# Bush: We don't torture (?????)



## MA-Caver (Nov 7, 2005)

Seems that he forgotten all about Iraqi prisoners already... geez  gotta LOVE the guy huh? 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture


> PANAMA CITY, Panama - President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.
> Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.
> "We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."
> Cheney is seeking to persuade Congress to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the proposed torture ban if one is passed by both chambers.


Oh boy! Cheney *wants* us to have the reputation of torturing prisoners. Guess there's no other way to get information out of them. 
Gonna get medieval on their asses.
It's hard enough to have pride in being an American (which I am most assuredly... geez contradicting myself aren't I?  ) with our sorrid history as it is, i.e. treatment of Native Americans over 100 years ago (and today), slavery, etc. etc. but now we join the ranks of other countries where it might be legal for our "intelligence agencies" to inflict un-necessary harm and anguish on prisoners to gain further intelligence. Gee, don't we have mind altering chemicals to do that already? <sarcastic>


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 7, 2005)

lol.....and the Clinton Administration lied.....which is worse lying about oral sex....or all the weapons of mass destruction...

Every country tortures prisoners to get info....i don't care what they say...


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 7, 2005)

Don't toture huh?

Two Words: "Reality Television"


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 7, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> lol.....and the Clinton Administration lied.....which is worse lying about oral sex....or all the weapons of mass destruction...



Clinton got a Hummer.

Bush blew them up.


----------



## mantis (Nov 8, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> lol.....and the Clinton Administration lied.....which is worse lying about oral sex....or all the weapons of mass destruction...
> 
> Every country tortures prisoners to get info....i don't care what they say...


well.. clinton ****** a woman
bush ****** a couple of countries
including his



***Edited to comply with Martial Talk profanity policy - Flatlander*****


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2005)

We are witnessing the re-definition of the word 'torture' to fit the administration's needs. Torture is now the set of all abusive interrogation techniques the U.S. doesn't use.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 8, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Clinton got a Hummer.
> 
> Bush blew them up.


 
Seems you folks have forgotten all but one detail about the Clinton administration.  Clinton was involved in wars on three continents.  It is ironic he launched an attack on Iraq the very week that Congress held impeachment hearings.  What's furthermore, it was the ineffectual response to al-Qaeda during the Clinton administration that has lead to our current situation.


----------



## Solidman82 (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm so very glad I live in Canada.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 8, 2005)

Solidman82 said:
			
		

> I'm so very glad I live in Canada.


 There's some folks in France who would have said the same thing until recently.


----------



## Solidman82 (Nov 8, 2005)

Yeah, but we don't pop up in the news very often for things like riots or terrorism or our prime minister making a really stupid comment. Or at least I'm not paying very much attention.

I feel mostly safe here.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 8, 2005)

Solidman82 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but we don't pop up in the news very often for things like riots or terrorism or our prime minister making a really stupid comment. Or at least I'm not paying very much attention.
> 
> I feel mostly safe here.


 I love Canada.  Great hunting and fishing.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I love Canada.  Great hunting and fishing.


And camping....

but their Beer Sucks, and someone needs to teach them HOW to play Hockey.




Your Brother
:2xBird2:
John

(C'mon guys, can't a brother kid?))


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

Here is another reason why President Bush needs to be impeached. 

The President's statement is false. 

If one supports the Bush Administration, one supports torture. 

The Vice President is still pushing to exempt the CIA from current policies of the United States and language of United States Law. With recent news that the CIA is operating hidden prisons, there is no reason to not connect these two items; the CIA is torturing prisoners in these secret prisons.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 8, 2005)

Solidman82 said:
			
		

> Yeah, but we don't pop up in the news very often for things like riots or terrorism or our prime minister making a really stupid comment. Or at least I'm not paying very much attention.



Well, yeah but while Chretien was in charge no one understood most of what he said, so even if he did make a really stupid comment no one would have known


----------



## Solidman82 (Nov 8, 2005)

Exactly! I know what we have to do to Bush now. Make him speak all of his announcments in Spanish.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Seems you folks have forgotten all but one detail about the Clinton administration. Clinton was involved in wars on three continents. It is ironic he launched an attack on Iraq the very week that Congress held impeachment hearings. What's furthermore, it was the ineffectual response to al-Qaeda during the Clinton administration that has lead to our current situation.


 
The Clinton administration, like all administrations, did its fair share of global mayhem.  However, to claim the current situation is the fault of the Clinton administration is a gross oversimplification.  What Clinton did pales in comparison to what the Bush regime has done and continues to do.  We have a group of monsters running this once-great nation.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 8, 2005)

Clinton's been out of office for 5 years.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Clinton's been out of office for 5 years.


 
Yeah, that's what I thought too. 

Although, it is sometimes hard to tell when Don Roley, sgtmac_46, and 7starmantis are typin'.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If one supports the Bush Administration, one supports torture.



So... if you support someone, you support 100% of their policies/actions and cant disagree with any of them?

Hmm.  Hmm.

Interesting.

As I have plenty of issues with the current administration, and things I agree with, I dont buy that statement one bit but if you wanna play that game we can pretend that I am a Bush Lover, and as such, you may Call me an advocate for torture then.  Where's me red hot poker?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 8, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Clinton's been out of office for 5 years.



So are you suggesting we ignore the past... no benchmarks to measure on, comparsons to make, etc?

Or are you afraid that when Clintons administration comes up, (ande others before him) you have to face the fact that Bush isnt the only president involved in some of these types of actions, so you try and bury the comments with an "It's in the past" attitude, rather than adressing them?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So... if you support someone, you support 100% of their policies/actions and cant disagree with any of them?
> 
> Hmm. Hmm.
> 
> ...


 
How wrong do the policies of the Bush Administration need to be *before* one decides that the policies are so contrary to what it means to be an American, that they change their point of view?  

Where is the tipping point? 

Is there a line in the sand, for you, that is so significant that support is withdrawn?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there a line in the sand, for you, that is so significant that support is withdrawn?



No... cuz here is my issue...

I dont judge the administration OVERALL... I dont go, _Gosh, I love "issue A" but Bush said "Lets let the CIA torture folks"... so I guess I love that too!  _or vice versa.  I like to look at issues, rather than parties.  Sorry.
I also refuse to see Bush as the "Big evil"... he is a moron and a puppet, but HE isnt the one doing the "wrongs"... But all I hear is "Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush" Not "Governer So-and-So" and "Senator Such and Such"

Sure.  we DO hear _some_ of that... but its buried under mounds of  "Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush".

Heres a great big secret, folks(not).  I didnt Vote for Bush.  I wouldnt if he were running again... Everyone thinks Im some big "Bush Supporter" because I speak out when I 
think that the liberals are being stupid and arguing in circles with little or no real *thought* behind their arguments... mostly with the opinion that they ARE doing very little more than "Bush Bashing".   Plenty of examples exist right here on this board...  Just look at the Religious conservatives oppose vaccines thread. Though I have to say I dont particularly care for the attitude of most conservatives either... BUT they tend to be pretty dogmatic and predictable, and you at least know where they are coming from... even if you dont agree with it... But look thru the threads in the study... I seem to think MOST of them are started by the liberals about "Bush did this, or bush did that" OR "Conservatives did this, or Conservatives did that" and you see FEW that start the other way around, in comparison.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So... if you support someone, you support 100% of their policies/actions and cant disagree with any of them?


 
Yep. Question the president, and you hate America. 

Stupid liberal thinkin'....


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. Question the president, and you hate America.
> 
> Stupid liberal thinkin'....


Heh, well my thinking/feelings on THAT is... I love my country, I LOVE America... I hate my government... what does that make me? A patriot or... a rebel ?? hee hee


----------



## Solidman82 (Nov 9, 2005)

> Heh, well my thinking/feelings on THAT is... I love my country, I LOVE America... I hate my government... what does that make me? A patriot or... a rebel ?? hee hee


 
Maybe you're an anarchist.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> No... cuz here is my issue...
> 
> I dont judge the administration OVERALL... I dont go, _Gosh, I love "issue A" but Bush said "Lets let the CIA torture folks"... so I guess I love that too! _or vice versa. I like to look at issues, rather than parties. Sorry.
> I also refuse to see Bush as the "Big evil"... he is a moron and a puppet, but HE isnt the one doing the "wrongs"... But all I hear is "Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush" Not "Governer So-and-So" and "Senator Such and Such"
> ...


 
I had this argument three years ago with my fishing buddie. The crux of his position is that '*America is the Good Guys*'. See this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1

If the Administration takes actions that are counter to the idea of America being the good guys, not just once, but repeatedly, then we need to question and challenge those items. 

I think if we, as citizens, do not stand up and say 'stop', we end up, at some point, looking around and saying 'How did we get Here!'. 

How did America become a nation that launches Aggressive Wars?
How did America become a nation without a Justice System?
How did America become a nation that condone's torture?
How did America become a nation that breaks international Law?
How did America become a nation that does not look after the least of his brothers?

You know the phrase; All it takes is for good men to say nothing.

Concerning 'Bash Bush'. There are many on this board who have been accusing me of that quite a bit lately. From my point of view, these ad hominem attacks don't further the discussion. It is the lazy, easy way out. There is no attempt to understand. There is no prinicpled disagreement. It is 'attack the liberal'. I do not think I am attacking Bush. I am attacking his policies. I find them dangerous to America. I find them self-serving. And the attacks I am subject to just claim I hate him.

Truth is .... I think President Bush is as dumb as a pile of bricks. I think President Cheney has created the country he wanted, without putting himself to the trouble of an election. I think we, as a nation, have lost much of what we were. 

We have no moral authority. 
We are no longer 'The Good Guys'.

And for that, the Adminstration deserves no quarter.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. Question the president, and you hate America.


 
Yup. Exactly the opposite of what the Founders thought, of course...but then, they had lived through an especially bad govt.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And for that, the Adminstration deserves no quarter.



So rise up.  Go stand in front of the white house.  DO somthing other than argue with a bunch of idiots on a Martial Arts board.  GIVE THEM NO QUARTER, if thats what you believe.  

Or is that too much trouble?  What with goin to jail and all...?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Concerning 'Bash Bush'. There are many on this board who have been accusing me of that quite a bit lately. From my point of view, these ad hominem attacks don't further the discussion. It is the lazy, easy way out...
> 
> Truth is .... I think President Bush is as dumb as a pile of bricks.


 :idunno: 
Anyone seen the Chapell show with Rick James? "Why would I rub my feet in his couch like its something to do? Yeah, I remember rubbing my feet in his couch! Cocain is a hell of a drug". 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So rise up. Go stand in front of the white house. DO somthing other than argue with a bunch of idiots on a Martial Arts board. GIVE THEM NO QUARTER, if thats what you believe.
> 
> Or is that too much trouble?


 
Isn't this the "Go to Japan if you want to learn ninjutsu" argument again?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Isn't this the "Go to Japan if you want to learn ninjutsu" argument again?



I dont think so.

It would be more like the "I want to be a ninja, but dont want to go to a dojo" argument.

Not the same.

What I am saying is that If something *must *be done, dont wait for others to do it... do it yourself.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 9, 2005)

> So are you suggesting we ignore the past... no benchmarks to measure on, comparsons to make, etc?


 
Not at all.  But here's why the repeated allusions to the Clinton presidency are pointless:

For the past 5 years, Bush has had the extremely favorable condition of a Republican Senate, Republican House, and completely Republican Administration.  (BTW, Clinton never had a completely Democratic government, and in fact the Repubs took both houses in the middle of his term).  The Republican Congress has shown a remarkable propensity, obedience even, to vote in lockstep with President Bush.  So he's had 5 years to accomplish his agenda.  And with few exceptions, accomplish it he has.  *It's all his, and he owns it.*

So to repeatedly say, effectively, "OH YEAH? Well Clinton did THIS!" is argumentative and simply irrelevant.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2005)

So... let me make sure I understand what you are saying...

We cannot talk about the things Clinton did because he managed to do them despite opposition,

But its ok to talk about Bush doing them because he did them without it?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. Question the president, and you hate America.
> 
> Stupid liberal thinkin'....



Sorry I missed addressing this before...

I acknowleged this happens on both sides, I simply stated I tend to see More of it from the Liberals.

Question the President, you are an unamerican traitor.

Dont question him and you are a Warmongering Ignorant hick.

Whatever, I say.  But, It's nice to see you only addressed the one side of that, completely ignoring the Liberal side.  Can't do no wrong, can they?


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Whatever, I say. But, It's nice to see you only addressed the one side of that, completely ignoring the Liberal side. Can't do no wrong, can they?


 
Yes. Exactly. Has nothing do do with you already covering one side and largely dismissing the other as largely inert.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> The Clinton administration, like all administrations, did its fair share of global mayhem. However, to claim the current situation is the fault of the Clinton administration is a gross oversimplification. What Clinton did pales in comparison to what the Bush regime has done and continues to do. We have a group of monsters running this once-great nation.


 What Clinton did was allow al-Qaeda an 8 year head start.  They bombed the WTC for the FIRST time in 1993, not 2001.  For the next 8 years Clinton played one ineffective game after another while al-Qaeda struck the US several times, in Africa, US navy ships in the middle east, and plotted 9/11.  

What's more, bin Laden was OFFERED to Clinton several times, and he refused to take custody of him, because it had "decided" that bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be treated like a criminal issue, instead of a national defense issue, and the Justice Department wasn't sure it had enough evidence to indict him.  So they let him go.

To say that "Oh well, it was on Bush's watch that 9/11 happened, ahuh ahuh" is the over simplification.

Had Clinton dealt with the al-Qaeda problem effectively at the beginning, when it was CLEAR they wanted to destroy the World Trade Center, and they did not have the resources that they had 8 years later, then we probably wouldn't be having this argument.  GW Bush's term in office would be a dull, uneventful 4 years.  

Instead, however, many in this room are endorsing a course of action (Treating terrorists like a criminal problem, instead of a military problem) that resulted in this mess in the first place.  Some people never learn, and they never will.  :shrug:

As for my even bringing up Clinton, it was in direct response to the  statement "Clinton got a Hummer. Bush blew them up."  It's a statement predicated on an ignorance of the Clinton administration and it's involvement in this issue.

What's furthermore, the asinine assertion that "Bush lied" is equally founded on a distortion of reality.  The very intelligence cited by Bush was available, to the same degree it was available to him, to bi-partisan members of congress, each of whom came to the same conclusion he did...Democrat after democrat came to the same conclusion, including Howard Dean and John Kerry...

That is until it became all the rage to deny that the evidence, that they already declared valid, was NOT real, in order to make the asinine claim that the "President lied", while simultaneously dodging the fact that if the president lied....THEY DID TOO!!!!

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2004/01/22/10510.html
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

What's more, the British, Germans, Russians, and others lied about similiar intelligence reports.  

What is happening is a brand of faulty logic typical in these types of arguments.  No WMD found AFTER invasion automatically ='s "President Lied".  That's a false argument.  Saddam Hussein knew that we were coming for months before we showed up.  If you tell a drug dealer for weeks your going to raid his house, and when you do, you don't find any drugs, does that mean you were lying that he had drugs?  hardly


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

Hog Wash !

You can't keep trying to blame Clinton for what George Bush didn't do. 

Clinton didn't receive a PDB "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." 

You can't keep blaming Democrats in Congress for believing lies told to them by President Cheney ... 

Libby feeds Miller

Miller puts Libby's lies on the Front Page of the New York Times

Cheney goes on the Sunday morning News Shows and Says: "See, even the Times is reporting This stuff".

And most importantly; Neither Bill Clinton, John Kerry, nor Howard Dean launched an aggressive, illegal war against a non-threatening nation that has resulted in 2058 United States Soldiers coming home in body bags. 

This war, this broken foreign policy belongs at the feet of George W. Bush. 

If he was aware of what Cheney was doing, he should have stopped it. If he wasn't aware of what Cheney was doing, he doesn't deserve to be in office. 


Two Thousand Fifty-Eight Dead Soldiers

More than Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Wounded in Action

This is George W. Bush's Legacy. 

And every one of the soldiers in uniform is in greater danger because the **** strike that - Cheney Administration won't take torture off the table.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

Im wearing my own tin hat on this one....

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2001/1101a.shtml



> Why Was Clinton Soft on Terrorism?
> 
> While Bill Clinton and IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti were both keenly aware that U.S. based charities were funding terrorists, they did nothing (while at the same time launching audit after audit against Clinton's personal enemies). When Osama bin Laden bombed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton responded by destroying an empty camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan to distract Americans from the Lewinsky scandal.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hog Wash !
> 
> You can't keep trying to blame Clinton for what George Bush didn't do.
> 
> ...


 Let me see if I follow your "logic".   Clinton didn't know that bin Laden was determined to attack the US....DESPITE the fact that he did it NUMEROUS TIMES, including TRYING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER in 1993?!  WHAT did Clinton NEED...a LETTER OF INTENT?! :erg:

As for the dubious argument that Libby is a smoking gun that ='s "Bush lied about Iraq", that's the most asinine leap of logic i've heard in a long time.  First of all, what really set off the whole "CIA operative" broohaha was all these reporters wanting to know why the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Africa, when A) Joe Wilson doesn't work for the CIA and B) Wilson was free to talk with the New York Times.  

Then everyone started asking questions about Joe Wilson's wife.  Now, if you work for the CIA and you send your high profile husband to Africa to "Unofficially" work for the CIA, then the idiot does an interview with the New York Times, how interested in you at keeping your cover?  Not very.  What's furthermore, if you're using your CIA front office to give campaign contributions to a particular party, how biased are you?  

The whole issue is a witch hunt, designed to make much ado about nothing.  If Libby broke the law, fine.  But lets not pretend 2 + 2 ='s 3457 on this one.  

One last tidbit, if Joe Wilson claimed to the New York Times that he found evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated about the attempt by Iraq to purchase nuclear material from Niger, why did he tell the CIA that he found evidence that Iraq had attempted to purchase these items, but were unsuccessful?  

So, in plain english, Wilson found that Iraq had tried to purchase nuclear material, but was unsuccessful.  Are we to presume that there is a vast difference between Iraq having purchased these materials from Niger, and them only "Shopping" around from country to country LOOKING to buy these materials?  The distinction is small, and moot, as Saddam was forbidden from even attempting to build WMD.  The very act of trying to buy materials for a nuclear weapons program is ample justification.

Sorry, guys, the truth is always in the details...much as many prefer the one line zingers (i.e. "Bush lied, men died".)  The truth, however, takes a lot more digging.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Let me see if I follow your "logic". Clinton didn't know that bin Laden was determined to attack the US....DESPITE the fact that he did it NUMEROUS TIMES, including TRYING TO BLOW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER in 1993?! WHAT did Clinton NEED...a LETTER OF INTENT?!
> 
> As for the dubious argument that Libby is a smoking gun that ='s "Bush lied about Iraq", that's the most asinine leap of logic i've heard in a long time. First of all, what really set off the whole "CIA operative" broohaha was all these reporters wanting to know why the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Africa, when A) Joe Wilson doesn't work for the CIA and B) Wilson was free to talk with the New York Times.
> 
> ...


 
That Libby was feeding Judy Miller ******** has nothing to do with Joe Wilson. This was taking place *before the war.* If Ms. Miller was not an official member of the White House Iraq Group, she was certainly in bed with their agenda.

I make no mention in this thread of Joseph Wilson, because no one knew who he was until *after the war* had begun, and it became apparent *that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction* in Iraq.

If you want the truth, you got to stop listening to talk radio. Your understanding of the timelines, and the people involved appears to be seriously flawed.

Libby put Miller and Chalabi together. Libby had Miller plant stories about how horrible Iraq was - all of which have been proven false - the CIA doubted this material and these claims and these claimants (see Newsweek) - but Cheney pushed ahead. The lies Libby told Miller ended up in the New York Times, which Cheney cited as proof in the *lead up* to the war.

And Americans are in more danger today, because Iraq has become a proving ground for terrorist. They are *now* able to practice and learn and develop skills. George Bush / Dick Cheney have turned Iraq into a Terrorist Factory. 

Something Bill Clinton couldn't have done in his wildest nightmares.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 10, 2005)

That Clinton was "soft on terrorism" is patently untrue (although he was certainly hampered in efficacy by the fact that the Congress was WAY more interested in his sex life than in foreign policy).  PLEASE read the 9/11 Commission Report.

But the bottom line is, with respect to the current world events, Clinton is irrelevant--history.  The fact is, 9/11 happened, but it still had NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.  And the aftermath of Iraq included the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, essentially the topic of this thread.  That's all Bush and Company, and not any legacy of Clinton.  Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Armitage, et al were hell bent on going into Iraq LONG before Bush even became president, they articulated this in a letter to Clinton in 1998, and you can confirm that at the Project for a New American Century website (www. newamericancentury.org).  They were just waiting for an excuse, and they managed to turn 9/11 into that excuse.  With a Republican Congress, it was easy for Bush to forge ahead.  And it had NOTHING to do with Clinton.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That Libby was feeding Judy Miller ******** has nothing to do with Joe Wilson. This was taking place *before the war.* If Ms. Miller was not an official member of the White House Iraq Group, she was certainly in bed with their agenda.
> 
> I make no mention in this thread of Joseph Wilson, because no one knew who he was until *after the war* had begun, and it became apparent *that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction* in Iraq.
> 
> ...


 That's the most convoluted logic i've heard yet.  Valerie Plame's identity was made public in July 2003 AFTER Joe Wilson's interview in the New York Times.  The only purpose even alleged for "leaking" Valerie Plame's identity was as a result of Joe Wilson's New York Times interview.  That's the core of the argument on your side, even, that Plame was "outed" because of Joe Wilson's statements about the administration.  Again, you might want to check that alleged time line again.

As for "horrible stories about Iraq" having been proven false, which ones are those?  I note, again, how vague and nebulous your accusations usually are.  Again, your entire argument is based on one leap of logic after another.

Lets hear some specifics of what "Horrible stories" about Iraq are untrue.  Joe Wilson himself reported that evidence existed that Iraq had attempted to buy yellow cake.  The fact that they were unsuccessful is certainly not evidence that the administration "Lied" or evidence of Iraq's innocents in attempting to gather nuclear material.  Lets hear your "facts".

As for practicing skills, you might want to keep in mind that dead terrorists practice nothing.  In Afghanistan they were free to practice, and a had safe base of operations.  As I pointed out in another post, terrorists in Iraq are getting desperate and have made some HUGE public relations mistakes.  When's the last time the arab street has yelled "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!&#8221;.  The same al-Zarqawi, I might add, who happens to be a native son of Jordan.  Go figure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9979747/

The on going mission certain people to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory continues.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 10, 2005)

[sarcasm]Failure at all costs. We will fail at home, whatever the cost may be, we shall fail on the beaches, we shall fail on the landing grounds, we shall fail in the fields and in the streets, we shall fail in the hills; we shall never have victory under this administration!!![/sarcasm]


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 10, 2005)

hmmm....

democrats blame republicans....republicans blame democrats....

Isn't that causing inefficiencies in the government. Maybe we shouldn't have parties ... then people would have to make up their own minds...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 10, 2005)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> hmmm....
> 
> democrats blame republicans....republicans blame democrats....
> 
> Isn't that causing inefficiencies in the government. Maybe we shouldn't have parties ... then people would have to make up their own minds...


 It wouldn't matter if we had parties are not.  Parties merely represent natural human inclinations.  The result is the same no matter what you call it.  The idea that the party system in some way creates this is a misunderstanding of the process.  It is human inclinations that created parties, not the other way around.  We could have a thousand parties, or none at all.  It would not make any real difference (with the exception that a larger number of parties would result in even more inefficiencies).

We could make political parties illegal, and people would still join with like minded persons to form "unofficial" political alliances.  The problem isn't parties, the problem is basic political disagreements on a core philosophical level.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It wouldn't matter if we had parties are not.  Parties merely represent natural human inclinations.



I dont neccessarily know if that is true.  I know at least 3 people who told me flat out that they would vote for their party regardless of the issues, and that they selected their parties because its what their parents are...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's the most convoluted logic i've heard yet. Valerie Plame's identity was made public in July 2003 AFTER Joe Wilson's interview in the New York Times. The only purpose even alleged for "leaking" Valerie Plame's identity was as a result of Joe Wilson's New York Times interview. That's the core of the argument on your side, even, that Plame was "outed" because of Joe Wilson's statements about the administration. Again, you might want to check that alleged time line again.
> 
> As for "horrible stories about Iraq" having been proven false, which ones are those? I note, again, how vague and nebulous your accusations usually are. Again, your entire argument is based on one leap of logic after another.
> 
> ...


 
Good God Man! 

Libby told, or arranged for Chalabi to tell Miller that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that can only be used for making refining centerfuges *before* the war. This is a 'horror story' that has been proven false.

Libby told, or arranged for Chalabi (or Curveball) to tell Miller that al Qaeda had received extensive training on working with Chemical and Biological weapons *before* the war. This is a 'horror story' that has been proven false.

Your statements concerning Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame are incongruous. Unless you are assuming that Iriving Libby never met or spoke to Judith Miller before leaking Valerie Plame's name in June of 2003. 

Secretary of Rumsfeld had asked the question, but has seemed to be incapable of answering the it; "Are we capturing or killing more terrorists than the madrassas are turning out each day?" 

From what I am able to read and observe, the Actions of the United States government is a catalyst for more young Muslem men to join the ranks of Radical Islam. Each day, the Actions of George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, and providing those terrorists with a proving ground in Iraq. 

Each person who has been 'disappeared' to a secret CIA torture prison has relatives and neighbors who, no doubt, are telling the tales of America. Do you think Karen Hughes can spread better stories about America that the families of those who are now missing? 

Oh, and the reports of what Joe Wilson reported back to the CIA are: "It was highly unlikely Iraq and Niger had *any agreement at all*. Any claims were just false. All of Niger's uranium ore was committed to a different distributor, a French Company. There is no way some 500 tons of yellowcake could have been diverted to Iraq." Your word "unsuccessful" is way to strong for what had taken place - sounds like a Hannity claim to me.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 11, 2005)

Parties do create inaccracies...

For instance how many people vote republican just because they are registered that way and vice versa. Or straight ticket. Take out straight ticket voting and make people know who they are voting for. Take out the party and people will have to pay attention to the issues, not the party.

How many times do you think someone wanted to vote one party or another but someone from that party made them feel it was wrong to vote against the party. Just like those who say they are against the war but for the soldiers are called unpatriotic. People always pressure people to go one way or another and the party system gives more fuel to this.

I'm not totally against the party system...just showing that it possibliy is becoming a problem in the political system.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 11, 2005)

Anyway that being said....sorry i brought that up here. This thread deals with something else...probably should get back to the threads intention....a new thread could deal with the party system.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Good God Man!
> 
> Libby told, or arranged for Chalabi to tell Miller that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that can only be used for making refining centerfuges *before* the war. This is a 'horror story' that has been proven false.


 all irrelavent.  Number 1, the entire war was not based on "Aluminum tubes", it was based on 12 years of violated sanctions.  But, that aside, even Joe Wilson acknowledged to the CIA, upon his return, that evidence existed that Iraq had attempted to purchase material from africa.  Then he told the New York Times that no evidence existed that Iraq had succeeded, leaving out the part where Iraq had tried to purchase those items.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Libby told, or arranged for Chalabi (or Curveball) to tell Miller that al Qaeda had received extensive training on working with Chemical and Biological weapons *before* the war. This is a 'horror story' that has been proven false.


 Again, entirely irrelavent.  The story that al-Qaeda had received training in those areas is not a "lie", you dispute that it's accurate, that's an entirely different thing entirely.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your statements concerning Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame are incongruous. Unless you are assuming that Iriving Libby never met or spoke to Judith Miller before leaking Valerie Plame's name in June of 2003.


 
Libby no doubt talked with dozens of reporters on a daily basis. Again, what does any of that prove?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Secretary of Rumsfeld had asked the question, but has seemed to be incapable of answering the it; "Are we capturing or killing more terrorists than the madrassas are turning out each day?"


 That presumption is predicated on the (false) idea that all terrorists are equally dangerous.  Terrorists that have years to train for operations (like 9/11) in a country safe from harassment, and are allowed to travel the world at their leisure, along with receiving years of intensive training, are FAR more dangerous than the thugs currently being rolled out to replace them.  The "terrorists" being produced are dying at an alarming rate.  Though, they are replaced by many new terrorists, those terrorists are untrained and inexperienced.  What's more, they are now isolated to attacks within Iraqs borders...A development I find more comforting than having them in the United States.  Finally, and this is the MOST important point, operating in their own backyard is beginning to alienate them with the population as a whole.  "Death to al-Qaeda" is a chant no one thought they'd hear in the Arab street...until yesterday.  Terrorist attacks in their own backyard, against fellow muslims, is resulting alienation with the arab street.  What's more, it is nothing but an act of desperation of a failing insurgency.  



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> From what I am able to read and observe, the Actions of the United States government is a catalyst for more young Muslem men to join the ranks of Radical Islam. Each day, the Actions of George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, and providing those terrorists with a proving ground in Iraq.


 
That's ironic given recent news.  It seems as though it is al-Qaeda that is acting as a catylst.  Again, you must not be paying attention to recent events.  



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> Each person who has been 'disappeared' to a secret CIA torture prison has relatives and neighbors who, no doubt, are telling the tales of America. Do you think Karen Hughes can spread better stories about America that the families of those who are now missing?


 And the sympathy for those individuals is waning as innocent muslim victims of al-Qaeda are stacking up in the arab street.  Again, terrorism against civilians is an act of desperation by guerilla's and terrorists, not one of success.



			
				michaelward said:
			
		

> Oh, and the reports of what Joe Wilson reported back to the CIA are: "It was highly unlikely Iraq and Niger had *any agreement at all*. Any claims were just false. All of Niger's uranium ore was committed to a different distributor, a French Company. There is no way some 500 tons of yellowcake could have been diverted to Iraq." Your word "unsuccessful" is way to strong for what had taken place - sounds like a Hannity claim to me.


 Again, nice dodge.  I stated that Joe Wilson told the CIA that evidence existed that Iraq had approached Niger about purchasing nuclear material.  You're resting on the assertion that no sale was made, but that's irrelavent.  According even to Wilson, evidence existed that Iraq had attempted to purchase that material.

The very fact that Iraq was attempting to purchase those materials and was shopping for them is enough to violate the cease fire.  Period.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 11, 2005)

So if I try to buy a rocket launcher from an undercover FBI agent but never actually BUY the launcher than I have done nothing wrong and shouldnt be arrested??


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So if I try to buy a rocket launcher from an undercover FBI agent but never actually BUY the launcher than I have done nothing wrong and shouldnt be arrested??


 Exactly.  I mean, you only "tried" to buy the rocket launcher...you didn't succeed.

Or, if you "tried" to rob a bank, but didn't succeed in getting any money, have you committed a crime?

It's clear, even by Joe Wilson's own statements to the CIA, that evidence existed that Iraq was attempting to purchase items (A fact he avoided while spinning the issue with the New York Times).  So, by their own admission, Iraq was attempting to gain material that they were restricted from having as a condition of the 1991 cease fire agreement.  The very act of even attempting to shop for the materials was an act of WAR.

And for the record, I don't need Sean Hannity or anyone else to tell me what to think about the evidence that I can see and read for myself.  It's clear when looking at the totality of the evidence, not just the highlighted parts that michael and others only want me to see, but a look at the WHOLE story, that the conclusions they are reaching are false conclusions and are not supported by the evidence.  That is clear to anyone with enough curiosity to research the topic on more than a slogan headline level.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's clear when looking at the totality of the evidence, not just the highlighted parts that michael and others only want me to see, but a look at the WHOLE story, that the conclusions they are reaching are false conclusions and are not supported by the evidence. That is clear to anyone with enough curiosity to research the topic on more than a slogan headline level.


 
Hey, you're the one beating the one note drum of 'Joe Wilson didn't tell everything in the New York times'. 

The WHOLE story is much bigger than Joe Wilson. 

Lawrence Wilkerson might be a good place to start looking, and asking questions if one wants to review torture by the United State military. 

One might demand the Pentagon follow the instructions of the federal court by releasing *all* of the photos from Abu Ghraib, as ordered, if one was curious about the WHOLE story of Torture. 

One could also be curious about why Vice President Cheney is so adamantly fighting to violate US and International law to allow the CIA to torture.

But, only if one was curious enough to look beyond the slogan headlines.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, you're the one beating the one note drum of 'Joe Wilson didn't tell everything in the New York times'.
> 
> The WHOLE story is much bigger than Joe Wilson.
> 
> ...


  One also might wonder why you change the subject from WMD to torture when the topic of Joe Wilson's statements to the CIA supporting the fact that Iraq tried to buy restricted material in Africa comes up.  Again, if the current topic isn't working, change it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> One also might wonder why you change the subject from WMD to torture when the topic of Joe Wilson's statements to the CIA supporting the fact that Iraq tried to buy restricted material in Africa comes up. Again, if the current topic isn't working, change it.


 
Because I don't buy your argument. 

Joe Wilson's report was made verbally to the CIA. What has been reported on the trip does not square with your claims. I just don't agree with your assessment of what Mr. Wilson reported *based* on what I have read concerning the topic. We aren't going to square that circle. 

You accuse others of not being able to see the 'WHOLE' picture, but then claim it is a diversion when the topic is expanded to the 'WHOLE' picture.


P.S.   This is the sentence with which I do not agree.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's clear, even by Joe Wilson's own statements to the CIA, that evidence existed that Iraq was attempting to purchase items



Where is this statement made 'clear'? What is the evidence? Who in Iraq?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Because I don't buy your argument.
> 
> Joe Wilson's report was made verbally to the CIA. What has been reported on the trip does not square with your claims. I just don't agree with your assessment of what Mr. Wilson reported *based* on what I have read concerning the topic. We aren't going to square that circle.
> 
> ...


 
"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. "

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts."

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

That according to the Washington Post, hardly "Sean Hannity". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Ironically, this information has been available since 2004.  The overemphasis on who told who about Plame is a red-herring.  If Libby was playing politics and committed a crime, so be it...send him to jail.  But it's apples and oranges.  The facts in this case don't support your conclusions.  Of course, as we all know, if the facts don't support your conclusions "so much the worse for the facts".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. "
> 
> "The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts."
> 
> ...


 
Thank you. I will weigh this report in balance with others. I don't agree with some of the assertions in this report. The Senate Intelligence Committee report, if I recall, made an error in one of the claims ascribed to Wilson.

And while you keep pushing Wilson, I think there is a far bigger issue than whether Iraq approached Niger ... although that is a link in a chain. 

We will see.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Thank you. I will weigh this report in balance with others. I don't agree with some of the assertions in this report. The Senate Intelligence Committee report, if I recall, made an error in one of the claims ascribed to Wilson.
> 
> And while you keep pushing Wilson, I think there is a far bigger issue than whether Iraq approached Niger ... although that is a link in a chain.
> 
> We will see.


 We shall at that.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2005)

Today we learn from the New York Times (a publication bruised by its own inaccurate reporting before the invasion of Iraq), that the Administration's reports of an al-Qaeda-Iraq link were derived from torture ... 

Well, the Egyptians don't call it torture ... but rather, interrogating the prisoner with an understanding of the culture. 

Mr. al-Libi, an al-Qaeda member aprehended in Afghanistan was turned over to the Egyptians as part of the on-going 'Rendition' process. When returned to American custody, Mr. al-Libi recanted his statements. 

The Vice President and the Secretary of State are on record using Mr. al-Libi's claims as 'credible'. 

Well  . . . maybe not so much, eh? 

This link requires a user ID .. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6d17d434a1d2e517&hp&ex=1134104400&partner=homepage


----------

