DEBUNK: Right-Wing Talking Points

I am getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of Right-Wing Talking Points, especially when they are so easily debunked. I mean, if a nobody like me can debunk them, shouldn't our elected Democrats be able to dismantle them like a nut and a screw?

And yet, I keep hearing the same RWTP repeated over and over and over again, but I don't hear enough dismantling. That may speak more to the state of the traditional media, but regardless, the answers seem so easy to me that I fail to see how the Right can keep getting away with saying these things.

Here are my thoughts on the RWTP and how easy it is to render them useless:

DEBUNK: "The detainees at Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, not prisoners of war."

Oh, really. I thought there was a War On Terror. Wouldn't that make them prisoners of a war and, therefore, POWs?

DEBUNK: "But they are terrorists!"

Yes, and the Nazis were Nazis, the most evil enemy this nation has ever known and terrorists in their own way, and yet when it came to Nazi POWs held by the U.S., they were treated better and given more rights than those at Guantanamo.

DEBUNK: "But the terrorists don't belong to any nation. The don't follow the rules of war. They aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions."

Um, we signed the Geneva Conventions, so it is a part of our law. We should follow our laws and the Geneva Conventions regardless of who our enemy is.

DEBUNK: "But the terrorists don't follow the Geneva Conventions."

This is America. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to set a good example by following national and international laws and not taking away the rights of POWs and not torturing them.

DEBUNK: "We do not torture."

Then why is Bush trying to retroactively redefine the Geneva Conventions for the sake of "alternative" interrogation techniques? Why did Bush fight the McCain anti-torture amendment and then issue a signing statement that said he would follow the amendment according to his "interpretation"? Why did we send Maher Arar and who knows how many other people to foreign countries, who are known to use torture, to be tortured? Why is Bush afraid to say what these "alternative" techniques are? Why is he trying to take away the checks and balances of power from the legislative and judicial branches to hide what he is doing? Why doesn't he want the American public to know what he is doing? Is it because he knows we would consider the "alternative" techniques to be torture?

DEBUNK: "If we know, then the enemy would know. Then the enemy could adapt. Loose lips sink ships."

Yes, well tight lips sank the World Trade Center. The Bush administration is to blame for not preventing 9/11 because they failed to warn the American public. If Bush had released the August 6th PDB to the public instead of ignoring it, every man, woman, child, FBI agent, CIA agent, INS agent, police officer, and security guard in our country would have been on guard and on the look out for terrorists in time to stop them.

It is one thing to keep secrets to prevent the enemy from knowing your plans; it is another thing (an evil and irresponsible thing) to keep secrets to prevent your own people from knowing the enemies' plans.

As for our enemies adapting to Bush's "alternative" techniques, what does Bush expect them to do? "Grow gills," as Jon Stewart suggests? If Bush can't tell the American people what these techniques are because he knows they would not approve, then he should not be using those techniques.

DEBUNK: "Our enemies use torture all the time."

Well, most Americans believe in the Golden Rule, even if President Bush does not.

DEBUNK: "President Bush is doing what he has to do to keep us and our families safe."

At what price?! Our humanity? Our good name in the world? Our innocence?

The ends do not justify the means. Doing evil for the sake of good is still evil. Torture for the sake of security is still torture. I would rather die knowing we always tried to do the right thing than live in a country that is known for torture.

Our safety and security should come from intelligence and goodwill, not from torture and war.

DEBUNK: "What if there is an imminent threat?"

Torture causes people to say anything to end the torture. This means lies. This means false intelligence. The result is the same regardless of whether the threat is imminent or not.

False intelligence can be disastrous. It can be even more disastrous when the threat is considered "imminent." Take the war in Iraq, for instance. WMDs, nuclear weapons program, and the connection to al Qaida and 9/11 were all lies about Iraq based on false intelligence which led to the disastrous situation we have in Iraq today.

DEBUNK: "At least we are fighting the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

That is an absurd argument. If our troops weren't being killed in Iraq, then maybe this would be a good point. So far, about as many Americans have died in Iraq as on 9/11, and if you consider that that number of Americans have died in Iraq in 3 years, compared to the 8 years it took bin Laden to orchestrate 9/11, the terrorists are able to kill Americans more efficiently because we went into Iraq.

So, I fail to see how fighting them "over there" is beneficial to us when more Americans are dying because we are "over there."

DEBUNK: "America is safer because we went into Iraq."

Again, more Americans are dying because we are in Iraq, our country has lost respect amongst our allies because we are in Iraq, our enemies' hatred for us has grown because we are in Iraq, and the number of terrorists has grown all because we went into Iraq. More Americans dying, more hatred, more enemies, and less friends does not equal "safer."

DEBUNK: "But America hasn't been attacked since 9/11."

Again, our troops are attacked almost everyday in Iraq. Aren't our troops a part of America? When they are attacked, America is attacked.

It makes no difference to terrorists whether they attack Americans in Iraq or in America. Why should it make a difference to us?

DEBUNK: "Would you rather have Saddam Hussein back in power with his rape rooms and torture chambers?"

That argument lacks so much rationality that I can't believe it even exists.

No one disagrees with the claim that Saddam Hussein was evil and did evil things (except maybe Saddam). However, we didn't stop any of that evil by removing Hussein from power. Now, instead of Hussein's dictatorial evil, there is this chaotic evil. We didn't stop the torture or sexual abuse (see: Abu Ghraib. It continues today through sectarian strife and civil war.

So, while we may have removed Hussein from power, the evil has not been removed.

DEBUNK: "That's why we need to stay the course."

Staying the course is not working. Staying the course means more troops are killed or wounded. Staying the course means more sectarian strife and civil war. Staying the course means more terrorists. Staying the course means more terrorist attacks. Staying the course means more innocent Iraqi civilians are killed or wounded. Staying the course means more ripping off American tax payers and war-profiteering by American corporations like Halliburton. Staying the course means increasing our national debt. Staying the course means continuing to FAIL.

If we were all on a bus and that bus kept getting driven into a ditch despite all our warnings to the bus driver, shouldn't we fire the bus driver. Whatever we are doing, it is not working. We keep getting driven into a ditch. When that happens, we need to demand change from those in power. So far, our demands are going unanswered, and when our demands go unanswered, we need to fire those in power. That means voting against every politician who supports Bush this November.

I see no reason why around 40% still approves of Bush or why any Republican should survive a race against a Democrat this November except that these RWTP still have some sway over the American public. However, I see no reason why that should continue when these RWTP are so easily DEBUNKED.