Why is it inconsistent to condemn both Saddam and the torture at Guantanamo Bay? It would seem to be consistent to me, particularly considering that the same person--Rumsfeld--supported both.

Most who condemn the "torture" at Gitmo don't condemn the behavior of terrorists and tyrant leaders. They justify them but not us. That's the inconsistency I'm pointing out. And Rumsfeld never supported Hussein gassing Kurds or occupying and oppressing Kuwait. We attacked Hussein and liberated Kuwait. We didn't condone that behavior. But it's a nice try. :)

Can you substantiate your statement that most liberals who criticize torture at Guantanamo Bay do not criticize Saddam or terrorists? Perhaps a few examples would help.

I can certainly give many examples of people who criticize both: Lindsay Graham, Ted Kennedy, Human Rights Watch.

Rumsfeld did support Saddam when he was attacking Iran, and he was using chemical weapons at the time. The Reagan administration also supported Bin Laden.

You said Rumsfeld condoned Saddam's torture of innocent civilians, not supporting Iraq v. Iran.

Most of the most vocal opposition to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are terrorist sympathizers, though they wouldn't call themselves that. Take, for example, Erwin Chemerinksy who is the legal representation for one of the detainees. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the WWII generation who would have been outraged over Nazis being awakened by bright lights or loud noises. It would have been unconscionable, as I think it is now. Sen. Dick Durban compared Gitmo soldiers to Pol Pot, Nazis and Soviet Gulags. That's outrageous. So, there are two such examples.

I just find it ironic that they aren't decrying the actions of the insurgents. Every time there's another bombing, they blame the US, not the terrorists. It's such backward thinking it's nearly impossible to understand how grown men could hold those views.

I did not say that Rumsfeld supported Saddam's torture of innocent civilians. I said that Rumsfeld supported Saddam, which he did. Do you deny this fact?

Thank you for providing those examples. Both of these men, however, have criticized both the administration and Saddam for violations of human rights.

On March 25, 2003, Chemerinsky said, "Rumsfeld has criticised Iraq's use of civilians as shields against attack at its military and political facilities. Although he is right that this is despicable behavior, he cannot legitimately invoke international law to govern how a war should be fought when the war itself is a clear violation of international law. Nothing in international law authorizes a preemptive war to overthrow a government and disarm it. Our war in Iraq fits in none of the prescribed situations where it is lawfully permissible."

Chemerinsky apparently has a very high reputation as a scholar and lawyer. If you have specific evidence that he has condoned either Saddam or terrorism, I would ask you to produce it. Otherwise you should concede that you were mistaken in making this allegation about him.

In addition to criticizing the administration's use of torture, Dick Durban has been critical of both terrorism and Saddam. Although he opposed an invasion of Iraq, on October 10, 2002, he said, "We cannot now ignore the challenge of Saddam Hussein. We need to address it. We should push forward with inspections through the United Nations, and build a coalition of support to make sure he is kept under control."

Perhaps these two men are not typical of liberals. If they are, however, they run against your contention that most liberals condone Saddam and terrorism and criticize the administration's use of torture, and instead support the contention that most liberals criticize violations of human rights whether they are committed by other countries or our own.

You have so far provided no evidence to support your contention.

My main contention was that if one makes excuses for the atrocities committed by the terrorists, he then has no room to criticize American troops. And now, even I regret saying that because that somehow implies that they are morally equivalent, which they are not.

My original post wasn't attacking any particular person, just general sentiments I have heard over and over in Hollywood, day after day. There are anti-war, anti-prison abuse pictures and bumper stickers everywhere, but when I've talked to any of the people who own them, they will not call the terrorists evil but instead jump on the "The troops are evil" bandwagon.

Where is the outrage and demonstrations every time an "insurgent" blows up innocent civilians. The MSM reports it as just another day in the park. There aren't anti-terrorist, anti-insurgent bumper stickers anywhere near here, but you will find "art work" of the prison scandal. These people were silent when Saddam was in power, and remain silent on most of the other assaults on human rights throughout the world (*cough*...the U.N.*) It's completely upside-down.

The liberals I hear on the radio, talk to every other day or read the works of either rationalize terrorist behavior or they make moral equivalencies, which cannot be done in this case. What the soldiers did at both locations cannot even be compared with the atrocities that the detainees committed. That's my point.

I understand your point, but you have so far been unable to give even a single example to substantiate it, let alone enough evidence to establish that this is true of most liberals.

My examples are all conversations and listening to the radio and such. My post wasn't to lay out an exact case, but more to wax philosophically about errors I see in logic. And every liberal I've ever spoken with has made statements about our foreign policies being the cause of 9/11 et al, but mum's the word on the justification for soldiers being aggressive with detainees. That was the overall gist.

Maybe you're not one of those liberals, so I can't say it's true of all libs. But I will say that most liberals are moral relativists or something along those lines because they normally don't hold to an absolute, transcendent creed like Judaism or Christianity. Most of the time, not all of the time. That's it. But I'm glad you understand the point. It wasn't my intention to provide numerous examples, mostly because I haven't had much time. But maybe I'll do that now. :) Ciao!

Ziggy, maybe you can answer my question as to where was Dick Durbin when Reno incinerated our own people at Waco, TX. She employed the very same methods used at Gitmo: loud music, lights, etc. Did you passionately object to that? Do you remember the ACLU fighting for Koresh's rights? Where was Amnesty International during that entire standoff?

Suffice it to say, liberals are mum when their own people are doing those things, but when it's a Republican Admin., the cries are shrill.

As to your question about our support of Saddam during the invasion of Iran and prior to that: historically, administrations, both Democrat & Republican, have always chosen the lesser of two evils to rid the world of the greater evil. Case in point: Stalin vs. Hitler. We helped Stalin (while holding our noses) simply to erradicate a greater evil, Nazism. It was by no means an endorsement of the U.S. on Stalinist policies, which were cruel and barbaric to his own people.

ziggy, you said: "Can you substantiate your statement that most liberals who criticize torture at Guantanamo Bay do not criticize Saddam or terrorists? Perhaps a few examples would help."

Let's just start with one. Dick Durbin compared our military at Gitmo to Nazis. Where are his statements comparing Saddam or the terrorists to Nazis?

Several Democratic congressional representatives returned with their tails between their legs over the weekend because the "torture" you mention in your posts has been greatly exaggerated in Democratic talking points with the sole purpose of scoring political points. Please, tell me, how does Gitmo compare to the attrocities in Nazi death camps? Please give us a few examples of "torture" in Gitmo and how Nazi death camps are equivalent.