Bush Equates 'Angry Left' with North Vietnamese Torturers!

Bush Equates 'Angry Left' with North Vietnamese Torturers!

thinkprogress.org

Tonight in his address via satellite to the Republican National Convention, President Bush blasted Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) critics. Invoking McCain’s time as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison, Bush compared these torturers to members of the “angry Left”:

If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry Left never will.

Bush received a loud, standing ovation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am not sure what is more disturbing here, the fact that THIS APPROVER OF TORTURE is making such an overwhelmingly ironic statement, or the fact that he recieved a STANDING OVATION for it.

Either that audience was loaded with "plants", or the sheeples have been dumbed down to a point where they simply aren't aware of anything outside of what the Corpomedia has propagandized to them.

Man is our country in deep, deep trouble...

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Seeing the irony is so easy a caveman could do it.

One has to think things like this are said to intentionally get people bickering back and forth.

Peace

Ahh "the angry left", a perfect politically correct label, I love it. To come from the man that kept Al Gore out of office thus saving this nation, it will resonate well.

He's using a marketing tool. You can force your belief (even if you know it's a lie) by incorporating it into another that the public already has accepted.

In this case, he linked his belief of 'the left will be unable to do what is right for the country' to patriotism (John McCain's duty to the US), and the people unconsciously accepted it.

Well, the left supported the Communists during the Vietnam war, or are they denying that now?

As for the audience, that was the Republican National Convention, which like the Democrat National Convention, the speakers are preaching to the choir.

The point is that while the lily-livered pinkos on this side of the pond can't hold a candle to the Communists of North Vietnam, they are bedfellows.

I'd also like to someone actually show proof that any captive in US custody having been tortured in the sense that John McCain was tortured and I don't mean the frat boy hazing tactics used by those morons at Abu Ghraib.


[edit on 2008/9/3 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'd also like to someone actually show proof that any captive in US custody having been tortured in the sense that John McCain was tortured and I don't mean the frat boy hazing tactics used by those morons at Abu Ghraib.

Can you show me proof that John McCain was tortured in the sense he said he was tortured? Or should I just take him at his word? I mean, it's not like the government would lie or embellish as a means for propaganda or anything like that. It's not like it was so emotionally devastating to McCain that he doesn't bring it up every other day like it was no big deal.

Peace

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Can you show me proof that John McCain was tortured in the sense he said he was tortured?

Dr Love

McCain's treatment by the North Vietnamese is well-documented and corrobortated.

In fact, Communist atrocities, while rarely mentioned by the odious left, are also well-documented.

I don't need to prove it. The evidence is so prevalent that any Google search will turn up all the proof any rational person needs.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


I don't need to prove it.

Then why do I, especially when any information that I would find by a source you deem credible would surely be sanitized? We can play this game all day long.

We're at a point in time where people really need to start thinking with their heads and not their hearts or else it will be the downfall of all of us, including you Grady.

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love


I don't know what your talking about Dr Love. John McCain's experience in Vietnam has been as well documented as anything in human history and it wasn't that long ago.

The facts are the facts. If there are no source that you trust regarding such a well-known historical event, then that's not my problem.



[edit on 2008/9/3 by GradyPhilpott]

quote]
I'd also like to someone actually show proof that any captive in US custody having been tortured in the sense that John McCain was tortured and I don't mean the frat boy hazing tactics used by those morons at Abu Ghraib.


reply to post by GradyPhilpott




Frat boy hazing you say?


Is this your idea of frat boy shenanigans Grady?


***(WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES)****


i104.photobucket.com...

This?


i104.photobucket.com...

How about this one?


i104.photobucket.com...

This looks like fun!!


i104.photobucket.com...

And we certainly cant forget THIS little diddy!!


i104.photobucket.com...


Im not saying here that we are the only country in the world who does this type of thing, and Im not even saying that some of these people didnt likely deserve to be abused. Desperate situations sometimes call for desperate measures.

But if this is what you call frat boy hazing I would sure hate to see what your definition of torture would be.

And no, I dont have to be a communist to see it for what it is. Torture is torture, so let's call it what it is.




[edit on 3-9-2008 by asala]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Although I very often enjoy your posts for the material they bring forth I feel that I don't quite agree with the statement that his is truly comparing the left wing to the torturers.

If I look at this with an unbiased view of Bush (very hard now after all I have seen this man do) I would simply say that he is backing McCain's ability to fight through tough situations.

I was hell bent on going "WTF!" when I saw the title of the thread. I was going to rage about how hypocritical he was being (just like the statement he, McCain and Rice made about Russia and Georgia and how nations simply didn't invade other nations in the 21st century, LOLOLOLOL).

However, on this point, I think it may be a stretch to try and tie his statement into calling the left wingers 'torturers'. That's what McCain and Bush support.

reply to post by BlackOps719


You see, Grady won't see this as torture even though innocent men and very YOUNG men died during these 'frat boy' hazings at Abu Graihb. He will never admit that we truly did wrong there and that torture is torture is torture. Period. He believes he is a 'patriot' for supporting those actions when in fact he is helping to destroy this country. He just doesn't see it yet.

Whether I agree with the OP or not (and in this case I honestly don't see the big deal. It wasn't a direct comparison, only his way of saying if Mc Cain survived THAT , nothing would phase him) the statement made by Grady regarding “frat boy tactics” is disheartening. Even if the majority of offenses at Abu Ghraib were of a “frat boy” nature the ones most highly publicized went well beyond that glib classification.
I would expect true patriots would be sickened by these “practices”.

Unless Grady was making a very subtle and sly comment on the use of language and how it can be so easily misconstrued. Frankly I see the jumping to conclusions over Bush’s statement to be just as extreme as Grady’s ridiculous comparison. If that was the intended effect, bravo sir ! If not, there's not much more to say.

Ahh the Abhu Grahib trick.
It was not sanctioned by Bush or policy of the United States government. It was done by a group of degenerates who had no business being in a position of that authority. It was apologized for and the guilty were punished. In any case the actions of a few disconnected criminals do not reflect the values of a nation as a whole. It is just too bad that all the angry left people have fallen in love with Abhu Grahib and present it as their holy grail in every argument. Even that does not represent this nation as a whole, only the angry left.

reply to post by SectionEight





The only criminals involved in Abu Graib were the officers and CIA higher ups who instructed these soldiers to torture Iraqi civilians.


These soldiers were scapegoats, they made the mistake of doing what they were told. Naturally the commanding officers will never take the fall when they have lower ranked soldiers to take their place.

In a military prison nothing is done without direct instruction and oversight. To believe that these men and women were acting on their own is laughable and naive to put it mildly.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by SectionEight

 

The only criminals involved in Abu Graib were the officers and CIA higher ups who instructed these soldiers to torture Iraqi civilians.


These soldiers were scapegoats, they made the mistake of doing what they were told. Naturally the commanding officers will never take the fall when they have lower ranked soldiers to take their place.

In a military prison nothing is done without direct instruction and oversight. To believe that these men and women were acting on their own is laughable and naive to put it mildly.

That is just as believable as this one,
For all we know these criminals in charge of the prisoners were angry lefties looking to give the commie pinko squad back at home ammunition against the war.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Back in the time period that you are apparently referring to opposition to the War in Vietnam was based, for me at least, on the reality that Ho Chi Minh had the support of 85% of the Vietnamese population. This percentage, by the way, came from the OSS (precursor to the CIA) and his innaugeration was attended by representatives of the US government and was given a "fly by" of US aircraft.

We got into the war as a result of French threats to undermine our attempt to create a military alliance (NATO) which could face a threat in Europe by the USSR. You need to study history if you are going to make sweeping generalizations that are not, in fact, historically accurate.

Originally posted by chgoeddie

We got into the war as a result of French threats to undermine our attempt to create a military alliance (NATO) which could face a threat in Europe by the USSR. You need to study history if you are going to make sweeping generalizations that are not, in fact, historically accurate.

You know, I've read a lot about Vietnam, but this has to be the first time I've ever heard of this theory. Care to back it up?