How you suppose the RW Christofacists will

[TNOE]

reconcile with Bush being a (supposed) Christian (which I don't believe for a second) if he vetos John McCain's "no torture" bill. By the way, when will McCain's bill be voted on?

If Bush is "truly" a Christian - why would he go so far as a veto (the only one so far of his pResidency) - to be sure that the brown people get tortured? Has this been discussed and I missed it? Will his ratings begin to sink below Nixon's 31%??? I know there will be the usual "apologists" who apologize for all his misdoings - but will the vast majority of Christians be able to wrap their heads around this? They are already questioning his Harriet nomination. Just wondering - aloud.

[tx_dem41]

1. They've supported the well-publicized torture for three years now...

I don't think they care at all.

[bryant69]

3. I have to say i agree

Those who are uncomfortable with it are going to keep their mouths closed, and there's enough "muscular" christians who are going to be all for it, who will speak up in favor of it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[progressoid]

2. That's easy

First off - torture isn't covered in the 10 commandments. I doubt he really reads much of the buy-bull beyond the basics.

Secontly - Maybe George likes to be tortured and is applying the Golden Rule. He's just doing unto them as he wants them to do to him.

[KG]

4. death, destruction, torture - it's all good to the RW Christofacists.

[Ready4Change]

5. Terrorists = demons.

Nothing wrong with torturing demons.

Oh, and btw:

Liberals = terrorists
GLBT = terrorists
Tree Huggers = terrorists
Jews = Terrorists
Clinton = King of Terrorists
etc...

[zbdent]

6. Hell, they've supported torture for centuries,

why stop now?

(Witches, the Dark Ages, etc. . . )

[DemoTex]

7. Looks like Bu$h is whistling in that greveyard picture.

[TNOE]

8. Yep

my blood ran cold when I saw it.

[TNOE]

9. Looks like Molly Ivans is wondering the same thing

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GOP Stands Up for US Right to Torture
By Molly Ivins
WorkingForChange
Tuesday 11 October 2005

On one of those television gong shows that passes for journalism, the panelists used to have to pick an Outrage of the Week. Then, each performer would wax indignant about his or her choice for 60 seconds or so. If someone asked me to name the Outrage of the Week about now, I'd have a coronary. How could anyone possibly choose?

I suppose the frontrunner is the anti-torture amendment. Sen. John McCain proposed an amendment to the military appropriations bill that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military.

This may strike you as a "goes without saying" proposition - the amendment passed the Senate 90 to nine. The United States has been signing anti-torture treaties under Democrats and Republicans for at least 50 years. But the Bush administration actually managed to find some weasel words to create a loophole in this longstanding commitment to civilized behavior.

According to the Bushies, if the United States is holding a prisoner on foreign soil, our soldiers can still subject him or her to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment - the very forms of torture used by the soldiers who were later prosecuted for their conduct at Abu Ghraib. Does this make any sense, moral or common?


SORRY - NO LINK - forwarded to me just now from co-worker.

[golfaddict]

10. I just wonder when it would be ok to torture...

:patriot: Hypothetically...what if a bomb of some sort were planted in your city, and the feds caught the leader, and the leader wouldn't give up the info. Don't you think it would be ok to torture that individual inorder to save lives, maybe even those of your children?

[newyawker99]

12. Hi golfaddict!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[triguy46]

11. Jesus knew these guys even back then...

when he said:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven..."