To defend some bad guys

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/members/phillyimc/sites/phillyimc.org/web/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 855.

Sorry, but as bad as these people are, their critics are worse.

For 95 months, the New York Daily News considered G.W. Bush to be their Dear Leader, their glamorous Churchillian hero who dared to do things that annoyed "the liberals," but now, in his 96th month, as he's going out the door, Bush is now all of the sudden being compared unfavorably with Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin. And yes, I and Digby both made a lot of serious criticisms of Palin during the campaign, but as Digby points out:

(And frankly, the demonization of Palin after their deification of Bush struck me from the beginning as nothing more than class and gender snobbery. There really is no substantial difference between them except that Palin actually had more government experience than Bush did. She was his natural successor.) [emphasis in original]

It's crass and crude for the Daily News to all of the sudden discover Bush is an idiot. Where were these guys during the years when such an epiphany would actually have been of some use to the rest of us? Heck, just a few months ago, a few weeks before the 2008 election took place, would have been nice.

Alberto Gonzales blames John Yoo for the torture memos.

John Yoo, the then-Justice official who had been assigned to draft the memos, had strong feelings and no one could have pressured him to write the memos a certain way, Mr. Gonzales said.


Gonzo appeared genuinely unable to grapple with why he might be unpopular. "What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he asked.

Well, let me put it this way. Gonzales was Yoo's boss. To accept Yoo's torture memos was to make the deliberate and conscious decision to toss the Geneva Conventions over the side and to embrace what "Darth" Cheney calls "The Dark Side." Sorry, but Yoo was a functionary. He was a guy who was doing what he was instructed to do. Gonzales could have said "No" and could have informed the public what their government was up to.

But yes, I have to mention The Guardian's list of the 19 Worst Americans of 2008 (They're British, so they can single out Americans like that). The Washington Monthly lists lots of awful people The Guardian forgot.


Geneva Convention??

I don't think the terrorist scum signed the conventions, besides the Geneva Conventions don't apply to combatants who are not in the uniform of their country. Rich Gardner another America hating progressive idiot. You calling bush an idiot is like the kettle calling the pot black.

And what has America gained?

Where exactly has the dumping of the Geneva Conventions benefited America?
There's a concept here that the anti-globalizers have called attention to. It's called the "race to the bottom" and refers to everybody trying to lower their production costs to the point where they can't survive on what they produce and sell. The Irish had called attention to the same process earlier and called it by the name "rack rents" as the Irish kept trying to compete with their neighbors by bidding up the amount of rent they paid. This continued until they paid so much rent they didn't have enough left to live on.
The same process applies to treating prisoners humanely. If we take our standards from al Qaeda, which likes to do things like strap people down and apply power drills to their heads, then no standards will survive and humanity as a whole reverts to the pre-civilized age. Is that what you want? Is that what you think would make for a better world?
Am I wrong? As I said, show me where the US has gained or benefited by dumping the Conventions.
BTW, the Conventions are comprehensive. They cover ALL combatants and civilians, those who signed and those who didn't, who are in any way associated with a military conflict.