President Bush and Torture

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>If he took a dump on the steps of the Capitol you'd find
>something praiseworthy to say about that, too.

"Clinton did it first!"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are in an extremely small minority of peole that condone torture.

Congratulations?

In this country you are allowed to be wrong.

By the way, Congratulations on completely mis-representing my position. Hell of a jump based on the "specific" topic here and my reply.

You said you are "proud" of his position. His position with regards to the topic at hand is to allow torture. Therefore, yes, you condone torture.

In a context less general than you imply? Yes, for specific situations

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are in an extremely small minority of peole that condone torture.

Congratulations?

In this country you are allowed to be wrong.

By the way, Congratulations on completely mis-representing my position. Hell of a jump based on the "specific" topic here and my reply.

You said you are "proud" of his position. His position with regards to the topic at hand is to allow torture. Therefore, yes, you condone torture.

In a context less general than you imply? Yes, for specific situations

Then you also must support the enemies use of torture on Americans and its alies.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are in an extremely small minority of peole that condone torture.

Congratulations?

In this country you are allowed to be wrong.

By the way, Congratulations on completely mis-representing my position. Hell of a jump based on the "specific" topic here and my reply.

You said you are "proud" of his position. His position with regards to the topic at hand is to allow torture. Therefore, yes, you condone torture.

In a context less general than you imply? Yes, for specific situations

Then you also must support the enemies use of torture on Americans and its alies.

Really? Hmm, I guess I will cross that road when we cut the head off an inocent on video. Then add the bamboo under the nails and other shit.

Nice angle on the topic but really, I know you know the comments you made here are off point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>Hmm, I guess I will cross that road when we cut the head off an inocent on video.

Or beat people to death, which we've done more than once.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Hmm, I guess I will cross that road when we cut the head off an inocent on video.

Or beat people to death, which we've done more than once.

You need to mix security and criminal acts to make your point. Not much of a point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

Well, he is cementing his legacy.

Many presidents are remembered at most for one or two things.

FDR was the new deal.

Nixon was a crook.

JFK was the first Catholic president, and the moon president.

Bush will be remembered as the Iraq war president and the torture president.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Well, he is cementing his legacy.

Many presidents are remembered at most for one or two things.

FDR was the new deal.

Nixon was a crook.

JFK was the first Catholic president, and the moon president.

Bush will be remembered as the Iraq war president and the torture president.

How about the "Double the national debt" president?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>How about the "Double the national debt" president?

Nobody really cares about the national debt. It's abstract; an impossible to comprehend number doubling to some other impossible to comprehend number. After all, it's been going up for decades and nothing bad has ever happened. Until it does, people won't care.

[lawrocket 3]

No, disliking Bush does not mean left. I don't consider myself a leftie.

However, calling him an idiot, stupid, moron, etc., seems to be a pretty good clue. Ever notice that righties don't call Hillary or Obama stupid? Hillary may be a bitch and power hungry, but insulting the intelligence has usually been directed at the right from the left.

Reagan - an amiable dunce.
Bush - nice enough fella, but a little on the slow side.
Dubya - a pure and true moron who can't even say "Nuclear" correctly (well, Jimmy Carter couldn't, either, but he was a "nuke-you-ler" engineer, and a smart guy, so it's just his sweet Georgia drawl).

Clinton - smartest guy in the world.
Gore - the only genius out there who wants to save the world.
Kerry - an Eli who fought bravely in the war.
Hillary - the only person with intelligenc equal to her husband.
Obama - my heart goes pitter patter, unless I like Hillary, in which case he's an inexperienced idiot.

Those on the left who are most vocal seem to truly believe that they are smarter than anyone else. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is either:
1) Stupid;
2) Wacko; or
3) Evil.

I despise that.

Edited to add: Note that the discussion is not about torture - an issue that requires some thought. It has dropped to "Bush is an idiot" - probably because you cannot find anything objectively wrong with torture. Therefore, you gotta feel your way through it - "He's an idiot. He must be. I disagree with him."

I incorporated some objective arguments against it. I believe it is not only wrong, but dangerous in the long run.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

However, calling him an idiot, stupid, moron, etc., seems to be a pretty good clue. Ever notice that righties don't call Hillary or Obama stupid? Hillary may be a bitch and power hungry, but insulting the intelligence has usually been directed at the right from the left.

No it's not. People from the right insult intelligence as well, usually just in a slightly different manner.

Ever heard the old "Got his head so far up in the clouds he can't even understand how the real world works" bit?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Quote

Reagan - an amiable dunce.
Bush - nice enough fella, but a little on the slow side.

Are you talking about 41 or 43?

I think most people, at least me, think 41 was smart as a whip. I might have thought him a little evil, but never slow.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, he is cementing his legacy.

Many presidents are remembered at most for one or two things.

FDR was the new deal.

Nixon was a crook.

JFK was the first Catholic president, and the moon president.

Bush will be remembered as the Iraq war president and the torture president.

How about the "Double the national debt" president?

That ties into his claim of being "Reaganesque".

[vortexring 0]

Quote

No, disliking Bush does not mean left. I don't consider myself a leftie.

However, calling him an idiot, stupid, moron, etc., seems to be a pretty good clue. Ever notice that righties don't call Hillary or Obama stupid? Hillary may be a bitch and power hungry, but insulting the intelligence has usually been directed at the right from the left.

Reagan - an amiable dunce.
Bush - nice enough fella, but a little on the slow side.
Dubya - a pure and true moron who can't even say "Nuclear" correctly (well, Jimmy Carter couldn't, either, but he was a "nuke-you-ler" engineer, and a smart guy, so it's just his sweet Georgia drawl).

Clinton - smartest guy in the world.
Gore - the only genius out there who wants to save the world.
Kerry - an Eli who fought bravely in the war.
Hillary - the only person with intelligenc equal to her husband.
Obama - my heart goes pitter patter, unless I like Hillary, in which case he's an inexperienced idiot.

Those on the left who are most vocal seem to truly believe that they are smarter than anyone else. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is either:
1) Stupid;
2) Wacko; or
3) Evil.

I despise that.

Edited to add: Note that the discussion is not about torture - an issue that requires some thought. It has dropped to "Bush is an idiot" - probably because you cannot find anything objectively wrong with torture. Therefore, you gotta feel your way through it - "He's an idiot. He must be. I disagree with him."

I incorporated some objective arguments against it. I believe it is not only wrong, but dangerous in the long run.

No, I reacted to somebodies blind support of the fool, not because I'm unable to talk about torture.
I've actually got little to say on torture. Plenty to say on Bush. A global affliction!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

However, calling him an idiot, stupid, moron, etc., seems to be a pretty good clue. Ever notice that righties don't call Hillary or Obama stupid? Hillary may be a bitch and power hungry, but insulting the intelligence has usually been directed at the right from the left.

No it's not. People from the right insult intelligence as well, usually just in a slightly different manner.

Ever heard the old "Got his head so far up in the clouds he can't even understand how the real world works" bit?

That's ignorance. Not stupidity.

Of course, there is a hint of arrogance in everyone - myself included.

I've done the academia thing. I've done the work thing. I'm now doing the business owner thing.

When I was in the work force, I didn't know shit about the academic side.

When I was on the academic side, I found out I knew even less about the work side than I thought.

Then I went back to work and found out that that the way the schools say things can be aren't like th eway they are.

And then I went BACK into school and found out that law school didn't teach me much of anything about lawyering.

Now, as a business owner, I find myself regretting the ungrateful ass that I was. I used to look at Paul Sr. of American Chopper as a roid raging nut. Now I've got my own business and realize that I misunderstood Paul, Sr. and that Paul, Jr. is an ass.

I wonder what else I don't know. I'm sure I'll find out. It doesn't mean I was stupid. It means that I saw things from only one perspective.

So, seeign as how I've made mistakes and misjudgments, I'm sure that makes me an idiot or a moron, right?

Or maybe it's just experience teaching me.

I don't think Dubya is stupid. Ignorant and arrogant? Dern tootin.

But stupid? Tell me, am I "stupid" for not believing Bush is stupid? Or is there room for interpretation?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

But stupid? Tell me, am I "stupid" for not believing Bush is stupid? Or is there room for interpretation?

No. I don't think he's stupid.

However, given the viciously partisan nature of American politics I'm not sure why you're surprised or even particularly disappointed that a man who is unable to make a pre-prepared public statement without mangling his syntax is often labled as stupid.

Can you honestly say that a similarly high profile Dem who had the same struggles with public speaking as Dubya does wouldn't be labled as an idiot?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[KelliJ 0]

Fortunately it's only the fringe elements of the parties that are viciously partisan. The vast majority of each party respect each others views and welcome civilized discussion. (I think you would fall comfortably in the latter group)

[nerdgirl 0]

[I’ve expressed my absolute condemnation of torture by any & all parties repeatedly and strongly enough to not need to repeat it.]

What’s particularly intriguing about this particular veto to me is the inversion the usual perceptions on the civilian-military divide.

From NPR’s http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88008106Weekend Edition Saturday:

“Bush ignored the advice of 43 retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state [including former Sec of State Colin Powell, GEN USA (ret) - nerdgirl] and national security advisers, who supported the bill.

“The bill would have limited the CIA to 19 interrogation techniques that are used by the military and spelled out in the Army Field Manual [FM 2-22.3, updated 2006 - nerdgirl]. Bush said he vetoed the measure because it is important for the CIA to have a separate and classified interrogation program for suspected terrorists who possess critical information about possible plots against the United States.”

In January, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell (Vice Admiral, USN (ret)), acknowledged “‘If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture.’ McConnell said the legal test for torture should be ‘pretty simple. Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?”


*Notionally,* the concept of having ‘separate’ and ‘classified’ interrogation program for the intelligence community is reasonable assuming there is effective, robust oversight.

One problem is what constitutes the “enhanced interrogation techniques” beyond what is allowed in FM 2-22.3 that President Bush authorized for the CIA (& DIA?) last summer in an executive order.

From President Bush’s statement w/r/t the veto of HR 2082, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008”:

“The Army Field Manual is directed at guiding the actions of nearly three million active duty and reserve military personnel in connection with the detention of lawful combatants during the course of traditional armed conflicts, but terrorists often are trained specifically to resist techniques prescribed in publicly available military regulations such as the Manual.

“My disagreement over section 327 [of HR 2082] is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program. Rather, my concern is the need to maintain a separate CIA program that will shield from disclosure to al Qaeda and other terrorists the interrogation techniques they may face upon capture. In accordance with a clear purpose of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," my veto is intended to allow the continuation of a separate and classified CIA interrogation program that the Department of Justice has determined is lawful and that operates according to rules distinct from the more general rules applicable to the Department of Defense.”

What about non-traditional armed conflicts?

“Other provisions of the bill purport to require the executive branch to submit information to the Congress that may be constitutionally protected from disclosure, including information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties…. In addition, section 406 would require a consolidated inventory of Special Access Programs (SAPs) to be submitted to the Congress.”

So there’s also an element of Executive privilege to which the Administration is objecting Congress’ attempt to exert oversight.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,118]

What is especially ironic is that McCain, who once echoed many of the sentiments your quotes expressed, is now one of the major supporters of torture as an interrogation tool.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

What is especially ironic is that McCain, who once echoed many of the sentiments your quotes expressed, is now one of the major supporters of torture as an interrogation tool.

I expect he's trying to lock in rushmc's vote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I haven't heard Ed or Dianne yell at China or Iran.

If you’re genuinely interested, an easy way to find out is to search www.thomas.loc.gov/, which is funded by your tax dollars Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. You can also find out whether or not Senator Feinstein or Senator “Ted” Kennedy are members of those committees.

I’m not trying to be smarmy … really … only to enable greater civic engagement, access to your government & the primary data through cyberspace, a more informed citizenry, and self-reliance …

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[likearock 2]

Quote

What is especially ironic is that McCain, who once echoed many of the sentiments your quotes expressed, is now one of the major supporters of torture as an interrogation tool.

Yeah, McCain has gone back on a number of his former "maverick" positions, including support of the Bush tax-cuts and his opposition to the same immigration bill he originally co-authored. If he's going to pull in any significant independent votes, he'd better show the world he's not just another conservo-clone.

[lawrocket 3]

Like Al Gore saying of George Bush, Sr., "A zebra does not change its spots."

Or Gore, commenting about women with breast lumps facingr, "a long waiting line before they could get a biopsy or, uh, or a uh, another kind of, what am I looking for, a sonogram or...." (someone in the audience shouted "mammogram."

"We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be e pluribus unum -- out of one, many." (No, out of many, one)

"who are these people?" - Al Gore, inquiring about busts of foundign fathers at the Monticello/

He called Michael Jordan "Michael Jackson."

Shall I go on? Unscripted comments by a genius like him?


Edited to add: Al Gore is no idiot. Not by a longshot. But, when a person says enough stuff in public, mistakes will be made.

My wife is hotter than your wife.