65-34

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 passed, 65-34:

The Senate today passed a bill, backed by the White House, that sets the rules for interrogating and prosecuting detainees in the war on terrorism, allowing the CIA to continue a formerly secret program to extract information from key suspected terrorists and establishing special military tribunals to try them.

The bill, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by a vote of 65 to 34 after senators rejected four amendments supported mostly by Democrats.

The bill is nearly identical to a bill passed yesterday by the House, which will vote on adopting the Senate language Friday.

That was the whole ball of wax. And in case you are still buying the spin that this is about terrorism, let Red State set you straight:

When the chips are down, Democrats will unite against the rigorous prosecution of the Global War on Terror. I’m afraid in this fight, there is no such thing as a “good” Democrat, and this is serious food for thought going into November.

They don’t even pretend or wink when they write this shit anymore.

At any rate, it is over until there is a change in Washington. I don’t know how much damage has been done, but I speculate a great deal. Hopefully I will be as wrong about the possible damage as I have been about the Republican Party these last few years.

93 replies
  1. 1
    Sojourner says:

    Anyone seen a list of which Dems voted for it?

  2. 2
    capelza says:

    Carper (Del.)
    Johnson (S.D.)
    Landrieu (La.)
    Lautenberg (N.J.)
    Lieberman (Conn.)
    Menendez (N.J)
    Pryor (Ark.)
    Rockefeller (W. Va.)
    Salazar (Co.)
    Stabenow (Mich.)
    Nelson (Fla.)
    Nelson (Neb.)

    from a post at Kos

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Mr Woodward also discloses that Mr Bush is having regular meetings with Henry Kissinger, who was President Nixon’s Secretary of State. “Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.”

    London Times.

    Not to worry. We are going to relive the 70’s now.

    Henry the K will get to the bottom of our limp-wristed deficiencies and give us some policy Viagra to stiffen our resolve against terrorism. The bill you all are so upset about is just a necessary step in that direction.

    We need the tools to fight these terrorists.

    No, I don’t mean “tools” in the sense of Darrell and McBuckets, I mean tools as in weapons we can use against these fiends.

  4. 4

    See a tongue-in-cheek visual of the Grand Opening of “Tortureland”…here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  5. 5
    Sojourner says:

    Thanks. Now I’m really depressed. The Dems really are morally bankrupt.

  6. 6
    capelza says:

    Chaffee grew a pair!

    Jeffords also voted against it, too.

    And 34 Dems did not vote for it…Rockefeller shocked me by doing so. John has a local Senator he can thoroughly ream…

  7. 7
    CaseyL says:

    So.

    Anyone at all can be disappeared forever, and no one will never know what happened to them.

    Y’know, even the goddamn USSR at least bothered to put on show trials.

    Fuck.

    Just… fuck.

  8. 8
    KC says:

    Wow. I think this bill will be a blot on our nation for a long time to come. Yeah, I’m mad at the Dems for not standing up sooner and demanding better. They look pathetic and weak as usual. However, I reserve a good portion of my anger for the three phonies who allowed this piece of trash to move forward. Tough-guy McCain, standup guy Warner, and ah-shucks Graham, are phonies. No way around it, just phonies. They suckered the press for a week, but backed down when things really counted. Then, when the bill was altered overnight during the weekend, they did nothing but praise their worthless “compromise”. McCain, Graham, Warner–phonies, the lot of ’em.

    The rest of my anger, most of it, is focused on the “small government” party I used to vote for all the time. Really, it has become a sick joke. A very very sick joke. I mean, to pass a bill giving the president the authority to detain anyone he deems an enemy combatant, with no exceptions for American citizens . . . I really can’t get my head around it. I mean, this is getting pretty damned close to the height of BIG GOVERNMENT. Other than authorizing the president to spy on American citizens without just cause, it’s tough to get bigger than this.

    If we’re lucky, the Supreme Court will do its constitutional duty and ensure that American citizens will be shielded from the effects of this law. Maybe if the Dems take over, we can take another look at it too. For now though, I’m just angry.

  9. 9
    neil says:

    At least Byrd acquitted himself well, eh? Sorry for all those KKK cracks yet?

  10. 10

    Lautenberg?! He’s from one of the bluest states in the nation–why would he feel the need to vote for this? It’s only going to cost him votes.

    AND MENENDEZ? What is going on? I can’t believe he thinks caving to the Republicans on this is going to help with his race against Kean Jr. How idiotic.

  11. 11
    KC says:

    Justin Slotman,

    People running scared. People running scared. Doesn’t it suck?

  12. 12
    John Cole says:

    Lautenberg is so senile there is a good chance he thought he was voting for the amendment.

    Betcha you guys are re-thinking the shenanigans to get him on the ballot right about now.

  13. 13

    I mean, Lautenberg throwing in his vote to cover for Menendez, I get. But Menendez….if you’re in a tough race in a state that generally hates Republicans–and especially the President–why is it a good idea to cave on their torture bill? You have your commerical all set up: “Tom Kean, Junior, voted for George Bush’s torture bill. And now he wants your vote.” But now you don’t have that!

  14. 14
    neil says:

    I still think that the silver lining here is that the Democrats are going to try to use this politically against the Republicans. I can’t prove it, but it seems like good strategy as well as the ONLY right thing to do.

  15. 15

    John, I am almost as done with New Jersey Democrats as you are with national Republicans. The trouble is around here (in Jersey) the Republicans are about as credible as one of those Singapore opposition parties. Which is sort of where the Democrats are headed on a national scale…..

  16. 16
    neil says:

    John, if Lautenberg had been replaced by a Republican, that Republican would’ve voted for torture and against _habeas_ as well. He brings us one vote closer to taking the levers of power away from these maniacs.

  17. 17
    neil says:

    Although I should say that other than that, I can take and leave him. My opinion is that the Democrats would need a lot more than 5 seats to actually take back the Senate.

    I think tomorrow it will be a little clearer to everyone why we hate Lieberman so much.

  18. 18
    neil says:

    I can take and leave him? gah. I _could_ take _or_ leave him.

  19. 19
    Pb says:

    John, if Lautenberg had been replaced by a Republican, that Republican would’ve voted for torture and against habeas as well.

    Oh, well then, I guess it’s not so bad, eh?

    Fuck that. Vote them out, all of them, all of the fucking torture apologists in there.

  20. 20
    KC says:

    Gawd, I used to vote Republican. Maybe not straight ticket, but a lot. I saw the way things were headed when Bush used 911 to issue an executive order to emasculate the Presidential Records Act, a law I know a lot about and a law I knew he was lying about. But, the war in Iraq really did me in and sometime in 2003 or 2004 I became a Democrat. Today officially seals the deal for me and the Republican Party though. I cannot see me ever voting Republican again at the national level for a very very long time. It truly is the party of authortarianism, and of rank, foul, political opportunism. I remember all the arguments I had with liberals in college and feel like an idiot now. I guess I should.

  21. 21
    Walker says:

    Not to worry. We are going to relive the 70’s now.

    You have no idea how right you are. I looks like the mother of all recessions is about to come hit us. It is going to be very, very interesting to see who gets blamed for this.

    On the bright side, when a few more hedge funds collapse like Amaranth (and you better believe it with all the subprime MBSs they are holding), we might actually see the return of real conservatives.

  22. 22
    Tsulagi says:

    Over at Red State, they even title it “A Moment of Clarity.” I would say that takes balls, but clearly they have none.

    I used to say when will, but now I’ll just hope for the possibility. Is there any chance in hell these retardocon idiots will grasp that it takes far more spine and courage to defend the Constitution and what this country has stood for than it does to casually toss it away? And for what? For a retarded, scared preppy-school cheerleader and the opportunity to talk tough with their cool guys like Hannity and Geraldo.

  23. 23
    Richard 23 says:

    I mean, to pass a bill giving the president the authority to detain anyone he deems an enemy combatant, with no exceptions for American citizens . . . I really can’t get my head around it.

    Aye, now there’s the rub, you enemy combatant. You don’t deserve habeas corpus. You’re too dangerous.

    If we’re lucky, the Supreme Court will do its constitutional duty and ensure that American citizens will be shielded from the effects of this law. Maybe if the Dems take over, we can take another look at it too. For now though, I’m just angry.

    Well, you’ve apparently given this thing some thought. Now, who the hell is going to get standing if they don’t have the right to air their grievences in court. Even if they could it’ll be a year or two before such a case winds its way to the Supreme Court. A lot of damage can be done in two years, as we’ve already seen. And if John Paul Stevens is replaced by a Scalia or Thomas clone in the meantime, well you do the math. What a great day for America!

    As far as the Dems being able to do anything about it if they take the house, yeah right! Do you think they’ll get sufficient numbers to override a Presidental veto? No? Is there a sunset clause on this abortion of a bill? No? Well, fuckety fuckety fuck.

  24. 24

    I’ve got to say, beer was a surprisingly good idea right about now. I strenuously urge all of you to drink at least one beer in the next 20-30 minutes.

    The only other thing I have to add to this conversation is, Fuck. I guess Abu Ghraib’s pretty much okay with 51% of America.

  25. 25
    Richard 23 says:

    Steel Reserve, bitches! I started drinking when the vote was going badly. Mmmmm, cheap beer.

  26. 26

    Tonight’s the night to put one o’ them brass monkey contraptions together, Richard. Remember what we talked about.

    I’m pretty sure the Beastie Boys are bummed out about all this, too.

  27. 27
    Pb says:

    Good call. I definitely need another drink.

  28. 28
    KC says:

    Shit, all I got to drink is Coors Light. But I’m definitely joining you guys.

    On the lighter side of things, sort of, anyone hear the one about the moral crusader Congressman who was hitting on a 16 year old male page?

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    I’ve gone from beer (Heineken) to malt liquor (Mike’s Hard Crisp Apple).

  30. 30
    Richard 23 says:

    Brass monkey! Makes my vomit chunky! But then so does fascism.

    Hey, where are our resident authoritarians? I was expecting them to be in here bwahahaha-ing about how great it is that the spineless dems didn’t stop the president from being able to question suspects.

    The silence is odd. Maybe they’re furiously masturbating to their S&M magazines (Republican Monthly, etc).

  31. 31
    Pb says:

    anyone hear the one about the moral crusader Congressman who was hitting on a 16 year old male page?

    That is definitely creepy, at the least. I was just waiting for him to say “A/S/L?”

  32. 32
    John Cole says:

    KC- I am calling bullshit on that. If asking someone what they like to do, what they want for their birthday, and stuff like that is ‘hitting’ on people, then I have a shit load of explaining to do myself for the way I talked with my employees.

    What is in that link, by itself, looks wholly innocent to me.

  33. 33
    CaseyL says:

    Getting blind drunk sounds awfully good.

    But tomorrow I’d just be sobering up in the same fucking wreckage of a country that I got drunk in tonight.

  34. 34
    Pb says:

    Richard 23,

    They’re probably busy arguing over which ‘liberal seditionists’ should be ‘extraordinarily rendered’ and ‘aggressively interrogated’ first. You know, to ‘preserve our freedom’ and ‘to save America’ and all that.

  35. 35
    Richard 23 says:

    Yeah, KC, I saw that over at AmericaBlog. I liked the repsonse of the 16 year old boy to the request for a photo of himself from Rep Mark Foley (R-FL):

    In another Foley writes, “how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…”

    The page forwarded that e-mail to a congressional staffer saying it was “sick sick sick sick sick.”

    Exactly.

  36. 36
    Pb says:

    John Cole,

    At first I figured they were just quoting innocent things out of context, but no, looking at the .pdf files, those are pretty much verbatim. And creepy, I can see why that might have set the kid off. Nothing like what O’Reilly might say over the phone, but still creepy.

  37. 37
    Steve says:

    Lautenberg is so senile there is a good chance he thought he was voting for the amendment.

    Betcha you guys are re-thinking the shenanigans to get him on the ballot right about now.

    The guy is a World War II vet, for Chrissakes. Show him a little more respect. Heck, I even show respect for Sam Johnson, one of the wingnuttiest of them all.

    I won’t even try to guess the deal behind this vote, though. He’s normally one of the best liberals in the Senate.

  38. 38
    jill says:

    The Supreme Court will blast this down…unless of course the twisted torture-loving, self-pardoning liar gets another SC nominee.

  39. 39
    Richard 23 says:

    KC- I am calling bullshit on that.

    Well do as you must. I don’t envision you making a front page post about it though. Send me a picture of yourself. You’ve got my email. How old are you? Are you hunky? This request is perfectly innocent by the way. If you don’t I’ll stick a severed deer head in your mailbox. LOL.

    omfg. j/k!

  40. 40
    Tulkinghorn says:

    If this means rebellion, let us make the most of it.

  41. 41
    KC says:

    John, I guess maybe I did jump to conclusions. That said, the page was clearly pretty uncomfortable with what was going down.

  42. 42
    Pb says:

    I say we dump their tea in the harbor.

  43. 43
    Richard 23 says:

    The Supreme Court will blast this down…unless of course the twisted torture-loving, self-pardoning liar gets another SC nominee.

    Yeah Jill, but how long will that take? How can an alleged accused “illegal combatant” get standing? Especially if they are whisked away to a secret prison where they get cellophane over the face and water in the nose? Hang on Justice Stevens.

  44. 44
    jill says:

    My 67 year old father says that we are living in the scariest time of his life…and he’s not talking about the fear of terrorists. Once rights are taken away it is very difficult to get them back.

  45. 45
    CaseyL says:

    Justice Stevens needs a taster. And maybe an armed guard.

    Though, you know, once Bush signs his Open Season on Anyone I Don’t Like bill into law, he can decide that any SCOTUS Justice who votes to throw the law out is de facto “materially aiding terrorism.”

    What happens then, I wonder.

    (No, I don’t wonder; not really. I know exactly what we’re in for.)

  46. 46
    Richard 23 says:

    Hmmmm, DougJ may have to reconsider his position on Don Surber:

    How do I know the anti-terrorism bill is good?

    … the New York Times opposes it.

    Buckle up.

    Undoubtedly, the editorial board of the Times is sincere in believing this is a terrible bill. It could be. But having called Wolf! repeatedly when it comes to civil liberties, the Times and its buddies have no credibility.

    Oh, that’s the problem. The NYT. Not the substance of this un-American shitstain of a bill, soon to be signed into Law.

    The reason this bill is popular is that it is necessary. The reason people who vote against it will be portrayed as Fifth Columnists is that for five years now, Americans have been hearing how their civil liberties are under worse attack than anything Osama bin Laden has thrown at us.

    Well, duh, Don. Osama has no power to shred the Constitution and our unalienable rights. Only our government has that power.

    Being at war is not a justification for anything. But dissenters are no more expert on the Constitution than anyone else. Had the Times and others selected their fights more carefully, they might have a higher standing today.

    Put a fork in him, he’s done.

  47. 47
    KC says:

    It may be a scary time, Jill, but the question is, is it scary enough that people will kick the GOP out of office?

  48. 48
    Richard 23 says:

    Sorry, I left out the Don Surber link.

    Once rights are taken away it is very difficult to get them back.

    Jill, I think the word you’re searching for is impossible, alcohol prohibition notwithstanding.

  49. 49
    Pb says:

    Richard 23,

    IIRC, DougJ’s opinion of Don Surber is that he’s an honest conservative. Unfortunately, (IMO) Don Surber is also a crazy person. But at least he’s honest about it!

  50. 50
    jill says:

    Richard 23,

    I was just trying to be a little optimistic, but you are right, it will be impossible. Can’t we make a citizen’s arrest of the pResident?

  51. 51
    Pb says:

    KC,

    Perhaps the real question is, will America notice?

    Take a look at this bullshit: The smart politics of the detainee vote.

    What a crock. Apparently some of our politicians and the media have stopped trying to actually read or analyze what our bills might do, and just guess or assume instead. And incidentally, Menendez gives his reasoning too:

    “In view of the fact that the (Supreme) Court has ruled the existing process unconstitutional, it leaves us without anything. It seems to me while it is not the bill I wanted — as evidenced by the way I voted on the amendments — I think there has to be a process in place. I wouldn’t want those who have committed acts of terrorism to ultimately find the ability to be free by virtue of a lack of a (tribunal) process.”

    Remind me again why they couldn’t be tried elsewhere? Because Bush says so, and you believed him? That is to say, are you a fool, or are you just going senile? Can you think back to the first World Trade Center bombing? Did we have this law then? No? Then how the hell did we deal with it? For that matter, how could we possibly have gotten through Vietnam or World War II?

    Somehow we managed. And we did it all without ceding our basic freedoms that make us all Americans. You traitors.

  52. 52

    Shee-oot, Menendez sucks. If there weren’t national implications for a Kean victory I’d be voting for the local Marijuana Party candidate.

  53. 53
    jill says:

    In the future, when history shows that Bush’s policies were detrimental to the US, will we be able to detain Bush indefinitely for these heinous acts against our country? Osama bin Laden is still free with or without this legislation and that is the real crime.

  54. 54
    Proud Liberal says:

    I fear for my country.

  55. 55
    mds says:

    Wow. In considering possibilities for the “five” Democratic senators who would oppose a filibuster, I managed to name seven of the senators who voted for the actual bill. No wonder Senator Feingold or Durbin didn’t ride to the rescue; how bad would an authentic cloture vote have been?

    Now, of course, I consider the only hope to be the election of more Democratic senators like the 32 who voted against this. Alternatively, one could elect more Republican senators like the one who voted against this, but I’d say that illustrates pretty clearly which party is closer to complete moral bankruptcy.

  56. 56
    Steve says:

    IIRC, DougJ’s opinion of Don Surber is that he’s an honest conservative.

    Yes, but he illustrates perfectly the principles of the “honest conservative” today, which is that “anything the liberals are for, I’m against.” You can’t tell me they all woke up one morning and independently decided it was important to exterminate the spotted owl.

  57. 57
    Richard 23 says:

    Hopefully Lionel will be talking about this tonight. He’s pretty entertaining for a libertarian (left in today’s climate). He dislikes Bush and his sycophants and hates Nancy Grace.

    Why not give him a try if you’re bored? Windows Media stream.

    See also Lionel Online.

    He’s a talkshow host who used to be a chronic Lassiter caller. If you don’t know who Bob Lassier was, you should find out. Entertaining king of talk radio in the eighties and nineties.

  58. 58
    Richard 23 says:

    Sorry: details. Lionel is on in a couple of minutes, actually it just started. It’s a fun show if you’re into talk radio at all. He’s on a mostly rightie station and he loves taking neanderthal calls.

  59. 59
    Pb says:

    mds,

    I’ve concluded that some of those Senators probably just don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, period, and are in fact unqualified to be there in the first place. But I guess that should come as no surprise, seeing as how that goes for practically all of the Republicans too.

  60. 60
    Pb says:

    Richard 23,

    Thanks, I’m checking it out… talking about the war atm…

  61. 61
    Richard Bottoms says:

    What is in that link, by itself, looks wholly innocent to me.

    I won’t go into Oprah-like details but let’s just say I know when my predator dectctor goes off. No 50 year old man talks like that to a 16-year old unless he is a chickenhawk (the old meaning) doing a little prospecting.

    In San Francisco I am surrounded by gay men who trip me out not at all, but I still remember that creepy feeling that a supossedly straight married guy on the downlow can give a good looking teen.

  62. 62
    t. jasper parnell says:

    It just gets worse and worse

  63. 63
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Sure, she talks a good game, but the Clinton woman rhymes with twitch.

  64. 64
    jill says:

    And Bush is a pussy.

  65. 65
    Inactivist says:

    “History will judge our actions here today.”

    Well, well, well. The George Bush and All of His Successors May Torture and Lock Up Anyone They Want Act has been passed.
    John Hinderaker is at his usual putrid, GOP-whoring:

  66. 66
    Richard 23 says:

    Hmmm, still wondering about Darrell, Par R, Mac Buckets, scs, Stormy70, Sherard, even Keefer. Is this a victory, or what?

  67. 67
    KC says:

    I read the Senate version of the bill just now. I’m not an attorney so I may not be straight on everything, but I’ll tell you what, it looks like a mess. At first glance the bill appears not to affect American citizens; however, that’s just at first glance. The bill’s enough of a mess that I think any decent John Yoo type could easily find a way to lock any citizen they want to up.

    It also looks to me like the Secretary of Defense is going to have pretty free reign to design these tribunals however he wants to. I guess positive aspect of this that Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld!!!???) is required to submit the procedures for military tribunals to the the House and Senate Armed Services Committees 90 days after the passage of the law. Additionally, the bill also requires the President to do the following:

    (3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT- (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

    (B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

    (C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (as to non-grave breach provisions of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

    McCain keeps saying that this requires the President to list the preferred interrogation techniques in the Federal Register. However, I don’t see that. Does anyone else?

  68. 68
    Pb says:

    Richard 23,

    They’re probably all busily trying to call in to the Lionel Show. In fact, we’ve probably heard Sherard and Keefer already…

  69. 69
    Richard 23 says:

    The bill’s enough of a mess that I think any decent John Yoo type could easily find a way to lock any citizen they want to up.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

    They’re probably all busily trying to call in to the Lionel Show. In fact, we’ve probably heard Sherard and Keefer already…

    Haha! Yeah, right. Only if mommy dialled for them!

  70. 70
    jaime says:

    I am calling bullshit on that. If asking someone what they like to do, what they want for their birthday, and stuff like that is ‘hitting’ on people, then I have a shit load of explaining to do myself for the way I talked with my employees

    Yeah. A professional request of a Congressman responded to via personal email and asking for a photo NOTHING wrong with that. Talking about how sexy his underage friend is and how he works out, too NOTHING wrong with that.

  71. 71
    Richard 23 says:

    Caller: President Bush is the greatest president of my generation!
    Lionel: How old are you, ten?

    Hahaha!

  72. 72
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Sure, pick on the administration but when they do go after gross corruption some liberal Dumbocrat activist judge gets all “consitutional” on them

  73. 73
    Pb says:

    President Bush is the greatest President of the 21st Century. To date. Sadly.

  74. 74
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    President George W. Bush’s “I stood tall for torture” stand is an inspiration to Americans everywhere.

    Maybe it’s time for America to scrap the bald eagle as our national emblem and replace it with a pair of jumper cables.

    Bet a lot of “conservatives” would get a charge out of that one!

  75. 75
    Pb says:

    Paddy O’Shea,

    I think their most well-known symbol is now this guy.

  76. 76
    Barrasso says:

    Well I skipped the beer and went straight to scotch. I would call this wiping their asses with the constitution, but it goes way past that, they have tied up the constitution and are doing a diarrhea bukkake all over it and calling it good for the people.

  77. 77
    EL says:

    Yeah. A professional request of a Congressman responded to via personal email and asking for a photo NOTHING wrong with that. Talking about how sexy his underage friend is and how he works out, too NOTHING wrong with that.

    With the details that the emails came from the congressman’s personal email account, and that the page in question did not actually work for that congressman. No, nothing wrong with that…

  78. 78
    Richard 23 says:

    Nothing says GOP like electrodes to the nuts.

  79. 79
    fwiffo says:

    God this is depressing. I can’t believe how many Dems actually ended up voting for it, let alone sided against a fillibuster. Stabenow and Menendez seem to want to spend more time with their families, since they’re telling Democrats to stay home. Even if Democrats won all the close Senate races, and all the freshman voted nay, there would be a majority of Senators voting for this stupid bill!*

    And even that much is far from guranteed. Webb, Tester and Lamont would definately be nay, but Serrod Brown and Ford both voted aye in the House. Casey seems to be well to the right of Joe Lieberman, so I’d have to imagine he’d vote for it, then ask what forms of torture we can legalize next.

    What makes this espescially hard to understand is that Dems successfully deep-sixed the Patriot Act renewal, which while bad, wasn’t as bad as this bill.

    * Though if there was a Democratic majority, this bill never would have happened. So, don’t use this as an excuse not to vote.

  80. 80
    Richard Bottoms says:

    No, nothing wrong with that…

    I understand most folks can’t concieve of the mindset that these people have. It’d be healthier if they were straight out gay. When I was a bike messenger in the city I got my share of propsitions, but getting hit on openly was flattering.

    No, it’s the creepy vibe of the married old queen who desires young flesh that made me ill, the memory still does.

    Foley is toast.

  81. 81
    EL says:

    If asking someone what they like to do, what they want for their birthday, and stuff like that is ‘hitting’ on people, then I have a shit load of explaining to do myself for the way I talked with my employees.

    What is in that link, by itself, looks wholly innocent to me.

    John, I would say it’s all in the context. This page was NOT Foley’s page. It sounds like they had very limited contact. Foley says the page gave him a hand written thank-you note. Fair enough. However, I’d guess (but don’t know) that any page wanting to enter government service is going to try to make contacts and hope that those with jobs to give will remember him. If this is the case, such gestures shouldn’t be taken as invitations.

    Bottom line is that when someone much older and in a more powerful position, with whom you have very limited contact, starts emailing and offering presents, it’s extremely creepy. I know I’ve felt that way with a male/female situation.

    As to the picture, while I can see it might be standard to ask for pictures of those who work for him, why would he want a picture of a page that didn’t work for him? And if even that could be said to be standard, how much would you like to bet that it’s normally a congressional staffer that collects the pictures, not the congressman himself?

  82. 82
    matt says:

    It’s so damn ironic and frustrating that it’s always, always! good, loyal patriots like those at Red State who end up ruining societies by basically being the opposite of what they think they’re being. Hasn’t this been happening since, like, the beginning of time?

    It’s mind-boggling how shortsighted people are, even those who make the argument: “What if Hillary becomes President, would you like her having this power?” Are you kidding me? What about the President after Hillary, or the five after that one, or the twentieth after that?

    No, George Bush nor Hillary Clinton are the next Hitler, but you know what? One day this country will elect that person, and they’ll be able to do anything they want by then, forget about torture.

  83. 83
    matt says:

    Apologies to all for my last post, I think it’s poorly written (I blame the depression), but hopefully my point got through.

    As a side note, politicians of all stripes are supposedly obsessed with their legacies and how history will judge them, but you sure wouldn’t know it from votes like this.

  84. 84
    t. jasper parnell says:

    It is not called irony because his shirt isn’t wrinkled

    Today, on United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture. The non-negotiable demands of human dignity must be protected without reference to race, gender, creed, or nationality. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

  85. 85
    capelza says:

    That is about the sickest thing I think I have ever read from the fuckinh asshole in charge, jasper.

    This part is especially “hilarious”:

    To help fulfill this commitment, the United States has joined 135 other nations in ratifying the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. America stands against and will not tolerate torture. We will investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction. American personnel are required to comply with all U.S. laws, including the United States Constitution, Federal statutes, including statutes prohibiting torture, and our treaty obligations with respect to the treatment of all detainees.

    ….

    The American people were horrified by the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These acts were wrong. They were inconsistent with our policies and our values as a Nation. I have directed a full accounting for the abuse of the Abu Ghraib detainees, and investigations are underway to review detention operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

  86. 86
    jill says:

    PB…GWB is also the worst pResident of the 21st century.

  87. 87
    MaryS-NJ says:

    Justin: AND MENENDEZ? What is going on? I can’t believe he thinks caving to the Republicans on this is going to help with his race against Kean Jr. How idiotic.

    I wrote to both Menedez and Lautenberg to express my utter disgust with both of them for caving in the fear-mongering. I’ve been uneasy with Menendez anyway but would have held my nose and voted for him in November – until his vote yesterday. He’s lost what little remaining confidence I had in him and he’s lost my vote. I won’t vote for Junior either, but I’ll abstain from the Senatorial race this year or cast a protest vote. I just can’t in good conscience vote for a candidate who would vote to legitimize torture.

    Thank goodness for Rush Holt or I would have no reason to vote at all.

  88. 88

    I heard someone say, oh 20 years ago, that the Republicans were the American equivalent of Mussolini’s fascist party. Not quite as bad as the Nazis, but certainly the Republicans would fit nicely with a guy like Mussolini. And he was right, and more and more so by the day.

    This was before all the internet talk about how it’s uncool to use the Nazi reference.

    Look, the Republicans are fascists. The Bush Family has the better part of a century’s history cozying up to fascists from WWII Europe, post-WWII Latin America and anywhere else in the world where you can find oil. The Republicans use the same tools (fear, shouting down the opposition) to get what they want (more wealth, more control over the population).

    What are the Democrats? They are pretty much the equivalent of whatever the Social Democrat opposition was in Italy in the 20s and 30s. The old rules of democracy are being subverted. People who speak out will be shamed, misquoted, will have their characters assassinated (you can’t get away with shooting the opposition down like dogs anymore). Think of the worst thing you have ever done, what would bring shame on you and your family, and imagine it being misreported over and over, thought traitor. Welcome to the working week.

  89. 89
    Anderson says:

    Hopefully I will be as wrong about the possible damage as I have been about the Republican Party these last few years.

    You know what? God bless you, Cole. Because, looking at the Dems the past week or so, I’ve felt a little of what you must’ve felt about the Republicans.

  90. 90
    neil says:

    Bob in Pacifica, I think that’s the wrong conclusion to draw. 35 Democratic senators acquitted themselves honorably yesterday. Some of their Democratic colleages did not.

    You can’t fault those Democratic senators for not having numbered 41. You can only fault the senators who didn’t join them.

    We need to expand the numbers of true elected Democrats, not lie and say that the true Democrats are as craven as the fake ones. There is only one way to punish the architects of yesterday’s catastrophe and that is to elect more Democrats. And beat Joe Lieberman.

  91. 91
    Zifnab says:

    No, George Bush nor Hillary Clinton are the next Hitler, but you know what? One day this country will elect that person, and they’ll be able to do anything they want by then, forget about torture.

    I agree, with Bob on this. Bush is more of a Mussilini in that Hitler actually did a respectable job of managing the beaurocracy and could successfully invade a country and win. And both Mussilini and Bush were surprisingly unpopular for their times given the circumstances.

    On the flip side, Tom Daschle and some of the other weak kneed Dems have played excellent renditions of Neville Chamberlains.

  92. 92
    Sojourner says:

    We need to expand the numbers of true elected Democrats, not lie and say that the true Democrats are as craven as the fake ones.

    The Democratic leadership should have at least tried to fillibuster. They should be all over the airways trying to educate the American people as to what this all about. They should have talked to every blogger they knew.

    They did none of those things.

  93. 93

    […] The first I heard of this was last night, when a commenter linked to this story. I defended him, because I thought the emails were innocuous. […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] The first I heard of this was last night, when a commenter linked to this story. I defended him, because I thought the emails were innocuous. […]

  2. Inactivist says:

    “History will judge our actions here today.”

    Well, well, well. The George Bush and All of His Successors May Torture and Lock Up Anyone They Want Act has been passed.
    John Hinderaker is at his usual putrid, GOP-whoring:

Comments are closed.