If the conclusion is absurd, what's that say about the argument?

Friday, October 7. 2005

If the conclusion is absurd, what's that say about the argument?

The US Senate passed a $50 billion military appropriation bill this week. It differs from the one passed by the House, so it's headed to a reconciliation committee. President Bush has announced that if the Senate version makes it to his desk, he'll veto it.

Since the Senate is Republican controlled, it makes you wonder what could possibly have made it into the appropriation that would make the President react so.

Well it seems the legislation also requires us to treat prisoners of war in accordance with the code of conduct already detailed in the Army's Code of Conduct manual. What liberal, bleeding heart Democrat got that inserted into the bill? Well it wasn't a Democrat, it was a decorated, Republican war hero.

When the President of the United States won't stand up and say the US is going to fairly and humanely treat prisoners of war, then there's something wrong with the way the war is being conducted.

How can we possibly differentiate ourselves from the terrorists?

Posted by Sam Chapman Jr. at 17:58 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

No comments

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry