Dec 19 2008
My Mistake - Clarifying A Timing Issue
It seems I was a little outdated in my article of yesterday and someone took offense. That’s what I get for surfing the net about things instead of going directly to major news sites. Forgive me for speaking in the present about Cheney when his sins were of yesterday (last month). However, the facts are the facts and it is not like Cheney was not involved in what he was involved in.
Not only that, but he confessed on T.V. that he did give the orders/was aware of the torture of the prisoners. Just because I got the timing wrong about his indictment should not lessen the reality of what transpired. However, for the person that commented on my lack of timing or anyone else who felt as he did and only took the timing error away from the article then you missed the point.
In the future I will do my best to get the timing right by not going to the searches but by going to the major news sites. I just knew that I had seen Cheney on T.V. over the weekend confessing/talking about his experiences as Vice President and for that moment I had forgotten what the subject was and went looking, ran across an article about his indictment and got distracted.
It amazes me how angry people can get over the words that I say. How it seems, I am not entitled to my opinions or that I have not given thought to what I say – fair thought at that. I was called a moron two days ago by someone who really did not appreciate what I had said about George Bush and the shoe thrower.
My thought is if you have a problem with what I say to resort to name calling and angry rants is a bit much. You are not going to change my mind about what I think and feel so your rants and angry attitudes only make me shake my head and pity your anger – spare me the negativity and the name calling because that is way, way, way over the top.
And that’s the way I see it!!!!
P.S. To the person who got irritated by my comments on the Geneva Convention please go to Wikipedia on-line. The interpretation of it was under question in terms of the definition of “unlawful combatants” under George W. Bush’s rule – oops administration but it was determined, “there is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law…
Article 13 – 16 states that prisoners of war must be treated humanely without any adverse discrimination…
My question is, did this happen in these instances? Some seem to think ‘by whatever means necessary’ and maybe that works however, for me personally, I would never participate in or condone such behavior yet I have become party to – just in the knowledge of this inhumane treatment.
