May 16, 2009
At a Senate hearing this past week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, rallied to the defense of ex-President George W. Bush’s torture techniques by implicitly endorsing the Spanish Inquisition’s brutal treatment of Jews, Muslims, Protestants and other alleged heretics from the 15th to 17th centuries.
5 comments:
And if you follow your reasoning, you're implicitly endorsing al Qaeda's terror bombings on 9/11. Every act has its historical contexts, ignoring for a moment that our treatment of terrorists was NOT torture.
Ah, Mr Young again... you might want to use your dictionary a bit more before linking opposing words like 'implicitly' (ie;"capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed") and 'endorsing' (from endorse, "to approve openly, especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely") in a phrase. You've obviously been haunting your Reich-wing sites where such erroneous expressions are commonplace, but lost among the vast hypocrisies that appeal to you 10%'ers. Go read some more Cheney, Bush, DeLay, Gingrich, et al.. now THERE'S some real truth to be had!
Senator Graham is a prime example of Daniel Patrick Moyninan's dictum, "defining deviancy down." Moderate? Ha! He has clearly thrown his lot in with the fanatics in his party who wish to undo, not only the New Deal, but the Enlightenment. He is also forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that this country was founded on a desire to leave "the thumbscrew, along with monarchy, in the Old World." (Tom Paine)
During the Revolutionary War, with British armies running rampant throughout the colonies (a real existential threat)George Washington (a traitor, rebel, "unlawful combatant" in British eyes) showed courage, wisdom and decency totally foreign to the right today, when he gave this order concerning British and Hession prisoners taken at Princeton:
Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
(italics mine)
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm
Let me hear no more from the Right about the Founding Fathers or "original intent."
Good article, good summary, conclusion "holds water". (No pun was intended, but it fits, sigh.)
I had a similar negative reaction when I heard the soundbite by Graham on DemNow headlines.
For "Con" commenter: you might be interested in Howard Zinn's speech of May 3, 2009 marking the 100th Anniv. of The Progressive Magazine.
(It's on their website and YouTube.) I heard some of it on WBAI, Amy Goodman was using it for fundraising for the radio station.
Zinn was talking about "sacrosanct" wars in US history. He was asking, also, who is war good for, in particular wars. He mentioned two soldier revolts during the revolution. The officers were living well "on the march": dining well, etc. and we've all seen the painting of soldiers without shoes, wearing rags and bloody feet in the snow.
The rebellion of troops that numbered in many thousands went unmolested by Washington. He knew it was too many. But a smaller rebellion of only about a thousand plus, was met with Washington saying/order, "Find the leaders. Shoot them as ..."(can't recall if it was called mutiny or treason). I didn't know that.
Ah, Mr. Anonymous, thank you for once again demonstrating either the far-Left double standard, or that you are simply a moron: "implicitly endorsing" was a phrase lifted from the original post.
Post a Comment