names on the list, hmmmm is selective research just a liberal disorder? Okay - here is a really short list of people you can attempt to discredit.

This somewhat current list (for those who care to see it) of those who do not believe in MAN MADE global warming (if at all) can be found by clicking here.

Be forewarned, Michael J. Fox is NOT on the list so do not read this (truncated) list of some of the world's top scientists (and their credentials) if you do not want credible opposition to the myth of man made global warming.

Sorry sniffles .... facts are stubborn things.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:23am.

Offering to "split the difference" (17,200 ... 8,600) is a common technique used by used-car salesmen (and Republican "fact" pushers) to make a sale.

Sorry, I'm not buying.

The magazine Scientific American spent an issue debunking the credentials of the "scientists" in that oh-so-impressive list.

Their bottom line: approximately 200 (WOW) accredited scientists have an issue with global warming, very much a minority.

But, just like the creationists, hucksters like you keep pushing lists with impressive numbers to distract the general public.

Most of the world has realized that global warming is a real, tangible threat. Sadly, there are always a pathetic few who fail to get the message.

The anti-intellectualism of you global warming deniers is soooo Bush-era.

Fred Garvin's picture
Submitted by Fred Garvin on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 1:04pm.

American's know Al Gore well enough to know that he is nothing but a 2-bit huckster. The latest Rasmussen report shows that only 1 in 3 (that's 34% for you libs) believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

The UN, Gore, and the rest of the deviants on the left may be able to pass their global warming, climate change, or whatever flavor of the month they decide to call it to the rest of the world, but we don't buy it.

We all know that Al Gore had to resort to Hollywood fakery to scare the dumb masses into thinking that the polar caps were melting. The Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’

The only people that believe Al anymore are libs like sniffles who lap up his lies like the pissant, bedwetting, liberal lapdog that he is.

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a
happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the
other. -- Ronald Reagan

Submitted by Jhossohj on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 2:32pm.

it is not a lie that the polar ice caps are melting. Have you done any sort of research at all, or are you just listening to Rush again? If you look at the, rather obvious, contrast in the pictures of the polar ice caps from the 1970's to now, there's been about a 40% reduction. All of that in around 30-40 years. To say that it's all Hollywood fakery is just as ignorant as saying that the world is flat.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 7:39am.

Facts don't matter. Who are you gonna believe, Rush and Sean or some lying satellite images?

Here's the timeline for the right wing climate argument, we're now transitioning from stage 1 to stage 2:

1. There is no global warming there is global cooling.
2. The science of global warming is unsettled.
3. There is global warming but human activity has nothing to do with it.
4. We may have contributed in some small way to global warming.
5. Why did Carter, Clinton and Obama allow this to happen?

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 7:57am.

I have been traveling for awhile, things haven't changed though. I find it absurd that elites have decided to go lockstep into AGW and quash any discourse. It is not partisan to realize that the climate is dynamic and has undergone many changes. We know (scientifically) that the Roman Warm period was warmer than now. We also know that a decent portion of Greenland was cultivatable in the 1000's. We did not see oceans rise, Tuvalo sink, nor polar bears die. Conversely, we know by use of geological records and sampling such as Vostok ice cores, the CO2 levels have been generally trailing to increases in temperature. We also know that CO2 acts as a warming forcing agent in an inversely logrithmic fashion-- the greatest input is the first 50 ppm. We know that levels below 250 ppm have historcially been devoid of most forms of life.
AGW science is predicated on the fact the CO2 levels cause an amplified forcing of warming due to sunlight interactions and water vapor levels (95% of all greenhouse gases). Recently, we discovered the opposite, that there is negative forcing between CO2 and wator vapor at testable altitudes. This would make most models extremely inaccurate.

Do we want to make economic decisions based upon hysteria and a lockstep desire to get on a bus to Abilene?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 10:02pm.

and quit wasting my breath or in these cases.. my fingernails..
They will not listen they don't care.. this has become one of their mantras.. Gore said it they believe it so the Science is settled.. dispite the fact more scientist are now saying MMGW is propaganda and the Warmest Alarmist are using Junk science.. They would rather quote something from Al Frankin then listen to someone (600+) with PHDs in Climatology.. You can link to scientific papers.. published by some of the most prominent Climatologist in the world and they will say.. its all crap.. come up with inane excuses like.. well now they are going to say Global Cooling.. ***yawn*** Anyway.. I guess in 10-20 years we will be all cannibals according to Ted Turner or we will be thumbing our noses and saying see I told ya so..

What really bugs me is their ARROGANCE.. I just want them to answer one simple question.. "HAS GLOBAL WARMING EVER OCCURED BEFORE??" The answer they won't answer is of course it has.. what happened then.. did the dinosaurs farting cause it then??? Some ancient race driving suvs do it? It follows then that if it has occured in the past then why is it so different now? I will tell you why.. MONEY.. and control.. They want both.

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 2:51pm.

Ice caps melting.. hmmmm wow never happened before so we must have caused it.. Uhhh in your vast research did you discover that the southern cap is expanding faster then recorded history..?? Guess not.. well them truths can be real inconveinient...

inconvenient-truths-everywhere-you-look LINK

scientists-make-their-anti-global-warming-case LINK

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 8:27pm.

"southern cap is expanding faster then(sic) recorded history..??" hmmmmmmmmm...tough on to digest there...and then there is that "Block of ice the approximate size of Rhode Island" that broke off a year or so ago...and the rivers of water under the Greenland icecap...that icewater will make ALOT of Koolaid. Keep the faith

Even a dead fish can go with the flow

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 8:03am.

Stop listening to the sound bites and do some research.. Follow the links.. NASA reported it.. Russia which has a research station on it, as we do, all reported it.. it was on the links I gave by the way.. Try to stop believeing the histerical Warmest Alarmist out there..CONTRARY TO HISTERICAL BELIEF this has all happened before.. Way before MAN drove a SUV.. So unless the Dinos or Plankton somehow farted enough CO2 do it.. I think we can dismiss the Crazy talk of MAN- MADE Global warming.. Read the facts.. Global COOLING is actually occuring and has been for over 10 years..DISPITE THE FACT THAT CO2 IS RISING FASTER THEN PREDICTED.. Now according to GORE and his chart.. A rise in CO2 equals a rise in temperatures.. this he presented as a FACT So CO2 is going up and conversly the temps are going down... but I thought the Science was settled...hmmmmm
That big bright thing in the sky is called a SUN.. it has more to do with heating and cooling then my SUV.. We are in a Solar minor event and still no sun spots which was to hit bottom last year... The last time this happened a mini-ice age occured. So CHILL francis..

I will give you this one for free:

antarctic-ice-increasing LINK

You see I am a ENVIRONMENTALIST it is what I do for a living.. So studying the environment and researching facts on the environment is part of my on-going livelyhood.. sooooo.. Like I said . do yourself a favor study up on it a little.. Oh and btw.. ECO WORLD (link) swings left most of the time..but they do try to report the truth.

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 9:13pm.

We're off to see the wizard, who will tell us that this is still the result of global warming, in short, because the centers are indeed adding ice from the increased snowfall, which itself is due to warmer air holding more moisture. The middle of Antarctica is much colder at 2000 feet above sea level, while the Arctic is about 12 feet above sea level. The edges of Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice, and the result is a net loss.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 7:11am.

Your contention is land mass ice is increasing due to Global warming and sea ice mass is decreasing..
Denny Burbeck wrote your article.. What are his crenditials??
My guys are all Yale or MIT Professors.. Climatologist, Scientist, etc.. What evidence does Burbeck present,.. I saw theories, hypothesis and conjecture, but saw no real evidence.. The story below shows Scientific facts and data.. You decide..

The article linked below tends to dispute your theory..

Wilkins Ice Shelf LINK

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 8:57am.

The power of denial is insignificant when compared to the power of Mother Nature. This has to do with the laws of physics and I am a law abiding unit.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 2:36pm.

as an Acquiesce that Science out weighs propaganda..
Look Carb.. I get it ok.. Most people will say what the heck can it hurt right.. What if we are wrong.. we get cleaner air so what?? Right??
"In political discourse, information is to be “spun” to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition. The chief example of the latter is the perpetual claim of universal scientific agreement. This claim was part of the media treatment of global cooling (in the 1970’s) and has been part of the treatment of global warming since 1988 (well before most climate change institutes were created). The consensus preceded the research."Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Carb there is much money to be made here..In fact whole fortunes.. Including Al Gore which is part owner in a CARBON CREDIT COMPANY???? Grants, whole new industies, insurance for and denials for, .. The old adage of "FOLLOW the MONEY" applies here.. Who will benefit FINANCIALLY from the histeria..
"The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?
The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average."
Source: EcoWorld April 30th, 2009 by Ed Ring..

antarctic-ice-increasing LINK

Look Carb.. Like I said I know it is easier to say what's the harm? However you will get "Cap in Trade" resulting in a substantial increase in cost for energy.. Which will in turn raise the cost for EVERYTHING.. You will not be able to purchase certain items without paying a hefty tax for its carbon footprint.. etc.. That is pretty hefty fine to pay to feel good about junk Science..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 7:17pm.

Nowhere will you see that I am in favor of the Chicken Little approach to pollution's effect on the earth's temperature, because the burning of fossil fuels has many other well documented negative effects. To continue on this global warming line is just going to end up being a wizzing match between the "highly educated experts" on both sides of the issue. There is no doubt that mankind as a whole is "fouling the nest", which in evolutionary terms, is indicative of a species in decline. My answers, while not to your satisfaction, relate to a basic fact of scientific research: the easiest thing to find is that which you are looking for.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Submitted by MacTheKnife on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:32am.

Don't bother with the facts. Just go with Al Gore. You are right. After all what would a right wing Bush wacko and an " ...anti-intellectualism of you global warming denier(s)..." like Antonino Zirchichi know?

Oh in case you are wondering he is one of the "...anti-intellectualists..." on the 'you and Al Gore are full of crap' list:

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : He says that "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".

And besides, since your own cited source says " 200 (WOW) accredited scientists have an *issue with global warming, very much a minority." That is proof positive Al Gore and you are correct. Gee, I am glad we got that out of the way.

After all, there is no way 200 highly accredited research scientists could ever be right.

You are such a funny little man sniffles. Thanks again for showing us the light. Al Gore is indeed the one who would know.

*issue = the issue they have is that it is a complete load of crap based (at best) on faulty science and politically promoted by a charlatan and a hypocrite. Of course 'issue' sounds so much nicer. Eye-wink

Scientific certainty accepted by the scientific community as factual:
The Earth is the Center of the Universe.
The Earth is Flat.
You can change lead to gold.
Heavier Objects fall faster.
Phlogiston is why things burn.
The Earth is 6,000 years old.
The atom is the smallest particle in existence.
Proteins are the key to heredity (DNA is not important).

Shall I keep going?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 11:25pm.

crowd will always side with GORE.. No matter how many respected SCIENTIST refute everything GORE says.. they will still bow at the alter of the new religon.. In the 70's it was Global COOLING.. Now it's Global warming.. The EARTH has never cooled nor warmed before in the millions of years it has been floating in space and that pesky thing in the sky called a SUN has absolutey NOTHING to do with the Earth's climate.. Silly Scientist..



I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 2:58pm.

Perhaps you should seek help. You see conspiracy and lie at every turn. There is just no reasoning with you. No matter what Sean and Rush say, the sun rises in the east, the sky is blue, etc. Truth is truth. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't make it any less truthful.
Don't believe Snopes or the transcripts, etc. Simply go through life fearing all that is not Hannity. Good luck. Enjoy.

WAIT!!!! SHHHH... slowly....quietly....look over your shoulder....they are coming to take you away ha ha... to the funny farm where life is beautiful!

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:52am.

And they are coming from the Dems. you know, the people who released the CIA "torture"
info and left out the part about the valuable information obtained and lives saved. Isn't that a bit dishonest?

Beyond dishonest it is dangerous. Read what Porter Goss said in today's AJC. Clear, concise and right to the point.

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:48am.

Ok, this is going to get ugly. Now we are about to enter into a debate (or simply more insulting trash talk) regarding morality, principles, ethics, etc.
Actually would it not be in this nations best interest to actually investigate and fully disclose our interrogation methods? I know... I know... if they know HOW we will interrogate, they will teach methods to counteract it. I know because our military does just that. SERE school prepares our military with methods to resist, delay, and distract torture such as waterboarding, stress positions, confinement, you know, all those "advanced interrogation techniques" that are now at question.
So now comes the question: If we teach our military to withstand torture techniques as mentioned above, can we now turn around and claim that they aren't really "torture" techniques? So why do we train our military to withstand them? about a dilemma. What to do, what to do. Oh, simply deny to the world that we did them! Or we could just say they are only torture when used by other countries.

As for the "valuable information obtained," actually by most accounts of those who were there, the actual torture (oops, sorry) I mean "advanced interrogation techniques" didn't actually get us the "valuable information." That was obtained by normal (not advanced) techniques. Anyway, that's according to CIA agents who were involved, I'm sure Hannity knows better.

But again, our moral dilemma. Does the ends justify the means. If you say yes, then anything is now on the table. How about we waterboard fat Rush until he gives up Sean as an Al Qeda operative. I'm sure it won't take 183 times. Or Rush will simply die of a heart attack (a by product of waterboarding). But according to all sources torture does not obtain valuable information. That is the problem. People will say anything they think you want to hear to stop the torture.

John McCain said waterboarding is torture.

As for the "dishonesty" you mention, I think that this issue should be investigated by an independent council. I think we should publish the "valuable information," at least the information that is long past. In fact, we should make as much information public as is possible, and if it turns out that we illegally interrogated, then appropriate people should be held accountable (now, before you yell at me for advocating releasing the "valuable information," remember it was YOU who wined about it not being released). Then, and only then, can we "claim the higher ground" and say that we hold ourselves to the same standard that we held or hold the Nazis, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, etc. We tried, convicted, and punished torturers. We would have done so to the North Vietnamese had we won the war. We boycott Cuba, speak out against Chavez, arrested Noriega, etc. for violation of Human Rights.

But then again, living up to our own principles will be tough on us. We run the risk of finding out a dark part of our history. Then again, it may come out that we really didn't torture. Then we can at least be proud of ourselves for living up to our responsibility, assure the world that we are who we say we are, and put this nasty question to rest.

Or we could simply bury our heads in the sand, say that these Crimes against Humanity are only applicable to those we don't like, and hold that if "we" did it, it's ok. And we can simply tell the world that if they don't like how we violate human rights then do what we do when we don't like a country that violates human rights, simply kidnap and try their leader, or heck, simply outright invade us. Go ahead, make our day!

As Ben Franklin said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Submitted by Spyglass on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 9:26am.

I say, YES...

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 9:54am.

Then you don't extend human rights to everyone? That is vaguely reminiscent of Hitler's argument that Jews were "subhuman." It is vaguely reminiscent of all arguments supporting slavery, that Blacks were "subhuman." By making that argument you now accept a definition of "who" is entitled to human rights. Who is to make that judgment? Is it according to Bush? Cheney? Obama? or simply who is in charge at the time? How about Lenin? Stalin? Hitler? Saddam? Mao? etc.
Or maybe he who owns the biggest gun decides who should be extended rights and who should be tortured.

The North Vietnamese labeled US Pilots as "war criminals" as they bombed "innocent" women and children, and thus were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. Do you agree?

Our B-17 pilots bombing of Dresden in WW II created fire storms "with temperatures peaking at over 1500 °C (2700 °F)." The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed many civilians. Should those pilots not be afforded the Geneva Convention rights and should be allowed to be subjected to torture because they killed civilians?

So again with the moral dilemma. China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. all have tortured "enemy's of the state." They are "non-uniformed." Yet we stood strong against those nations for "violation of human rights." Can we still make that argument?

Was it ok for the Nazis to torture the French Underground because they were "non-uniformed enemy combatants?" I know a guy who's mom was one of those tortured. Should I tell him it was ok? Would you look him in the eye and tell him that what happened to her was ok because she was "non-uniformed?"

You may sell your principles to fear. I will not.
The history of torture has shown it to be unsuccessful. It destroys our morality. It destroys what our forefathers died for.

If we give into our fears and sell out our principles then we are no better than "them." Go ahead and sell yourself out to fear. I will not.

Submitted by Spyglass on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 10:21am.

in the past between Uniformed Enemy Combatants and Non-Uniformed. I gave you my answer, obviously you are not in favor of torture. Luckily we aren't a Democracy. Smiling

Submitted by Jhossohj on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 2:36pm.

it was declared that it was illegal to torture BOTH. You cannot simply change the name from "Prisoner of War" to "Non-Uniformed Enemy Combatants" as a means of skirting the Geneva Convention. This kink in the system is exactly why the Geneva Convention was put in place to begin with. So tell me, when is it at all acceptable to torture a human? When your C.O. says to? When America's in danger? What about other countries that see themselves as being in danger? Would that, by these means of logic, be acceptable grounds to torture a U.S. soldier? Absolutely not. And besides, America is supposed to be a Democratic Republic.

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 11:27am.

the World has made the distinction. The civilized world has determined that torture, any form of torture, is a crime. That is why we have the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
But I must ask.... are you actually in favor of torture?

I am also curious, do you support the Nazi torture of the French Undergound?

Would it have been different if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been in a uniform when he was captured?

If an enemy is captured by the CIA in his home in the dark of night, and he is not wearing his uniform, is he now a "non-uniformed combatant" and eligible to be tortured?

Spain wants to bring Bush and Cheney up on charges for Crimes Against Humanity in the World Court. If you agree the World decides, should Spain be able to bring our former Pres. and VP up on charges on a world stage?

If a pilot ejects from an aircraft, ditches his flight suit, is he now eligible to be tortured?

Here it is....I am NOT in favor of Torture. It doesn't matter that you are, it is wrong. It violates our principles, our laws, the UN laws, and the World Laws. I have no problem with holding people accountable. It is what we do in America, we clean up our own mess. If there is an investigation and laws were broken then the guilty must be held accountable. If there is an investigation and no laws were broken, then we have cleaned up the mess and can hold our heads up high.

If you favor torture, then you are someone we should fear. Who will you torture? Any Muslim? Your neighbor? Me? Anyone but you?

Your mentality is exactly the reason our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. To protect us from a "lynch mob" mentality that will go to any extreme.

I wish you luck. I hope you someday find the strength and moral character to live by principle and not simply from extreme fear.

Submitted by Spyglass on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 12:38pm.

Until you went there, I was halfway enjoying this conversation.

My short concise answers, contrasted to your long winded bombastic ramblings. Smiling

Submitted by Jhossohj on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 2:43pm.

Your morals are either on the bottom of the well or you're absolutely bereft of anything resembling morals. And about your short answers, they're truly concise, showing a lack of will or evidence to support your claims. You show nothing in your own support, just giving a simple sample of opinion.
If you, indeed, see torture as being acceptable, then why is it that we went through all of the trouble to take the Nazi regime out of power? If torture is an acceptable violation of human rights, then where do we draw the line? Shouldn't we, by this logic, just take all "Non-Uniformed Enemy Combatants" and gas them? Bomb them? Put them in a furnace?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 2:55pm.

To save American lives will I place a ****GASP**** catapiller in a cell with a TERRORIST.... *****SOB***** yea I guess so...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 2:01pm.

Hey, it's you who supports torture. What does that tell us? High on principle, are we?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.