It's over for Bush!

[Roy_Batty]

Well, the evidence is not just trickling in…the new article in Newsweek (the upcoming May 24th issue) details the origins of our prisoner abuse policy, and guess how far up the chain of command it goes?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/

Wow… What an article. I have to comment on particular parts of it.

May 24 issue - It’s not easy to get a member of Congress to stop talking. Much less a room full of them. But as a small group of legislators watched the images flash by in a small, darkened hearing room in the Rayburn Building last week, a sickened silence descended. There were 1,800 slides and several videos, and the show went on for three hours. The nightmarish images showed American soldiers at Abu Ghraib Prison forcing Iraqis to masturbate. American soldiers sexually assaulting Iraqis with chemical light sticks. American soldiers laughing over dead Iraqis whose bodies had been abused and mutilated. There was simply nothing to say. “It was a very subdued walk back to the House floor,” said Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “People were ashen.”

It is a bitter pill to swallow when confronted with your own evil spawn. Its like finding out that your son is a rapist.

[QUOTE] The White House was undeterred. By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had “requested that you reconsider that decision.” Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. “As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,” Gonzales wrote to Bush. “The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.” Gonzales concluded in stark terms: “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”

Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to “preserve his flexibility” in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales said he feared “prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges” based on a 1996 U.S. law that bars “war crimes,” which were defined to include “any grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions. As to arguments that U.S. soldiers might suffer abuses themselves if Washington did not observe the conventions, Gonzales argued wishfully to Bush that “your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers.”[/QUOTE]

It can’t be… You mean the president himself was not only aware of such treatment, but personally approved of it before it even happened? Impossible. He said that he didn’t know about it until recently, and was shocked that Americans could do things like that. Obviously this article is a farce written as part of a giant leftist conspiracy.

When Powell read the Gonzales memo, he “hit the roof,” says a State source. Desperately seeking to change Bush’s mind, Powell fired off his own blistering response the next day, Jan. 26, and sought an immediate meeting with the president. The proposed anti-Geneva Convention declaration, he warned, “will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice” and have “a high cost in terms of negative international reaction.” Powell won a partial victory: On Feb. 7, 2002, the White House announced that the United States would indeed apply the Geneva Conventions to the Afghan war?but that Taliban and Qaeda detainees would still not be afforded prisoner-of-war status. The White House’s halfway retreat was, in the eyes of State Department lawyers, a “hollow” victory for Powell that did not fundamentally change the administration’s position. It also set the stage for the new interrogation procedures ungoverned by international law.

Good to see that SOMEONE has some sense! Too bad that he had no power. I know that he has some strong loyalty issues, but it is time to quit defending and protecting the president. Being the only combat veteran in the entire lot he is also obviously the only one who understood what would happen if we allowed soldiers to torture prisoners. He needs to go public with everything.

With the legal groundwork laid, Bush began to act. First, he signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the president’s directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness.

Just reading this paragraph leaves me speechless. I have typed 4 different paragraghs and deleted them. I feel a mixture of shame and outrage. This should be the end of the Bush regime. Secret orders violating international laws? Our president is a WAR CRIMINAL! It is undeniable and incontravertable… There has been a white elephant in the center of the room that some of us have spoken about, and some have denied. My question to those that denied it is this… Can you read these documents and continue to lie to yourself? Is all this worth a tax break?

Toward the end of 2002, orders came down the political chain at DOD that the Geneva Conventions were to be reinterpreted to allow tougher methods of interrogation. “There was almost a revolt” by the service judge advocates general, or JAGs, the top military lawyers who had originally allied with Powell against the new rules, says a knowledgeable source. The JAGs, including the lawyers in the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, fought their civilian bosses for months?but finally lost. In April 2003, new and tougher interrogation techniques were approved. Covertly, though, the JAGs made a final effort. They went to see Scott Horton, a specialist in international human-rights law and a major player in the New York City Bar Association’s human-rights work. The JAGs told Horton they could only talk obliquely about practices that were classified. But they said the U.S. military’s 50-year history of observing the demands of the Geneva Conventions was now being overturned. “There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity” about how the conventions should be interpreted and applied, they told Horton. And the prime movers in this effort, they told him, were DOD Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith and DOD general counsel William Haynes. There was, they warned, “a real risk of a disaster” for U.S. interests.

With a conspiracy of this scale, did they really expect to keep this under wraps? I guess that they made some severe miscalculations. Perhaps if Iraq had embraced us as Bush fantasized, we would be pulled out by now, and no one would want to question the practices we used to gather intel because he would still be protected by that nice cozy little veil of “national security” that he fully took advantage of after 9/11.

It is this though… Toward the end of 2002, orders came down the political chain at DOD that the Geneva Conventions were to be reinterpreted to allow tougher methods of interrogation. … I once caught some flack by suggesting that the path would lead straight up to the Commander-In-Chief. Is there still any doubt?

While the interrogators at Gitmo were refining their techniques, by the summer of 2003 the “postwar” insurgency in Iraq was raging. And Rumsfeld was getting impatient about the poor quality of the intelligence coming out of there. He wanted to know: Where was Saddam? Where were the WMD? Most immediately: Why weren’t U.S. troops catching or forestalling the gangs planting improvised explosive devices by the roads? Rumsfeld pointed out that Gitmo was producing good intel. So he directed Steve Cambone, his under secretary for intelligence, to send Gitmo commandant Miller to Iraq to improve what they were doing out there. Cambone in turn dispatched his deputy, Lt. Gen. William (Jerry) Boykin?later to gain notoriety for his harsh comments about Islam?down to Gitmo to talk with Miller and organize the trip. In Baghdad in September 2003, Miller delivered a blunt message to Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was then in charge of the 800th Military Police Brigade running Iraqi detentions. According to Karpinski, Miller told her that the prison would thenceforth be dedicated to gathering intel. (Miller says he simply recommended that detention and intelligence commands be integrated.) On Nov. 19, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units.

Does anyone recall the Senate hearings? I watched them with great interest, and now what I believed at the time to be true is confirmed right here in black and white… Rumsfeld was lying through his teeth. That is perjury is it not? I guess these memos and signed orders are going to be his “blue dress”, eh?

As his other reasons for war have fallen away, President Bush has justified his ouster of Saddam Hussein by saying he’s a “torturer and murderer.” Now the American forces arrayed against the terrorists are being tarred with the same epithet. That’s unfair: what Saddam did at Abu Ghraib during his regime was more horrible, and on a much vaster scale, than anything seen in those images on Capitol Hill. But if America is going to live up to its promise to bring justice and democracy to Iraq, it needs to get to the bottom of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Only problem for Bush is that when we do get to the bottom of it he will be impeached, or worse, brought up on charges as a war criminal.

[Brian_Smith]

You do realize that when the administration suspended the Geneva convention, they installed a DIFFERENT code protective of un-uniformed POWs in its place?

You can argue that this code set the stage for abuses, or that it was dangerously unkempt on the most important issues of civil rights, but you do understand that “dumping Geneva” does not automatically equate to “reviving Torquemada”? Indeed, one can imagine a MORE PROTECTIVE code than the Geneva Convention.

[Rassilon]

Based on your “tone”, I hesitate to make any addition to this thread, but someone’s gotta take a stand for the Right…

1. It’s W-A-R. Not cub scouts or a book club. POW’s get treated like shit and they’re routinely “shaken down” for information. It happens on both sides.

2. I live in Canada, but if any hint of a terrorist op is stopped because of an interrogation, then their job is considered a success and if someone had to be in a human pyramid in order to save my son’s lives, then so be it.

3. Those pictures look more of a sorority house hazing than what could be described as “torture”. Having to watch your family be execute one by one is torture. Making a human pyramid is not.

4. You’re able to talk like this because of the sacrifices soldiers have made in every war. While this means that I can say whatever I want, I choose to also pay my respects and props to the forefathers who had the job of storming Normandy, or taking out a hostile village in 'Nam/Korea, etc.

5. Speaking of 'Nam…isn’t it funny how when a Democrat brings up his 'Nam record, the media is all smiles and hugs. When a republican brings it up, he’s mean and nasty and obviously a baby killer. Even from here in Canada, the left media bias is so visible.

6. Kerry is an idiot. He votes FOR something before proclaiming to the media he’s AGAINST it. Makes no sense, and if that’s the best the left have to offer, no WONDER they’re relying on a few “scandalous” books and these Iraqi pictures to try and ruin Bush. Kerry sure as hell can’t.

[Roy_Batty]

Brain, where do you come up with this crap? Did you not read the article? Have you had your head in the sand and somehow missed the THOUSANDS Of documented tortures?

Here is another excerpt from the same article:

In mid-January 2002 the first plane-load of prisoners landed at Gitmo’s Camp X-Ray. Still, not everyone was getting the message that this was a new kind of war. The first commander of the MPs at Gitmo was a one-star from the Rhode Island National Guard, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who, a Defense source recalled, mainly “wanted to keep the prisoners happy.” Baccus began giving copies of the Qur’an to detainees, and he organized a special meal schedule for Ramadan. “He was even handing out printed ‘rights cards’,” the Defense source recalled. The upshot was that the prisoners were soon telling the interrogators, “Go f— yourself, I know my rights.” Baccus was relieved in October 2002, and Rumsfeld gave military intelligence control of all aspects of the Gitmo camp, including the MPs.

So, do you STILL think that we are improving our treatment of prisoners? We started out that way, but Rumsfeld was not happy with that. I can’t believe you could read that article and even type that sentence. I really want to know… Did you read it?

[yorik]

Does anybody here really think they’re getting the full truth from any side? This is an election year, and all sides, Democrats, Republicans and the media, are going to distort the facts and selectively distribute information to twist things to their benefit.

And don’t tell me Newsweek is about news. Newsweek is all about selling magazines and advertisements, not distributing facts. (same for Time, USA Today, Washington Post, etc.) If Newsweek can make it seem sensational, they sell more.

[Roy_Batty]

1. It’s W-A-R. Not cub scouts or a book club. POW’s get treated like shit and they’re routinely “shaken down” for information. It happens on both sides.

That is such complete bullshit I can’t even believe you bothered to type it. WE were part of the creation of the codes of war, and we should abide by them. If our own prisoners have been mistreated or murdered you hear people screeching for blood. Rather than make you go back and re-read the article, I will post a quote back up right here for you:
As to arguments that U.S. soldiers might suffer abuses themselves if Washington did not observe the conventions, Gonzales argued wishfully to Bush that “your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers.”
Well, they figured out that our credibility is pretty weak. I think we all know what happened as a retaliation to our torturing of the prisoners. This is one bout of one-upsmanship that I do not want to engage in. In the business world this would be called a “lose-lose scenario”.

2. I live in Canada, but if any hint of a terrorist op is stopped because of an interrogation, then their job is considered a success and if someone had to be in a human pyramid in order to save my son’s lives, then so be it.

[b]If your son is taken prisoner and they torture and humiliate him because they think it is fair play do you still like that idea? If your son had been decapitated as retaliation to tortures and murders that took place at Abu Ghraib would you still be in favor of such interrogation techniques?

On this subject, from another forum I read this:
[i]these photos are not some elaborate conspiracy theory. It is reality. Now, back to the beheading… The young man in question was warned to leave by his eventual murderers or he would be killed. He was temporarily detained by the FBI and offered passage out of Iraq. Then, his captors offered to trade him for a few prisoners in Abu Ghraib, which was rejected by the military. I would say that the monsters who did it are ultimately responsible, but the military had their chance to trade for him and didn’t so they share some responsibility, and the young man had plenty of warnings and opportunities to leave, so he also shares some responsibility. But none of this would have happened if we hadn’t attacked Iraq in the first place. We wouldn’t have attacked Iraq if it weren’t for documented lies by the president! If people die as a result of a lie that was intended to get us into a war then does that not make the liar in part responsible for every death that happens in that war?

I am making a real stretch here, but I would guess that you didn’t like Clinton, and that in your view his lie about having sex with Lewinski justified having him removed from office. I imagine if Clinton had lied to get us into a war you would have held him responsible for each and every death. Why isn’t that standard applied here?

Is it okay to lie to congress and the nation just because Saddam was a monster? Well crap! Get in line. There were plenty of other dictators out there who needed to be deposed. We were supposed to be going after Osama. How did we get so off track? The humanitarian reasons are complete bullshit and the Bush administration knew it. They were perfectly willing to do business with Saddam after getting many examples of his evil. Did you have your head in the hole to deny this fact as well, or do you want proof of that too?

It must have been a lot easier to be a Bush supporter back when it was unpatriotic to question his actions. But, what the hell, its entertaining watching the dwindling few left try to defend him when he gives those of us who don’t so much material to work with. [/i][/b]

3. Those pictures look more of a sorority house hazing than what could be described as “torture”. Having to watch your family be execute one by one is torture. Making a human pyramid is not.

[b]Aaaah. A ditto-head I see. Rush’s sociological evaluation at what happened in Abu Ghraib:
“This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it, and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?”

A good time? Blowing off steam? Let’s see how Limbaugh handles the new photos and videos in the coming weeks…funny, like Ann Coulter, he always makes it seem as if any public debate, or any legitimate scrutinizing of American policy, is tanatamount to “aiding and comforting the enemy.” By reducing this scandal to a hazing ritual, he’s tacitly implying that no real damage was done to the Iraqis, the boys were just “blowing off steam”…and if so, who cares? They’re the enemy. I just wonder what he thinks about the Geneva convention…or if he’s aware of the symbolic significance of Abu Ghraib.[/b]

4. You’re able to talk like this because of the sacrifices soldiers have made in every war. While this means that I can say whatever I want, I choose to also pay my respects and props to the forefathers who had the job of storming Normandy, or taking out a hostile village in 'Nam/Korea, etc.

There is NO WAY in HELL you can compare what is happening now to the battle at the beaches at Normandy. Besides the fact, you obviously presume that I have a negative belief in the members of the military in general. I have relatives over there right now, and I know that most soldiers do not participate in this kind of savagery. I am not really even sure if I blame the soldiers who committed the acts. They were only doing what they were told. The point of this whole thread is to follow the red tape all the way up to the white house. It was the LEADERSHIP that created this problem. Quit trying to act like you are a patriot and I am not simply because I complain about our leaders’ actions.

5. Speaking of 'Nam…isn’t it funny how when a Democrat brings up his 'Nam record, the media is all smiles and hugs. When a republican brings it up, he’s mean and nasty and obviously a baby killer. Even from here in Canada, the left media bias is so visible.

[b]Uh, find a Republican who has actually served! Now if you are looking for a chickenhawk there is a LONG line-up to choose from. McCain served with honor, and Bush trashed him with push-polls in the primaries to destroy his character.

Maybe there is a left leaning media there in Canada, but here in the US it is much more right leaning than anything. Although I think that protective shield around the president is crumbling. Even his own party is starting to doubt him.[/b]

6. Kerry is an idiot. He votes FOR something before proclaiming to the media he’s AGAINST it. Makes no sense, and if that’s the best the left have to offer, no WONDER they’re relying on a few “scandalous” books and these Iraqi pictures to try and ruin Bush. Kerry sure as hell can’t.

[b]If Bush makes it to the debates before being impeached, Kerry would soundly dismantle him. Bush is such a dimwit that it is quite embarrassing to me that he somehow got to be president.

And those books aren’t just scandalous… THey point out a real pattern with this administration that is quite disturbing… But if you don’t find it disturbing then you have problems, and I am glad that you don’t get a vote in America. Most of these books are written by men who are life-long conservatives who have outstanding credibility. Of course, since the Bush regime cannot actually argue the points of the book they just try to discredit the authors’ character. This is their only weapon. If they had a message which could withstand analysis they wouldn’t NEED to attack people’s character. And why are there SO MANY former Bush people who are coming out with this information? Is it just that they are all evil and the president is right? Are we in denial?[/b]

[Brian_Smith]

Roy Batty writes:

“So, do you STILL think that we are improving our treatment of prisoners?”

I never said we were improving our treatment of prisoners.

"We started out that way, but Rumsfeld was not happy with that. I can’t believe you could read that article and even type that sentence. I really want to know… Did you read it? "

I’d like to know whether you actually read what I wrote, which was simply that not hewing to the letter of the Geneva Convention does not necessarily equate to violating the human rights of a combatant. One should treat human rights as innate and inviolate but not treat the Geneva Convention as a sacred cow–even if you desperately want to unseat George Bush, Roy.

Powell, McCain and others want Geneva upheld in every situation as a DIPLOMATIC gesture, to show the world we adhere to a COMMON standard of human rights. But that’s a question of good press, not morality.

[ZEB]

That was an interesting post. Prediction: Bush beats Kerry by 3% to 6% percentage points in Novemeber!

[PtrDR]

Your clearly biased against THE PREZ. All who have read your posts know this. You have no valid point to make. Cease and desist for all we care…

[slimjim]

It is for you that we fight. It is for those unwilling to put their lives on the line or do what must be done that we go. I am rather appalled at the pics that have filtered their way down, but nonetheless these kind of acts occur during a WAR. Do you expect us to fight handcuffed? These prisoners rights talks sound like a bunch of shit to me anyway. Should I be captured I’d expect nothing less and for that reason me and many of my brothers would rather die than risk capture. So fuck you, you’re welcome for my defense of your rights and your constitution that allow you to voice such an opinion. As for Bush, I appreciate a commander in chief who didn’t duck and run from this black eye, even though I didn’t vote for him.

[Rassilon]

Hear hear SlimJim.

Oh and btw. I’d bet you any money that the average Iraqi is laughing at this whole ordeal…

“Torture? Abuse?? This is nothing compared to what we suffered and endured under the Hussein’s.”

Sidelining the whole war effort because of an unfortunate few bad soldiers is misguided as well.

Face it man…the press is trying to keep this thing alive to try and chip away at Bush’s numbers, because of Kerry’s complete incompetence.

During the whole 911 hearings and all the Bush bashing by the ex-Clinton officials (surprise), it was curious that Kerry wasn’t using this prime opportunity to try and climb in the polls. He was extremely quiet and almost disappeared during the whole proceedings…

November comes down to trust. Who do you trust more? Kerry, or Bush? Who would you trust more as your commanding officer?

[Magus]

I wanted to comment on this:

"3. Those pictures look more of a sorority house hazing than what could be described as “torture”. Having to watch your family be execute one by one is torture. Making a human pyramid is not. "

The problem is that the people being “hazed” come from a culture where that sort of behaviour isn’t just college-house antics…The acts in the photos we’ve seen (and international law prevents us from seeing the worst of the photos) are absolutely abhorrent to those people…to them it -is- the equivalent of seeing their family members shot. To some of those people, there is the very powerful fear that they are forever tainted, that they will not ever be able to recover morally from what they’ve endured. In the quite liberal western hemisphere, there are -still- people who would experience complete physical revulsion at even the idea of homosexual sex. The culture of many Mid East countries (whether it’s right or wrong) is many times worse. Whether you think it’s okay or not for governments to take whatever action they deem necessary in times of war, please don’t trivialize what those people went through.

[lucid]

You have to wonder what pills Rush was on when he made his comments. Blowing off steam?

[Roy_Batty]

Slimjim said:
It is for you that we fight. It is for those unwilling to put their lives on the line or do what must be done that we go. I am rather appalled at the pics that have filtered their way down, but nonetheless these kind of acts occur during a WAR. Do you expect us to fight handcuffed? These prisoners rights talks sound like a bunch of shit to me anyway. Should I be captured I’d expect nothing less and for that reason me and many of my brothers would rather die than risk capture. So fuck you, you’re welcome for my defense of your rights and your constitution that allow you to voice such an opinion. As for Bush, I appreciate a commander in chief who didn’t duck and run from this black eye, even though I didn’t vote for him.

What a ridiculous fucking argument. I notice you dodge answering direct questions posed in the original posts, but instead lob a verbal attack on me with a menacing message that, translated means, if I had things my way you wouldn’t be able to say that. It is a typical dodge that the whole administration uses because they KNOW that they don’t have a winning argument. If you can’t beat them with facts, lob personal attacks.

And it is getting really old to have my patriotism questioned because of my disdain of the Bush Regime. I happen to love America, which is why it is important to KNOW THE FACTS, and they are still rolling in. When all is said and done, even Bush’s fellow republicans will be calling for war crimes trials. They almost are right now.

BTW, are you telling me that you approve of torturing and humiliation of the prisoners? When a soldier lays down arms and surrenders, you think that you are fighting “handcuffed” to not be able to torture him? You are a sick person if that is truly what you think. And you are part of the reason that the rest of the world hates America right now.

[Right_Side_Up]

Some of you people frighten me.

[grwdad]

Does anyone not think it is strange to have 1800 of these pictures! It sounds like scandal is correct, DEM wanting the victory in the White House. I got three kids and a wife interested in photograghy. We have probably don’t have 1800 pictures of the most wonderful things in our lives. And to have 1800 pictures of the same thing over and over just seems odd to me, a little fishy maybe. One interesting thing, I met a guy in the gym while swimming whose son is over there apparent around this area. He made the comment that the garbage bags on there heads were what the prisoners demanded because of the woman guard. It is public the way they feel about woman, so they wanted the bags over their heads so they could not see her giving them orders and commands. Made them feel better I guess. He also made a comment about them being naked. He said that they found they had to keep an even number of prisoners in each cell to stop riots. I said why and he said so each one would have a lover. They way he talked, homosexuality is a huge thing and they are almost always naked. I’m just passing on information. You can chose whether to believe it or not. I;m not saying I believe it. But one thing I do believe is that 1800 pictures seems suspicious to me!

[Elkhntr1]

PtrDr
You are clearly biased for the President. Please cease and desist all posts, as we know your position. One last thing PtrDr, I ask you as your posts reflect bravery and commitment are you currently serving? If not have you served in the past? Or, are you like many who are, so vocally supportive of this war, never had your ass on the line?

[Boscobarbell]

Grwdad: The NY Times says the photos were taken as a tactical ploy. Supposedly, cultural experts had advised that photos memorializing the events be taken as a further means of coercion/blackmail; the subjects were told that if they didn’t fully cooperate with the interrogators, the photos would be released to the Iraqi families. Apparently the stigma/shame would be overwhelming and nearly impossible to overcome.

Whether you/I/we believe the above account is another story, but it does at least provide one logical reason why the sheer volume of photos exists.

[PtrDR]

Elkhntr1…as a matter of fact I have served on the order of 13 years now. First as an enlisted man and now as an Officer. I am a medical officer; so I don’t shoot or command others to shoot for a living but I do patch up the ones that are injured. I carry a M9 and a Geneva convention card which isn’t going to do shit for me in a war enviroment. My opinion comes from one who was and has put their butt on the line. Which is more than what most of these posters can say although I have no information as to your background in particular. The military isn’t perfect by a longshot, but blaming Bush is pure B.S. and the desperate grab at traction/life for the Kerry camp. As a military man I have no respect for the way he begged for his medals and what he did afterwards with them. It is despicable.

[rainjack]

If your political beliefs are anything right of center you have to shut up? EH1 - everyone knows your political views as well. What gives you, or any of your left-wing wacko cohorts the right to tell anyone to cease and desist anything? You liberal elitests need to re-read the constitution.

I’m so damned sick and tired of the left assuming they have the market cornered on free speech. It’s free for everyone - including us members of the evil ‘right-winged conspiracy’.