Aug 08 2008
President Bush Pokes China In Its Oppressive Eye By Being At Olympics
President Bush, by personally being at the Olympics in China, is representing what the Chinese leaders fear most – Freedom. Â Freedom of speech, freedom to make personal choices, the neutering of government power compared to the independence of the individual. Â As leader of the Free West, Bush is doing the right thing by attending the Olympics so all of China can be reminded of the differences, and our greatness.
The Chinese leaders are reacting to each hint of a political jab by Bush, and it makes them look so small and cowardly in comparison. Â Bush represents the idea that government cannot fear expression, China represents how cowering leaders use government to stamp out free expression. Â What better foil to China’s cowardly oppression than to have the news following the leader of the free world, moving freely and expressing himself freely, in the capitol of China.
I salute Bush, who is not cowering back here in the states like so many others. He is up front and center representing America, cheering on our athletes, and poking the Chinese oppressor right in the eye. You can’t do that sitting here in America watching it all on TV.
I tell you what, since the United States is no better than China or whatever, let’s just turn the folks at Gitmo over to the Chinese. They have a simple way of dealing with Islamic extremists, they shoot them or lock them up forever and needless to say the Rays of the world could care less.
Or we can turn them over to “local law” in the Muslim world. No worry about the whole human rights issue there.
The truth is the whole issue of Gitmo is that it gives the hypocrites something to rag on the Bushies about. If these same people were anywhere else in the world, guys like Ray would not say boo.
BTW, Ray, life is too short. I am not going to read all that stuff you posted. so long.
And yes, this is a war to the people who have to fight it.
And oh yes, I am sure David Hicks was just sight seeing with the Taliban. Poor baby. That bad Cheney, looking for the enemy.
If David Hicks had his ass home in Australia instead of hanging out with the people who helped bring about 9/11 he would not have been in that position. They did not exactly go to Sydney to nab his ass.
Who did he think those people were? We locked up one of our own for hanging out with the Taliban, we sure were not going to let some Aussie go just because a local helped to catch him. He did not have to be there at all. He knew all too well what was going on. He could have gotten the hell out of there after 9/11, but he picked his side in that fight.
Terrye wrote:
I tell you what, since the United States is no better than China or whatever, let’s just turn the folks at Gitmo over to the Chinese […]
No that won’t do. Shape up or ship out at the elections.
Ray
Terrye:
“I tell you what, since the United States is no better than China or whatever, let’s just turn the folks at Gitmo over to the Chinese.”
We already have. You really should read the news more often. It’s really very informative.
They have a simple way of dealing with Islamic extremists, they shoot them or lock them up forever and needless to say the Rays of the world could care less.”
And that’s rather ironic since the interrogators at Gitmo learned their techniques from the Chinese in the first place.
Terrye wrote:
Who did he think those people were? We locked up one of our own for hanging out with the Taliban, we sure were not going to let some Aussie go just because a local helped to catch him.
.
It was not illegal. American law stops down at the beach.
The prosecutors seemed unaware of that 🙁
.
He did not have to be there at all. He knew all too well what was going on. He could have gotten the hell out of there after 9/11, but he picked his side in that fight.
.
Wrong again. We know when he crossed into Afghanistan and we know the border was closed immediately afterwards. Hicks had no wish to fight Australians or Americans. He was however prepared to defend his Muslim brothers on Muslim land, but not if they were his own people or close allies. That’s why he went to Kosovo – to help stop the slaughter of Muslims – not be a terrorist.
.
Yeah, some terrorist he would have made – writing about all his “adventures” and making a point of staying legal while at it.
.
He hasn’t given an interview yet. Perhaps he’ll do it after the Bush crew have been ousted and they can’t get even with him for telling what happened, or perhaps wait for Gitmo to be levelled to the ground as if it had never existed.
.
What an absolute farce Gitmo 2001 – 2008 and not one legal conviction and that’s with FIFTY FIVE (55) lawyers on each prisoner’s case PLUS torture, PLUS hearsay evidence PLUS crooked a crooked Commission. It’s mind boggling in the extreme.
Ray
Bresch, there are many liberals who “got” what George W. Bush did following 9/11 and they turned away from the liberal mindset. I challenge you to consider the same!
On a personal level, let me ask you this: if you have a loved one who is addicted to crack cocaine or alcohol etc., addicted to the point that their life is constantly in jeopardy, do you talk nice to the addiction and hope it will cooperate and go away….or do you wage war on the addiction so as to keep the person alive…Eliminate it. Kill it. End the addiction forever….and then “talk” about it later?
You “go to the mat” to save a person’s life, imho.
One can view the islamic threat as such, imho. Action first, talk later. Save American/Allies lives first, look “nice” later. Claim your positive aggression, Bresc. It will do wonders for you.
And you can thank George W. Bush for holding all this in tension and for doing the nasty, ugly work of war, of sending a message to those who want to cut off our heads that we will not tolerate their attacks, not now or ever (so you don’t have to). And he gets told EVERYDAY all the life-threatening deeds the terrorists are attempting. You think he likes that? You think that doesn’t weigh on his mind, that he is in charge of protecting 300 MILLION people 24/7? How about his family? 24/7 threats now and forever.
He is a man of Light and he is shining it on the darkness. Not to sound too pop psyche, but Projection doesn’t begin to describe the source of the hatred toward him. He is a good man.
And Ray, you think you have the facts? Oh puhleeze. Not even close. Sorry, but you are being treated like a mushroom by the global socialists: kept in the dark and fed crap…not to be too crude. 🙂
Conman.
“Criticism” becomes un-American when it becomes unjustified, ill-willed and harmful.
Most of the antiwar arguments have been adequately answered. There is a concerted effort to marginalize the Administration. And as we learned from North Vietnamese generals, criticism of the War here sustained them. So, yes, it’s un-American.
The Macker wrote:
Conman.
“Criticism†becomes un-American when it becomes unjustified, ill-willed and harmful.
.
Geez, if the judges of that sort of thing were anything like the ones we’ve seen in the last 8 years, we’d have complete anarchy!
.
Most of the antiwar arguments have been adequately answered. There is a concerted effort to marginalize the Administration. And as we learned from North Vietnamese generals, criticism of the War here sustained them. So, yes, it’s un-American.
.
Nixon said “We lost the war out front of the White House” (or similar) and I still a haven’t forgiven Jane Fonda.
.
Notwithstanding Nixon’s statement, Burchett the only Western journalist who was able to interview the North Vietnamese for a long time, said while the “U.N. Police Action” (or “Vietnam War) was raging, that it could last for 100 years as far as they were concerned; and if bridges were bombed they would just go around the long way like they did in the old days. They apparently have a different sense of time.
.
The real reason for the Vietnam war is something that is very rarely mentioned by anyone. It was to keep the Port of Singapore open for U.S. shipping and save billions if the Commies had controlled it and made them unwelcome.
Ray
Ray,
The wartime journalists sold us out. Read Mark Moyer on the latest war documents. Nixon was correct.
Judging when dissent becomes treacherous is pretty obvious.
The Macker wrote:
Ray,
The wartime journalists sold us out. Read Mark Moyer on the latest war documents. Nixon was correct.
.
Judging when dissent becomes treacherous is pretty obvious
.
Do you have any examples, because I’ve seen some pretty BAD judging along the way. Hell people still don’t know what Kissinger meant when he talked about military people being cannon fodder or whatever it was he said – and yet it was as plain as one can get.
.
The meaning of “becoming treacherous” needs to be spelled out very, very clearly before people can comply, or chuck the government out of office if they don’t like their definition.
.
Talking about chucking government out. It was brilliant here in 1975 when the Queens Representative simply called in the Prime Minister and said “You and your government are dismissed and the Opposition party is taking over until an election is held”.
.
I forget what they did wrong now, but I was over the moon at the time. Anyway the people agreed, so that’s the main thing.
Ray
Ray,
I’n not drafting a statute here. But for working purposes, ask yourself if your dissent would be welcomed by the enemy. And why.
The worst judging has been by the NYT, when they compromised our intelligence to embarrass the administration.
No limits on dissent? And no limits on ignorance. And the Leftests plumb those limits daily.
The Macker wrote:
Ray,
I’n not drafting a statute here. But for working purposes, ask yourself if your dissent would be welcomed by the enemy
.
Geez, I didn’t realise you couldn’t answer the question and translated all disagreement into treason. That’s why the current government has got be turfed out for a decade or so.
To answer your question, yes any enemy would be delighted to hear that there were more and more people around the world insisting on fair trials for ALL accused people and not talking like you do.
Ray
Ray,
Dissent has been far more extensive than nitpicking about war crimes trials. But even there, you critics would have found fault with the Nurenberg Trials.
You seem to be admitting that the dissent has been helpful to the enemy. Well, you’ve picked your side.
The Macker wrote:
Ray,
Dissent has been far more extensive than nitpicking about war crimes trials. But even there, you critics would have found fault with the Nurenberg Trials.
You seem to be admitting that the dissent has been helpful to the enemy. Well, you’ve picked your side.
.
And your brain sounds totally fried.
Ray,
Those with a window to information bigger than yours, know the “dissenters” have complained every step of the War. And the “Trials” are just the next step.
If you think “helping the enemy” is acceptable, you have little regard for those in harm’s way and don’t merit the freedom and safety they are fighting for.
The Macker wrote:
Ray,
Those with a window to information bigger than yours, know the “dissenters†have complained every step of the War. And the “Trials†are just the next step.
.
What trials? I hope you don’t mean those kangaroo courts they’re still trying to cobble together on Gitmo. The word trial has a specific meaning in law.
.
If you think “helping the enemy†is acceptable, you have little regard for those in harm’s way and don’t merit the freedom and safety they are fighting for.
.
Like I said, your brain seems to be totally fried. You made that up.
Ray
Poor Ray,
What part of “helping the enemy” don’t you understand?
And it seems to me that this last trial vindicated Pres Bush.
“Kangaroo” must have a different meaning down under. Heh?