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

[michaeledward]

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?

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Is there a line in the sand, for you, that is so significant that support is withdrawn?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

Is there a line in the sand, for you, that is so significant that support is withdrawn?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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Perhaps most shocking of all, Clinton's State Department funneled $4.2 million in grants to the Islamic African Relief Agency, an organization that has been linked to bin Laden and to attacks on U.S. interests-including the embassy bombings.

Indeed, throughout his tenure as President, Bill Clinton responded to terrorist aggression with passivity. The question is, why?

Several theories have been proffered. For example, former Clinton aide Dick Morris claims the Lewinsky affair made the President "risk averse and passive" with respect to bin Laden.

However, a more disturbing answer might just be found in Hillary Clinton's campaign fundraising books. Radical Islamic activists and organizations donated thousands of dollars to her campaign in an attempt to curry favor with her and possibly with then- President Clinton. The agenda of these individuals and organizations was clear.

One fundraising event in Boston, hosted by the American Muslim Alliance, was attended by 100 American Muslim leaders and activists who felt the U.S. war on terrorism too harsh. Boston, the departure point for two of the planes hijacked on September 11, is thought to be the home to a large bin Laden following.

Another $1,000 donor, Abdurahman Alamoudi, an official with the American Muslim Council, once vowed to eliminate Israel. He also boasted that he defended Palestinian terrorist Hamas before the Clinton White House.

A secret fundraising event closed to the press was held at the home of Hani Masri, a crony of Yasser Arafat. Mrs. Clinton's campaign staff tried to conceal the event, which raised $50,000.

"Hillary Clinton courted the financial support of the radical Islamic community and obviously they expected something in return," said JW President Tom Fitton. "Perhaps they got what they wanted in the form of a free pass from Clinton's IRS."

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.