Submitted by Wolfgang (not verified) on Wed, Nov 23, 2005 - 04:00.
Can you make a Limerick about Dick?
Submitted by Virge on Wed, Nov 23, 2005 - 05:25.
The president's thick as a brick
And the VP's sadistically sick.
So, if torture's okay
And there's no other way,
Let's apply the electrodes to Dick.
Submitted by Wolfgang (not verified) on Thu, Nov 24, 2005 - 03:19.
Not bad at all.
Unfortunately, the issue is disgusting even as limerick.
Submitted by Bob Dvorak (not verified) on Tue, Dec 13, 2005 - 13:39.
This morning's NPR news: In the US Senate, yesterday, an amendment outlawing all forms of torture under any and all circumstance was attached to a funding bill. The Bush administration had previously declared its intention to veto the bill should the offending clause not be removed. But they will get to the bottom of the torture-in-Iraq issue to find out who's at fault...
Submitted by Bob Dvorak (not verified) on Tue, Dec 13, 2005 - 13:43.
P.S. The bill passed the Senate 90-9.
Submitted by Virge on Thu, Dec 15, 2005 - 23:45.
After fighting against the anti-torture amendment, Bush has finally been forced to concede. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=11347...
And, of course, Bush now touts the decision as a virtue:
"make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
I wonder if Duncan Hunter (chairman of the House Armed Services Committee) has any clue how his stance appears to the world. By opposing the accord for lack of clearer protections for interrogators, isn't he making it clear to the world that the US has used torture, or intends to make use of torture? At least Bush had the sense to cave in and then spin the decision as a dollop of cream on the apple pie.
Comments
Can you make a Limerick about Dick?
The president's thick as a brick
And the VP's sadistically sick.
So, if torture's okay
And there's no other way,
Let's apply the electrodes to Dick.
Not bad at all.
Unfortunately, the issue is disgusting even as limerick.
This morning's NPR news: In the US Senate, yesterday, an amendment outlawing all forms of torture under any and all circumstance was attached to a funding bill. The Bush administration had previously declared its intention to veto the bill should the offending clause not be removed. But they will get to the bottom of the torture-in-Iraq issue to find out who's at fault...
P.S. The bill passed the Senate 90-9.
After fighting against the anti-torture amendment, Bush has finally been forced to concede.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=11347...
And, of course, Bush now touts the decision as a virtue:
"make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
I wonder if Duncan Hunter (chairman of the House Armed Services Committee) has any clue how his stance appears to the world. By opposing the accord for lack of clearer protections for interrogators, isn't he making it clear to the world that the US has used torture, or intends to make use of torture? At least Bush had the sense to cave in and then spin the decision as a dollop of cream on the apple pie.