Somebody please save us from those christians

[mesue]

I have to wonder where these people get off, they talk about christian values and being born again christians and moral values but then support abuse and torture, and what is weird is there are so many of them apparently who see this as the right thing following their President who lobbys against an anti-torture bill. How can one see themselves as christians and support this? How can one see their President as a christian if he supports this and he clearly does by the actions reported? They say their children of God and that we all are. If that be the case then God is gonna be mad over the way his children in the middle east are being treated. You can't just pack it off on a few run amuck soldiers when you have an administration doing this. The ones in control are sanctioning torture by their actions. All I can say if this is christianity then I'd rather be anything but a christian.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/1339257

White House Lobbies GOP Senators Not to Pass Anti-Torture Bill
Meanwhile the Washington Post reports the Bush administration is lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators to regulate the treatment of detainees held overseas. The bill would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual. According to the paper, Vice President Dick Cheney met last week with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority. One White House official said the bill would interfere with the president's ability to " protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2518In a televised debate on CNN, Falwell said President Bush should "blow them (the terrorists) all away in the name of the Lord."

[heartlvrs]

I am christian and proud of it!!! I truly do not beleive one should believe everything the media who we all know puts in writing. THey have demonstrated time and again their "honest"

Please do not group me or any other christian into one group tho:) THere are some as I pray I am myself, true and genuine:)

[Willow]

Bush is no more a Christian than I am Miss America. He likes to represent himself as a Christian hoping that Christians will take his side and agree with what he's doing. It's something for him to hide behind. Since he now has the lowest approval rate ever I think some of the people that voted for him are starting to realize he's not so great afterall.

[cleaningla]

I keep wishing God would hurry up and rapture them already.

[heartlvrs]

I keep wishing God would hurry up and rapture them already.

thats rude:( so sorry...

We do too:)

and Yes I voted bush and would do so again. I guess it would be better to have a man affairing around for prez like clinton?

[Njean31]

all religions, sects, races, cultures, sexes, etc have their quacks (look at the MUSLIM extremists--the reason this war is going on IMO) example~~~michael jackson is black and michael jackson is NUTS but that don't automatically equal ALL BLACKS ARE NUTS.............I am a Christian and so is the rev jesse jackson, Jim baker and many more nuts but that don't mean we all think alike so please don't stereotype or ridicule :(

[Willow]

thats rude:( so sorry...

We do too:)

and Yes I voted bush and would do so again. I guess it would be better to have a man affairing around for prez like clinton?


Poor Clinton. :( Why is his name always brought up when we are talking about Bush's faults? I would rather have Clinton over Bush anyday. At least Clinton was making love and not war. :D

[buttrfli]

I would rather have Clinton over Bush anyday. At least Clinton was making love and not war. :D

LMAO!

[YankeeMary]

I read and re-read no where did the article mention Clinton, his name always get mentioned when someone says something about Bush that isn't perfect. Geez...Clinton did wrong, but that was 5 years ago...let it go and move forward. Bush has had plenty of time to correct any wrong Clinton did in the White House, yet he hasn't. If anyone on here doesn't think that ALL the past and present Presidents didn't have affairs then its time to take your head out of the sand. Its been proven time and time again that they have all had affairs. And having sexual affairs does not make one a bad President nor does it make them a good one. It makes them human and not perfect. Getting sexual favors does not cause one to go to war.

[heartlvrs]

I read and re-read no where did the article mention Clinton, his name always get mentioned when someone says something about Bush that isn't perfect. Geez...Clinton did wrong, but that was 5 years ago...let it go and move forward. Bush has had plenty of time to correct any wrong Clinton did in the White House, yet he hasn't. If anyone on here doesn't think that ALL the past and present Presidents didn't have affairs then its time to take your head out of the sand. Its been proven time and time again that they have all had affairs. And having sexual affairs does not make one a bad President nor does it make them a good one. It makes them human and not perfect. Getting sexual favors does not cause one to go to war.

I do not have my head in sand...I am old enough to know how the world/society works...but my basic prinicpal is that I am a christian, and I prefer to have one in office that is. Alot of folks dont like Bush because he stands by his beliefs..that makes non-chrisitans and other folks nervous. I stand behind him and I stand behind my COUNTRY! BUT for you other folks dont and i repeat PLEASE dont stereotype christians either!

[cleaningla]

I do not have my head in sand...I am old enough to know how the world/society works...but my basic prinicpal is that I am a christian, and I prefer to have one in office that is. Alot of folks dont like Bush because he stands by his beliefs..that makes non-chrisitans and other folks nervous. I stand behind him and I stand behind my COUNTRY! BUT for you other folks dont and i repeat PLEASE dont stereotype christians either!

Just because a person has an affair, that doesn't make them non-Christian. Have you ever in your life comitted a sin. I guess if you have, then you're not a Christian.

[YankeeMary]

I do not have my head in sand...I am old enough to know how the world/society works...but my basic prinicpal is that I am a christian, and I prefer to have one in office that is. Alot of folks dont like Bush because he stands by his beliefs..that makes non-chrisitans and other folks nervous. I stand behind him and I stand behind my COUNTRY! BUT for you other folks dont and i repeat PLEASE dont stereotype christians either!
I can assure you I am a CHRISTIAN. I just have one God and it isn't Bush. You are allowed your beliefs but yet if I state mine, I get shoved in the catagory of non Christian. Just because I do not support him and his war, or the things he stands for does not make me nonchristian any more than you believing the same as he does, make you a Christian or not. I think his definition and mine of a Christian are very different. I do not believe in killing anyone, that includes people that I do not like, for profit, sorry but human life is very valuable to me. As a Christian I am tired of people using the God card to get what they want or need, and that includes votes.

[tngirl]

My question is this...WHY IS THIS POST ALLOWED TO STAY OPEN? It is an openly hostile insult and "attack" of members of this board and forum.

As for Christians being supportive of war and the things that come with war....check the Bible....there have been wars since the dawn of man. You cannot bash ALL Christians because of the actions of those that call themselves Christian. Anyone can say they are Christian, but God knows the truth in each of us.

[YankeeMary]

Anyone can say they are Christian, but God knows the truth in each of us.
I agree completely!!!

[tngirl]

Oh, and by the way, we "get off" because we have our beliefs just as you have yours. Just because YOU don't agree doesn't make US wrong and just because WE don't agree with YOU doesn't make you wrong. WE ARE ALL INTITLED TO OUR BELIEFS WITHOUT HOSTILITY.

[YankeeMary]

My question is this...WHY IS THIS POST ALLOWED TO STAY OPEN? It is an openly hostile insult and "attack" of members of this board and forum.

As for Christians being supportive of war and the things that come with war....check the Bible....there have been wars since the dawn of man. You cannot bash ALL Christians because of the actions of those that call themselves Christian. Anyone can say they are Christian, but God knows the truth in each of us.
How is it a hostile attack? Just wondering? I do not agree with all the the OP has posted yet some of it I do. If anything that I have posted seemed to be and attack or an insult, I can assure you it wasn't intentional. Sometimes its hard to really know the tone things are being typed in. I sure hope I didn't hurt feelings of anyone, if so please accept my apology.
I don't feel the post should be closed just because everyone doesn't agree with it. Its about debating...most everyone here even though views are different, we all like one another, or should I say I like them lol, just have different opinions.

[YankeeMary]

Oh, and by the way, we "get off" because we have our beliefs just as you have yours. Just because YOU don't agree doesn't make US wrong and just because WE don't agree with YOU doesn't make you wrong. WE ARE ALL INTITLED TO OUR BELIEFS WITHOUT HOSTILITY.
You are right...why are you shouting??? Who is hostile?

[heartlvrs]

Oh, and by the way, we "get off" because we have our beliefs just as you have yours. Just because YOU don't agree doesn't make US wrong and just because WE don't agree with YOU doesn't make you wrong. WE ARE ALL INTITLED TO OUR BELIEFS WITHOUT HOSTILITY.

My point exactly. I am not being hostile and yankeemary hon I am sorry, I was not implying you were or were not a christian. My whole point was please dont stereotype christians:) And I think we can ALL be mature and have a good rational "discussion" without attacking each other. Debates can be good for the mind and souL

God Bless:)

[YankeeMary]

My point exactly. I am not being hostile and yankeemary hon I am sorry, I was not implying you were or were not a christian. My whole point was please dont stereotype christians:) And I think we can ALL be mature and have a good rational "discussion" without attacking each other. Debates can be good for the mind and souL

God Bless:)
ITA...I didn't feel anyone was being hostile. I just think its hard reading tones and or emotions on here. :)

[tngirl]

Maybe "hostile" is not the correct word to use. But the OP is definitely very insulting and his remarks can be very offensive to some. If the same type of feeling was being created lets say as an example, your workplace....you could consider it a "hostile" enviroment....maybe not the best analogy, but the only one I could come up with this late at night. I realize the OP is stating an opinion, that is not the problem, but it does come across as hostile.

Some of the replies are meant as humor...sometimes our humor can be insulting at best. I do not poke fun at others religious beliefs, or lack of, no matter how much I disagree with them and I would hope for the same respect from others.

As for shouting?!? :confused: I was only emphasing a point. I would not lower myself to a SHOUTING match with someone that has a differing point of view than myself, especially concerning political or religious beliefs. Let me explain the "lower myself" remark so it cannot be misunderstood and taken the wrong way. By this I mean that I do not have the intelligence to carry on an intelligent conversation without demeaning others. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

It is late and I probably haven't made myself clear. Oh well, at least I made the attempt. :D

[mesue]

No, I was not trying to insult anyone if you read the title it says those christians, (perhaps I should have made it more clear) meaning the ones who agree with torturing people, not all christians. I really don't consider anyone who would lobby the senate against an anti-torture bill a christian. I consider him a total fake when it come to true christianity, one who really has no christian beliefs and abuses the meaning of that and the true followers by outright lying about his beliefs. I believe that Bush has played the born again christian card to get votes. Who knows he may be so delusional as to believe that this is a christian act, (torturing prisoners) in that case we are in even bigger trouble? To stand up and praise God and yet demean the very meaning of christianity by his actions. It is those kinds of christians I think we need to be saved from. I hope the people who were tricked by his so called christianity thinks twice before they vote for another person who use their christianity to get votes no matter whether he or she be a republican or a democrat. I see ones religion as a very personal private valuable part of each person, to be used only to distribute that religion through acts or works of goodness not something one should trade in or use to get anything or to excuse any act. I am well aware there are a few true christians who walk the walk everyday, a very difficult path. So if I insulted any true christians here that was not my intent and I apoligize.

[Cherbear90]

OK............mesue, is it OK for a president, who professes to be a Christian and is shown coming out of church with bible in hand quite a few times, to commit adultery in a building that we all pay for and lie about it UNDER OATH and also, support the act of abortion at ANY time during pregnancy? Would you classify abortion as being torturous? Let's be sure to conduct a fair and balanced analysis here.
So, in your eyes, have any wars been justified? What are we supposed to do when posed with a threat? Talking and reasoning can only take us so far, as SEVENTEEN broken resolutions can attest.
I don't want to upset you or anyone else, I just wanted to pose a few thought-provoking questions..........

[mesue]

No adultery is not ok but it is hardly sanctioning torture and to me there is no comparison. (As to my beliefs on abortion I hardly see what that has to do with anything. I will be glad to discuss that with you in another thread if you want to start one but I see no point in doing it in this thread.)
I thought the war to take Afghanistan back from al-Quada and to hunt down Bin Laden for the attacks of 911 was justified. But at the same time I do not feel we are justified in torturing POW's from Afghanistan or anywheres else. I did not feel that Hussein was a danger to us. And all the evidence that has come out has proven me right. The downing street memo proves that many others that knew Hussein was not a danger to us and acted to hide that from us.
This thread is about a President who professes to be a christian and then acts to sanction torture and for some strange reason I and many others do not see this as the christian thing to do. Do you see it as the christian thing to do? Right now agencies that we have put our faith in over the past administrations (the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Unicef) have come forward and pointed out and reported on the torture, rape,sodomy, and murder of women and children and male detainees in the POW's camps. I for one do not see how anyone claiming to be a christian can act to sanction any form of torture. Now while Clinton did let us all down what he did can't compare to the sanction of torture and by lobbying to block this bill that is what it seems Bush is doing. IMO.
If you would like to know more about the torture here are some links be warned though these threads contain some pretty grusome reports.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9608.htm
Now while many might point out that this is from old reports we currently have a President lobbying against an anti-torture bill.
Also in the first paragraph it is all about how the pentagon was trying to block the release of the photo's because it might show the faces of the detainees and that is against the geneva convention but wasn't it just not long ago that the government said these POW's did not receive POW status and rules of geneva convention on these prisoners did not apply. That is something I find particularly offensive about this administration, the rules only apply when it is in their best interest.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/1339257
Pentagon Refuses to Hand Over Abu Ghraib Photos
The Defense Department is refusing to cooperate with a judicial order to release photographs and videos taken by the military at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In June, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to hand over 87 photos and four videotapes to the American Civil Liberties Union because the group had filed a Freedom Of Information Act. Bush administration attorneys have said that the release of the photos would violate the Geneva Conventions by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment. The photos are expected to show widespread torture of Iraqi detainees and even incidents where Iraqis were raped and murdered inside the U.S. run jail. Last year Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane -- it's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid."

White House Lobbies GOP Senators Not to Pass Anti-Torture Bill
Meanwhile the Washington Post reports the Bush administration is lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators to regulate the treatment of detainees held overseas. The bill would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual. According to the paper, Vice President Dick Cheney met last week with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority. One White House official said the bill would interfere with the president's ability to " protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

[Angelseyes28]

My question is this...WHY IS THIS POST ALLOWED TO STAY OPEN? It is an openly hostile insult and "attack" of members of this board and forum.


This thread is allowed to stay open because when Katt and I decided to try to keep this site going AND make it more enjoyable, we decided on this..

None of us like being edited, and we don't like to have to edit (I don't get paid to babysit) so we were thinking that unless it's an outright attack...calling someone a name for example, or blatent spam etc, we should just leave it and let everyone resolve it themselves.

[Jaidness]

save me too!!

[YankeeMary]

Maybe "hostile" is not the correct word to use. But the OP is definitely very insulting and his remarks can be very offensive to some. If the same type of feeling was being created lets say as an example, your workplace....you could consider it a "hostile" enviroment....maybe not the best analogy, but the only one I could come up with this late at night. I realize the OP is stating an opinion, that is not the problem, but it does come across as hostile.

Some of the replies are meant as humor...sometimes our humor can be insulting at best. I do not poke fun at others religious beliefs, or lack of, no matter how much I disagree with them and I would hope for the same respect from others.

As for shouting?!? :confused: I was only emphasing a point. I would not lower myself to a SHOUTING match with someone that has a differing point of view than myself, especially concerning political or religious beliefs. Let me explain the "lower myself" remark so it cannot be misunderstood and taken the wrong way. By this I mean that I do not have the intelligence to carry on an intelligent conversation without demeaning others. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

It is late and I probably haven't made myself clear. Oh well, at least I made the attempt. :D
I think you did a fine job explaining.

[tngirl]

Mesue, thank you for your clarification on the point you were making. I still don't agree. But once again, it has been since the dawn of man that leaders, no matter their religious beliefs, have had to take hard stands.

Former President Carter attempted to the Christian "lamb" while in office and look where that got us. Now I am not knocking Mr. Carter. I used to have a great respect for him, even now I see some things that he has accomplished that I still respect him for. But I think Mr. Carter would have been a better diplomat than a President.

[YankeeMary]

Mesue, thank you for your clarification on the point you were making. I still don't agree. But once again, it has been since the dawn of man that leaders, no matter their religious beliefs, have had to take hard stands.

Former President Carter attempted to the Christian "lamb" while in office and look where that got us. Now I am not knocking Mr. Carter. I used to have a great respect for him, even now I see some things that he has accomplished that I still respect him for. But I think Mr. Carter would have been a better diplomat than a President.
Let me see if I understand correctly here...You think Carter using the God card got us in a mess...but yet you support Bush for doing the same thing? So if Carter would have been lets say a republican it would have made it different?
I love God above all else, yet I wouldn't vote for any man/woman just because of them using the God card, takes more than that to convince me. (as I am sure it does you)
As far as this past election, I voted for Kerry, mainly because I was voting against Bush. I am not in anyway saying that Kerry would have made a better President, but I don't see how he could be any worse. I just hope the next election has good canidateds to vote for. And wasn't Kerry Catholic?

[Willow]

Something I remember hearing people say many years ago when I was a member of a born again christian church was if you're going to talk the talk you better walk the walk and from what I have seen Bush is definitely not walking the walk.

[schsa]

Wait, let's get back to the subject. More people have gone to war over religion than anything else. When in war men and women pray that their god is with them. Bush has a vendetta that he is carrying out. His policies have nothing to do with Christian values.

I don't like the man. I can see through most of what he is doing and why. Standards for keeping prisioners was set by the Geneva Convention. Bush should recognize those standards and not change the program to fit his needs. And that has nothing to do with Christian value.

[tngirl]

Let me see if I understand correctly here...You think Carter using the God card got us in a mess...but yet you support Bush for doing the same thing? So if Carter would have been lets say a republican it would have made it different?
I love God above all else, yet I wouldn't vote for any man/woman just because of them using the God card, takes more than that to convince me. (as I am sure it does you)
As far as this past election, I voted for Kerry, mainly because I was voting against Bush. I am not in anyway saying that Kerry would have made a better President, but I don't see how he could be any worse. I just hope the next election has good canidateds to vote for. And wasn't Kerry Catholic?

The way I vote has nothing to do with religion. I vote for the person that I believe will do the job the best. The comparison I was attempting to make was the fact that when a leader of a country his politics have to be strong. With the enemies that our country has, we cannot afford to have a "wishy washy" leader or to "turn the other cheek".

Whether Mr. Carter is Republican or Democrat, has nothing to do with the issue. The show of strength is the issue. As US citizens, we are a target no matter what our religous orientation or political views. Those that wish us harm will not stop to ask you what your beliefs are before they target you.

I do believe that you can be a Christian leader and still do the job that is necessary. People seem to know what is in our President's heart and mind better than he knows. I know that I do not know what is going through his mind. The basis of voting for a leader that proclaims to be a Christian is the hope that he/she will use their faith when making important decisions.

As for the other post concerning the actions of Mr. Clinton while he was in office. Of course I do not approve of his actions in the adultery, but that was not my problem with him. My problem with Mr. Clinton was the fact that he lied about it and then used the "it depends on how you define" line to justify his lies. Yes, there have been many of our President's that have had affairs while in office.

[Njean31]

The way I vote has nothing to do with religion. I vote for the person that I believe will do the job the best. The comparison I was attempting to make was the fact that when a leader of a country his politics have to be strong. With the enemies that our country has, we cannot afford to have a "wishy washy" leader or to "turn the other cheek".

Whether Mr. Carter is Republican or Democrat, has nothing to do with the issue. The show of strength is the issue. As US citizens, we are a target no matter what our religous orientation or political views. Those that wish us harm will not stop to ask you what your beliefs are before they target you.

I do believe that you can be a Christian leader and still do the job that is necessary. People seem to know what is in our President's heart and mind better than he knows. I know that I do not know what is going through his mind. The basis of voting for a leader that proclaims to be a Christian is the hope that he/she will use their faith when making important decisions.

As for the other post concerning the actions of Mr. Clinton while he was in office. Of course I do not approve of his actions in the adultery, but that was not my problem with him. My problem with Mr. Clinton was the fact that he lied about it and then used the "it depends on how you define" line to justify his lies. Yes, there have been many of our President's that have had affairs while in office.

lied under oath no less..............how could anyone believe anything he ever said again? the adultry was bad enough.......all of his supporters were stating "I don't care what he does in his personal life as long as he's a good president", I guess they didn't care about the lying under oath??? i forgot how they ever tried justifying his lying under oath
:rolleyes:

[cleaningla]

lied under oath no less..............how could anyone believe anything he ever said again? the adultry was bad enough.......all of his supporters were stating "I don't care what he does in his personal life as long as he's a good president", I guess they didn't care about the lying under oath??? i forgot how they ever tried justifying his lying under oath
:rolleyes:

Sorry, but where I come from, real men don't tell. That's just totally scuzzy. I don't give a crap if he was under oath or not...I don't care who asks them or why they ask them...real men don't tell....EVER.

[heartlvrs]

The way I vote has nothing to do with religion. I vote for the person that I believe will do the job the best. The comparison I was attempting to make was the fact that when a leader of a country his politics have to be strong. With the enemies that our country has, we cannot afford to have a "wishy washy" leader or to "turn the other cheek".

Whether Mr. Carter is Republican or Democrat, has nothing to do with the issue. The show of strength is the issue. As US citizens, we are a target no matter what our religous orientation or political views. Those that wish us harm will not stop to ask you what your beliefs are before they target you.

I do believe that you can be a Christian leader and still do the job that is necessary. People seem to know what is in our President's heart and mind better than he knows. I know that I do not know what is going through his mind. The basis of voting for a leader that proclaims to be a Christian is the hope that he/she will use their faith when making important decisions.

As for the other post concerning the actions of Mr. Clinton while he was in office. Of course I do not approve of his actions in the adultery, but that was not my problem with him. My problem with Mr. Clinton was the fact that he lied about it and then used the "it depends on how you define" line to justify his lies. Yes, there have been many of our President's that have had affairs while in office.


VERY well said!!

[heartlvrs]

lied under oath no less..............how could anyone believe anything he ever said again? the adultry was bad enough.......all of his supporters were stating "I don't care what he does in his personal life as long as he's a good president", I guess they didn't care about the lying under oath??? i forgot how they ever tried justifying his lying under oath
:rolleyes:


VERY well said!!

[Bubblescc]

This thread is allowed to stay open because when Katt and I decided to try to keep this site going AND make it more enjoyable, we decided on this..


i didnt know this, that is really cool, at least I think so...Thanks for letting us know!! :D

[Bubblescc]

Sorry, but where I come from, real men don't tell. That's just totally scuzzy. I don't give a crap if he was under oath or not...I don't care who asks them or why they ask them...real men don't tell....EVER.
I am sorry did you say a real man? now thats funny! :D A real man doesnt have an affair in the first place if you ask me....thats JMO of course....

[Cherbear90]

I am sorry did you say a real man? now thats funny! :D A real man doesnt have an affair in the first place if you ask me....thats JMO of course....
I AGREE!!!! A man of true character, honor, and morals doesn't get tempted to stray by any young intern that walks by flashing her thong!

[Cherbear90]

Wait, let's get back to the subject. More people have gone to war over religion than anything else. When in war men and women pray that their god is with them. Bush has a vendetta that he is carrying out. His policies have nothing to do with Christian values.

I don't like the man. I can see through most of what he is doing and why. Standards for keeping prisioners was set by the Geneva Convention. Bush should recognize those standards and not change the program to fit his needs. And that has nothing to do with Christian value.

Bush does not have a vendetta. The resolution that Hussein signed at the end of the first war states that if he does not comply with the resolution in its entirity, we reserve the right to go back to war. I think SEVENTEEN chances were enough! We need a leader to set boundaries, or these people will walk all over us. They are taught to take advantage of any and all signs of weakness.

[mesue]

Please tell me how Hussein was walking all over us, we had sanctions in place and bombed Iraq practically every other week during those years of sanctions even when Clinton was in the white house we bombed them.
See what I find strange is that people are still debating Clintons infidelity and lying about it and comparing it to a President who continually and intentionally (downing street memo) lied to get to us to go to war with a country that was of very little danger to us. You all keep pointing out Clinton's indiscretion, well yeah it was shameful, but as I recall his lie did not cost over 1600 and still counting military lives, his lie did not cost over 128,000 Iraqi civilian lives. At the time we went to war with Iraq, Hussein was less of a danger to us than he had ever been in the past. Wake up people the downing street memo proves they knew this,
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html excerpt from memo, C relates to the person who had been in the talks in Washington
(C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.)
Read the entire memo, the leak of this memo from downing street (Blairs residence and government office) is the equivalent of a leaked white house memo.
The memo clearly says intelligence reports are being fixed around the policy. The policy is to go to war with Iraq, fixing intelligence means lying.
Now think about that, that means we were lied to intentionally, they knew the real facts and lied to us to make us all think we should go to war. Why? If they knew he was of no danger to us, why? The memo even points out other countries that are more of a danger to us. If you don't agree with me do a little research on the memo, prove me wrong!
Now some of you are trying to excuse Bush by saying that condeming this war is not supporting the soldiers. Was Bush supporting the soldiers when he lied to them intentionally to start a war? Who dies fighting in a war? You can bet your sweet bippee its not politicians.
And now he is lobbying the senate not to pass an anti-torture bill and claiming to be a christian at the same time. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
We are sending some of our soldiers to jail for torturing POW's but yet have a president who lobbies the senate against an anti-torture bill, what boundaries is he setting? One day we can torture these people according to him because they don't fall under the POW status so therefore the geneva convention rules on POW treatment does not apply but yet when the pics and videos of the torture are supposed to be released they say we can't see them due to the rules of the geneva convention rules on POW treatment.
Cherbear90 in your last sentence you say, they are taught to take advantage of any and all signs of weakness. My question is, who are they?

[Cherbear90]

No adultery is not ok but it is hardly sanctioning torture and to me there is no comparison. (As to my beliefs on abortion I hardly see what that has to do with anything. I will be glad to discuss that with you in another thread if you want to start one but I see no point in doing it in this thread.)
I thought the war to take Afghanistan back from al-Quada and to hunt down Bin Laden for the attacks of 911 was justified. But at the same time I do not feel we are justified in torturing POW's from Afghanistan or anywheres else. I did not feel that Hussein was a danger to us. And all the evidence that has come out has proven me right. The downing street memo proves that many others that knew Hussein was not a danger to us and acted to hide that from us.
This thread is about a President who professes to be a christian and then acts to sanction torture and for some strange reason I and many others do not see this as the christian thing to do. Do you see it as the christian thing to do? Right now agencies that we have put our faith in over the past administrations (the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Unicef) have come forward and pointed out and reported on the torture, rape,sodomy, and murder of women and children and male detainees in the POW's camps. I for one do not see how anyone claiming to be a christian can act to sanction any form of torture. Now while Clinton did let us all down what he did can't compare to the sanction of torture and by lobbying to block this bill that is what it seems Bush is doing. IMO.
If you would like to know more about the torture here are some links be warned though these threads contain some pretty grusome reports.
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9608.htm
Now while many might point out that this is from old reports we currently have a President lobbying against an anti-torture bill.
Also in the first paragraph it is all about how the pentagon was trying to block the release of the photo's because it might show the faces of the detainees and that is against the geneva convention but wasn't it just not long ago that the government said these POW's did not receive POW status and rules of geneva convention on these prisoners did not apply. That is something I find particularly offensive about this administration, the rules only apply when it is in their best interest.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25/1339257
Pentagon Refuses to Hand Over Abu Ghraib Photos
The Defense Department is refusing to cooperate with a judicial order to release photographs and videos taken by the military at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In June, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to hand over 87 photos and four videotapes to the American Civil Liberties Union because the group had filed a Freedom Of Information Act. Bush administration attorneys have said that the release of the photos would violate the Geneva Conventions by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment. The photos are expected to show widespread torture of Iraqi detainees and even incidents where Iraqis were raped and murdered inside the U.S. run jail. Last year Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane -- it's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid."

White House Lobbies GOP Senators Not to Pass Anti-Torture Bill
Meanwhile the Washington Post reports the Bush administration is lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators to regulate the treatment of detainees held overseas. The bill would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual. According to the paper, Vice President Dick Cheney met last week with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority. One White House official said the bill would interfere with the president's ability to " protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

A sin.... is a sin..... is a sin. You can't pick and choose one over the other to suit your position. IMO...the act of abortion is torture that leads to murder, especially after the point of viability in the 2nd trimester, and Clinton, a Bible-toting Christian, never placed boundaries on that.
As for the anti-torture bill, like with most bills in Washington, there are probably parts that Bush wants amended. Let's face the facts, we aren't dealing with innocents here. They are there for a reason. I surely don't condone acts of violence against them, but we sure can't baby them and expect them to talk. Take away privileges, take away their Korans. Give rewards for cooperation, if what they say pans out that is. I have family and friends in Iraq that say it's quite a challenge to tell who is really being truthful. That brings me to another point. Thank you for the sites, BTW, but I have strong scepticism about the POWs witnessing any torturous acts. They are terrorists with one mission: bring America to its knees, so if making up wild stories will help, they will do it. As Bush has shown in the past with Abu Ghraib, any true wrong-doers will be brought to justice. I also question the credibility of certain newspapers, and other media outlets, that have a clear left-wing agenda. As we have seen resently, supposedly reliable documentation about Bush's national guard service and that downing street memo that you mentioned, have been proven entirely bogus. The downing street memo was retyped by a known liberal media person, and this same person destroyed the original.
OK, it's late and I'm tired, so I'll refer you to an interesting site that I found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159572,00.html

[mesue]

A sin.... is a sin..... is a sin. You can't pick and choose one over the other to suit your position. IMO...the act of abortion is torture that leads to murder, especially after the point of viability in the 2nd trimester, and Clinton, a Bible-toting Christian, never placed boundaries on that.
As for the anti-torture bill, like with most bills in Washington, there are probably parts that Bush wants amended. Let's face the facts, we aren't dealing with innocents here. They are there for a reason. I surely don't condone acts of violence against them, but we sure can't baby them and expect them to talk. Take away privileges, take away their Korans. Give rewards for cooperation, if what they say pans out that is. I have family and friends in Iraq that say it's quite a challenge to tell who is really being truthful. That brings me to another point. Thank you for the sites, BTW, but I have strong scepticism about the POWs witnessing any torturous acts. They are terrorists with one mission: bring America to its knees, so if making up wild stories will help, they will do it. As Bush has shown in the past with Abu Ghraib, any true wrong-doers will be brought to justice. I also question the credibility of certain newspapers, and other media outlets, that have a clear left-wing agenda. As we have seen resently, supposedly reliable documentation about Bush's national guard service and that downing street memo that you mentioned, have been proven entirely bogus. The downing street memo was retyped by a known liberal media person, and this same person destroyed the original.
OK, it's late and I'm tired, so I'll refer you to an interesting site that I found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159572,00.html

Some of those people who have talked about being tortured, the former POW's were set free because there was no valid reason to hold them, therefore let us be clear, they were not then, when they were being held terrorists nor were they afterwards, so why should they lie?

The downing street memo is not being denied by the Brits and I love how everytime something comes up the Bush administration says its the liberals. A liberal in Great Britain is not of the same political meaning as we have here. A liberal retyped it, please the downing street memo is the minutes and the discussion taking place in a meeting, a secretary typed it up and sent it around to all that was at the meeting. And before it became public it was labeled top secret and had it not been correct they had plenty of time to correct it. And again the Brits are not denying it and it was in their news months before you even heard of it here in the US.

As to the torture the 87 pics and 4 video prove it is so, lawmakers who have viewed it have found it shocking, and I hope it is soon made public because we have an Administration lobbying against an anti-torture bill.
A sin is a sin, perhaps; but the consequences of those sins are hardly the same, are they?

As for the bill, Bush is going to reject a defense bill if they put in an anti-torture bill in, there is no talk of the defense bill not being satisfactory just the anti-torture part probably the same things that already fall under the Geneva Convention anyway. What is he so afraid of? A real investigation other than the military investigating itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050721/pl_nm/arms_congress_dc
By Vicki Allen
Thu Jul 21, 7:45 PM ET
The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

[YankeeMary]

I AGREE!!!! A man of true character, honor, and morals doesn't get tempted to stray by any young intern that walks by flashing her thong!
I agree 100%, nor does a true man of character, honor and morals allow the almighty dollar to make the decisions for him or our country. The root of all evil is money.
It would be wonderful to have a man of high standards, morals and integrity run our country whether it be Republican or Democrate.

[Cherbear90]

So, everytime something comes up, the Bush administration says its the liberals.......hmmm, I do seem to recall Hillary stepping forward to defend her supposedly poor, innocent husband by stating it's nothing more than a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Everything was a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Let's be fair here. Anyway, if all you say is correct, I'm sure those in Washington (Republicans and Democrats) will take care of business, as they did with Clinton. I do believe that the Democratic party would be better off devoting more time to redefining their position on various issues to the American people and less time grasping at straws and haphazardly firing spitballs, hoping something will stick. Furthermore, Democratic talking heads, such as Howard Dean and Al Franken, are definitely not helping matters by saying they HATE Republicans. BTW....are any such talking heads Christian? Even if they aren't, I don't believe that good Christian Democrats would share such a sentiment....or would they?

[mesue]

As for the liberal thing it is said at least once a week by the republicans, they the news people are liberal thats why they are reporting these things on me, so then the public goes off on a tangent of the media is liberal and never even have the sense to wonder if the reports were true.
And like I said the Brits are not denying the memo or its validity. And I have another question you seem to feel that since a known liberal in Great Britain typed it up its no longer true ,like I said a British liberal has an entirely different meaning than here.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)
So are you saying all liberals are liars? Just because someone leans politically a certain way does not mean they are liars or going to change a document. Read the downing street memo its not written to have a liberal point of view it is the minutes of a meeting and what was said by those attending the meeting. and was around for years before it became public so had it not been correct they had ample time to correct it. The memo was sent to all who attended the meeting by the secretary.

Ok now you are comparing a democrat's comment of hating republicans (could you provide a link to this comment by Dean? I don't ever recall hearing it.) to a President claiming christianity, promoting torture and fighting against a bill that protects people from it. Do you not see the difference between these two sins, one the republicans get their feeling hurt or laugh about Dean saying this; to a President who is promoting torture where people (even children) are being brutalized and in some cases murdered?

See here is the problem the Bush Administration wraps themselves up in the flag and claim american values and freedom and all that like they own it and promote the idea the democrats are against those things. LOL and then systematically destroy those same values and freedoms. The Patriot Act now limits your freedoms, was it American values in the past to go against the geneva convention?

Anyway I find it strange that you or anyone would choose to defend anyone who is for torturing people and going against the geneva convention rules on POW treatment? Why are you doing this? And if you are for torture, how much is alright? If your child was a POW somewhere in the future how much torture is alright? Even if these people say things like those people are taught to take advantage of any signs of weakness, speaking in terms of your child, how much torture is alright? If these future enemies of ours choose to take our treatment of the POW's at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo as the model for their treatment of your child how much torture is ok? What kind of precedent are we setting here? What kind of people condone torture? Did that used to be an American value you were proud of?

[excuseme]

Carl Rove went on a spin campaign and claimed the "libs" want to embrace the enemy.

[Cherbear90]

As I stated before, if all you claim is TRUE, action will be taken in Washington, just as it has been done in the past, whether it was Clinton or any other politician. As for Dean's statement, he clearly proclaimed it in one of his broadcasted speeches, and not in a joking manner, it was clearly serious.

[mesue]

Here is a link to the Dean statement, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/30/104654.shtml
I had to find it. If you are confused by my willingness to post it and share it, let me explain. I'm not interested in defending Dean, the democrats or the republicans. My interest lies in the truth, not the spun out of control lies and innuendo that has been coming out of Washington to promote or deceive people into going in one direction or the other.
Action is taking place in Washington they the pentagon are fighting to stop the release of the photos and the video of the abuse based on the POW treatment of the Geneva Convention rules saying they can't release them due to it showing the identity of the POW's being humiliated and abused. A Judge has ordered the release of the photos and videotapes and says the identity of the POW's can be hidden from view. It is currently being fought out in the courts. If you read any of the reports I posted you don't even have to ask yourself why they are fighting it, they don't want you or I to see what has been taking place and how we the American people are being robbed of our good name and our standing in the world, of how we the American people are having our humanity stolen away by an administration that would choose to allow torture.

[tngirl]

psshaw!

Why do you harp so on the Bush administration alone. If you want so much to defend "truth" try posting some "truths" about the democrats. The only "truths" I have seen you post are those bashing Bush and Republicans and Christians. I am not saying that all of them do not have faults, but hey, they aren't the only ones you know?

By the way, about your original post in this thread. Try reading Psalms and about David. David was a man of war and he was an apple in God's eye. Maybe if you do some independent reading you might find the "truths" you are seeking.

[janelle]

If you will remember what happened when the last photos were released then you will know why the administration is sitting on these. Many innocent people where slautered by the Taliban. Do you want that to happen again?

Let the higher ups handle it and no one but those in charge of bringing charges and trying the parties responsible should see the photos. It's not like anyone is going to be set free.

If you saw pictures in WWII you would be shocked as well. We all know war is hell but I can assure you one side starts it and if they are let loose we will all in America know what hell really is. Think about that and if you want it brought over here into our streets then you will get your wish.

Newsweek got lots of innocent people killed by releasing a stroy about the Koran flushing and it was just a surmised story. We are dealing with people who KILL when these things happen. I know you don't think much about Christians but at least we do not kill when our bible is flushed and burned and shredded and jammed down a hole. No one wants to make this a holy war but you are the first to bring religion into it. Bush has not spoken about religion since the first days but the liberals will not let it go away. Yes, the Taliban are in a holy war, read their speeches. We just get tired of liberals stirring things up and making it harder for Americans.

So if you want to see more innocents being slautered (and you keep talking about innocents being killed), than lobby for the pictures being released to the world. GEESH.

[mesue]

tngirl I stand by what I said and did you not notice the link to Deans statement who is a democrat? BTW it is not just democrats wanting this anti-torture bill passed there are many republicans for it passing as well, the article I posted named three, one of them John McCain a former POW himself.

Janelle I never said I had anything against true christians, when did I say that I did not think much of christians as you put it?

As to war Janelle what is going on right now is making the US seen as the bad guy all over the world, we rate lower than China, in Europe.

As for my being the first to bring religion into this war, please, obviously you have not been listening to your President. You know that guy who claims he is a christian but yet is against an anti-torture bill. Since when are true christians for torture?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1458234&mode=thread&tid=25

[janelle]

Should the US be afraid of what the world thinks of us when we go to war? Should we be afraid of France? They have terrorists problems too. But we are willing to fight for their rights too.

Read the article I just posted about Afganistan and the supressed freedoms they have and then tell me you don't care if our country loses the freedoms we have.

Ok, we don't fight a fair war. Explain what that is. Let the Taliban take us over???

[janelle]

You keep posting democracynow and I put on rushlimbaugh. You say you will not listen to him so should I listen to democracynow?

[tngirl]

get 'em janelle...lol.

once again mesue....check out psalms.

oh yeah....and mccain doesn't count as a republican

[mesue]

You keep posting democracynow and I put on rushlimbaugh. You say you will not listen to him so should I listen to democracynow?

Democracy Now is a news broadcast on radio and on what is called free speech tv (it is totally funded by viewers they do not receive any money from corporations at all and they do not receive any funding from the government) the news show is done by an award winning journalist Amy Goodman. She goes after the issues and reports things you want see on corporate funded new media, and if you do its usually two or three days or weeks later. Their news broadcast simply reports the news, it is not biased. Rush Limbaugh is a pundit for the republican party and a drug addicted buffoon, need I say more.

You keep saying if we don't go after the terrorist they are going to come here, I agreed with going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden but then Bush could not find him and went and took money and troops from that effort to go after Hussein, read the downing street memo it clearly says they knew he was not much of a threat and they were fixing the intelligence to fit the policy and it listed others who were far more of a danger to us than Iraq. Right now part of our National Guard is in Iraq leaving us even more vulnerable. And we still have not gotten Bin Laden the one really responsible for 911. Iraq was for oil nothing more and the war itself is making us more vulnerable to attack and only creating more terrorists.

Speaking of the war on terrorism the Bush Administration changed that term from War on Terrorism to "Struggle Against Extremism". Please tell me Janelle how our going into Iraq is protecting us or stopping terrorism. So far as I know they have never made any attempt to attack us here on US soil. Also not one word about the saudi's let us not forget that 15 of the nineteen terrorists from 911 were Saudis. But did you see any investigation into why these saudis would choose to attack us or if the Saudi government had anything to do with it? Is that not crazy?
Bush himself on the Today show admitted the war on terrorism can't be won, then retracted that statement, and now he is changing the name of the effort.
Also Janelle how is torturing prisoners keeping you or I safe. Most experienced people will tell you that any information gathered that way is usually not reliable at all. And lastly again how can any true christian agree with torturing anyone?

[mesue]

get 'em janelle...lol.

once again mesue....check out psalms.

oh yeah....and mccain doesn't count as a republican

And why does McCain not count as a republican?

[tngirl]

And why does McCain not count as a republican?

mccain is more democrat than republican....do you really have to ask?

[mesue]

Yes since he is a registered republican I really have to ask, and so what bills has he voted for or against that makes you think he is more democrat or is it just that he sometimes disagrees with Bush?

[latestdish]

Hmm, I am both a registered Democrat and a Christian. I guess that makes me...well just me. It makes me an independent unique thinker, who happens to disagree with you, but respects your right to your opinion. OP, please do not lump all Christians together. What I personally would like saved from is the assumption that "all" people of any religion Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc, happen to think alike on any issue. Also, I am a *proud* Christian and Democrat. I am proud to support our soliders as well. I don't happen to agree with some of Bush's policies, either. However, I prefer friendly debate over specific issues or tenets of my beliefs, because that way we are more likely to learn from one another or understand or own beliefs more strongly when we understand the other side of an issue. :) Thanks for listening.

[tngirl]

thank you for your post. now that is what i am talking about...friendly debate is fun and informative. i am a registered repbulican, but that does not make me a democrat hater. there are plenty of people that are democrats that i respect. so far the only people that the OP can quote are the far left of each party. i am republican because i do not have "far left" ideas. i believe in my heart and soul that those ideas go totally against christianity, first off. i know there are democrats out there that have the same basic beliefs as myself.

[excuseme]

Do you feel we should have a christian-based government? Christian-based rules of law?


thank you for your post. now that is what i am talking about...friendly debate is fun and informative. i am a registered repbulican, but that does not make me a democrat hater. there are plenty of people that are democrats that i respect. so far the only people that the OP can quote are the far left of each party. i am republican because i do not have "far left" ideas. i believe in my heart and soul that those ideas go totally against christianity, first off. i know there are democrats out there that have the same basic beliefs as myself.

[mesue]

Hmm, I am both a registered Democrat and a Christian. I guess that makes me...well just me. It makes me an independent unique thinker, who happens to disagree with you, but respects your right to your opinion. OP, please do not lump all Christians together. What I personally would like saved from is the assumption that "all" people of any religion Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc, happen to think alike on any issue. Also, I am a *proud* Christian and Democrat. I am proud to support our soliders as well. I don't happen to agree with some of Bush's policies, either. However, I prefer friendly debate over specific issues or tenets of my beliefs, because that way we are more likely to learn from one another or understand or own beliefs more strongly when we understand the other side of an issue. :) Thanks for listening.

You can read my explanation for the term "those christians" on page 2 of this thread.

[mesue]

thank you for your post. now that is what i am talking about...friendly debate is fun and informative. i am a registered repbulican, but that does not make me a democrat hater. there are plenty of people that are democrats that i respect. so far the only people that the OP can quote are the far left of each party. i am republican because i do not have "far left" ideas. i believe in my heart and soul that those ideas go totally against christianity, first off. i know there are democrats out there that have the same basic beliefs as myself.

I don't think I have only quoted the extremists, unless you mean Bush, Falwell and Robertson extremists, (well maybe you are right)I have not listed one link to FOX. LOL Who would you have me quote? Tell me one well known christian leader who has stepped forward and said that torture is wrong and that they do not support Bush for fighting this anti-torture bill. I personally find that sickening, that these men of God will not stand up for what is right.

You keep debating the issue but have not one time said how you feel about the torture of POWs?

[Cessie]

Tell me one well known christian leader who has stepped forward and said that torture is wrong

Actually Catholic hierarchy, including Pope John Paul II have spoken out loud and clear against it. For some reason the American faithful have chosen to ignore their view, a fact that does not go unnoticed in Europe. Vatican radio continues to denounce the torture and the war.

Interesting views from some of our own Cardinals/Bishops

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/Catholics-Should-Not-Be-Conflicted-On-Issue-Of-Torture-by-Paul-Likoudis.cfm

[llbriteyes]

No.

Linda





Do you feel we should have a christian-based government? Christian-based rules of law?