(CNN) — Congressman Duncan Hunter said during Wednesday night's GOP debate that, if elected president, he would hold terror suspects indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay if he felt they were too dangerous to be set free and the U.S. could not convict them.
"And let me tell you," said the California Republican, that "the proof of that is the fact that we have conducted these combatant review tribunals. And we've actually sent back to the battlefield or sent back to Afghanistan some of the people that we thought were no longer a threat."
"Some of those people have shown up on the battlefield bearing arms against our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines, back on the battlefield after we sent them back," declared Hunter. "If anything, we've been too liberal with the release of terrorists."
Hunter went on to say that the conditions at Guantanamo Bay were, in his view, anything but substandard. "The last time I looked at the menu, they had honey-glazed chicken and rice pilaf on Friday. That's how we treat the terrorists," he said.
"They've got health care that's better than most HMOs. And they got something else that no Democrat politician in America has. They live in a place called Guantanamo, where not one person has ever been murdered," proclaimed the presidential hopeful. "And there's not one politician, one Democrat politician in America, that can say that about one of the prisons in his home district. We've got to keep Guantanamo open."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
His head is a hollow vacuum.
In facing down Ron Paul several of the Republican candidates reminded us that the reason we must stay in Iraq is because of honor. And the only was to leave with honor is to leave victorious.
And the only way to leave victorious is to be victorious I think they explained. Which is to say we must be the victor. We must win. And to win we must have the will to fight. And to have the will to fight we must simply will the will. Look at your friends and neighbors. Do they have the will to fight? If those bastards don't then they are the reason we can't be victorious in Iraq. We must fight those who lack the will here and defeat them at long last to obtain the will to fight there. Only then will we be victorious.
And one of the Faux news questioners asked Paul when he said we should withdraw completely - "should we just take our marching orders from Al Quaeda then?"
Which raises an interesting hypothetical "If Al Quaeda tells everyone not to jump off a bridge, should you do it?"
So according to the Faux News questioner we should do the opposite of what conservatives think Al Quedda wants us to do? i.e. They think that Al Quedda wants us to leave Iraq therefore we should stay. Wouldn't that still be taking orders from Al Queda? Also I think that Apple should buy Iraq, then they can call it iRAQ.
In the minds of the questioner we must do the opposite of what Al Quaeda wants us to do. The conservatives think Al Quaeda doesn't want our troops in Iraq where they are easier to kill and create political unrest here at home. The conservatives think that America will be shamed and defeated if America withdraws because that is how they will feel. Thus to defeat Al Quaeda they want us to stay in Iraq until we are victorious and Al Quaeda (which is used either as a metaphor for evil, extremist Islamic terrorists or all Muslims are defeated). The neoconservatives do not believe that staying is taking our marching orders from Al Quaeda because they believe it is the polar opposite of what Al Quaeda wants. They can believe this because they believe in polar opposites and absolutes in the most binary sense. Its a fun way to live if you can let yourself get there.
Ranger confused me. I'm just going to vote for whoever sez 9-11 the most times.
just spitballin' here, but isn't al Quaeda based in Afghanistan/Pakistan? not the Iraq?
Also, do these guys ever define "win". When will we know we've won? (When everyone is dead?)
Of course, most of these guys honorably avoided military service.
That's the trick with Al Quaeda really isn't it? It's a NGO. It really isn't anywhere, it's everywhere. We should have declared war on Al Quaeda rather than Afghanistan or Iraq.
We win when Iraq is a pro-Western liberal democratic country. Which is to say - never.
We win when we've depleted their petroleum reserves.
We win when the US threat level is at Low, or green. Check this site repeatedly until the threat level has reached Low.
Elevate this.
Post a Comment