AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

If the people were rising up and screaming out that there ought to be laws against torture and abuse, then you might have a feeble argument. But we are not asking our lawmakers to make laws prohibiting torture and abuse. Those laws already exist. We're asking our government to enforce the laws that already exist.

Do you have a valid argument against enforcing our laws? If so, state it.

What am I wrong about? Waterboarding is torture. That fact is beyond dispute. Even if you deny a proven fact, waterboarding is abuse. Abuse is just as illegal as torture. Waterboarding is an assault and battery. Assault and battery is also illegal. Conspiracy to violate the law is a crime. There are many, many, many laws that apply to the mistreatment of detainees in the custody of our government. Many, many, many laws have been broken.

I'm unaware of the incident you're talking about, but I do know that the Bush Administration refused to surrender papers of the former administration pursuant to other requests because Bush was putting into place his overarching state's secret policy. That Bush Adm. policy wasn't designed to protect the past administration; it was designed to shield his own illegal activities under a tightly woven veil of secrecy.

Of course you see it this way. I would expect nothing less from a close minded zealot. Bush also didn't pursue Clinton's trashing of the White House when his admin left. Probably because it was related to secrecy, right?

Was the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons a crime?

The left screams it is. Does that make it so? Many believe it was not.

Again, you are making assumptions that water boarding is torture based on the echo chamber you live in. (And please tell me if you believe the bombing of Japan was a crime; I'm curious.)

Many legal scholars say waterboarding is not torture. Yet you seem to dismiss these opinions while holding firm to your own.

Let's say this issue weaves its way through the court process, as you and others are demanding. If it comes before our Supreme Court and the justices there determine no 'torture' occurred by a 5-4 vote, would this satisfy you?

Or would you dismiss the rule of law because you don't agree with it?

Bush also didn't pursue Clinton's trashing of the White House when his admin left.

The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said today that ''damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex'' in the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The agency put the cost at $13,000 to $14,000, including $4,850 to replace computer keyboards, many with damaged or missing W keys.

...

The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. ''We were unable to conclude,'' it said, ''whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones.''

The accounting office interviewed more than 100 government employees, but said it could not establish who was responsible for the damage and the pranks.

''Any intentional damage at the White House complex, which is a national treasure, is both inappropriate and a serious matter,'' the report said. ''The theft of or willful damage to government property would constitute a criminal act.''

The investigation was undertaken in response to a request from Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia, one of Mr. Clinton's harshest critics. ''The Clinton administration treated the White House worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorm rooms,'' Mr. Barr said today.

The Bush White House was deeply disappointed with the report. Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush, had demanded that the accounting office provide more detail, including the full text of graffiti and other messages that were ''especially offensive or vulgar.''

The accounting office said such details were unnecessary and inappropriate. But Bush administration officials said the details would have revealed the ''mind-set or intentions'' of Clinton administration pranksters. Moreover, in a response much longer than the actual report, the Bush administration said, ''It appears that the G.A.O. has undertaken a concerted effort to downplay the damage found in the White House complex.''

The left screams it is.

Damage at White House Offices Being Handed Over to the Bush Administration from The Clinton Staff-Truth!

Summary of eRumor:

When George W. Bush took over the presidency in 2001, his new staff arrived in the offices of the White House to find that there had been widespread pranks and vandalism by the departing Clinton staff. Published reports said computers were left unusable, pornography was found on both computers and walls, and telephone systems were trashed by the cutting of cables and wires.


The Truth:
The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000. Clinton critics say the report proves that the departing Clinton staff members acted recklessly and disrespectfully. Clinton supporters say the report shows that the allegations of vandalism were exaggerated and that there were similar incidents when Clinton took over the White House from the staff of George Bush.

The GAO report concludes that even though damage was verified and that some of it appeared to have been intentional, there was not clear evidence of who was responsible for it.

This has been a subject of contention since President Bush took office. There were reports of vandalism, graffiti, and obscene messages in White House offices by outgoing Clinton staffers. Bush downplayed the reports saying he wanted to move on with the presidency. Clinton supporters, however, charged that the story was not true and that the Bush forces had made up the story to make Bush's staff look better than Clinton's. Former President Clinton offered to pay for any damage and his supporters called for an investigation.

May 18, 2001 the General Accounting Office issued a three-page letter that said that it was unable confirm the damage largely to a lack of records from the White House. The letter also said that the condition of the White House offices was "...consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." As to any details of damage, the GAO letter said For supporters of former President Clinton, that seemed to end the matter. They proclaimed victory, called the whole story an urban legend, and asked the White House to apologize.

In response, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer outlined the details of the damage, most of which was in the Eisenhower Execitive Office Building adjacent to the White House. On June 3, 2001 The Washington Post quoted Fleischer as saying that the damage included the removal of the letter "W" from 100 computer keyboards, five missing brass nameplates with the presidential seal on them, 75 telephones with cover plates missing or apparently intentionally plugged into the wrong wall outlets, six fax machines relocated in the same way, ten cut phone lines, two historic door knobs missing, overturned desks and furniture in about 20 percent of the offices, obscene graffiti in six offices, and eight 14-foot loads of usable office supplies recovered from the trash. According to Fleischer, there was one incident in the White House itself, a photocopy machine that had copies of naked people hidden in the paper tray so they would come out from time to time with other copies.

Critics of the Bush administration said they didn't trust the White House report.

On June 5, 2001, the General Accounting Office announced that it had launched an investigation into the matter, which was released on June 11, 2002.

There was a companion story that Air Force One had been the victim of the outgoing Clintons and that numerous items from aboard the plane had been pilfered. President Bush himself told reporters aboard Air Force one on February 12, 2001, that the report was not true. According to Salon Washington correspondent Jake Tipper, Bush brought up the subject because the chief steward aboard Air Force One told him the allegations were false.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm

It was Clinton supporters who demanded the investigation, and it was conducted by the GAO at the Clinton supporters' request to settle the matter

despite what the dishonest New York Times piece

Of to bed, but first a recap of this week's current events:

Of to bed, but first a recap of this week's current events: