Torture, It's What's For Breakfast (and Lunch and Supper)

Cheney was really the one in control and every foreign and domestic decision which had to do war and security the entire time Bush and Cheney were in the WH, along with the rest of the gang who all signed on to the Project For the New American Century. Bush was just along with the ride. My opinion anyway.

The Axis of War: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

(cough) BULLSHIT (cough)

True. But who do we blame for his presidency. The voters who cant see beyond their eyelashes. The second worst republican president was Raygun for the same reason. Hell the voters voted him in for a second term even though he was mentally incompentent.

(cough)MORE BULLSHIT(cough)

Prove he wasent. I can prove that his wife was the acting president for the last of his presidency and would if you will read it.

Ok lets see it

Don't engage with a troll like guijohn - he'll drag you down to levels you don't even want to think about, never mind go.

YES...PULEEEEEZZZZE ignore me.

That is like saying you shouldn't prove what you say RABEL. Just saying....

Isn't guijohn one of your many other monikers?

No...its one of yours

Listening to this guy, it is not wonder so many were/are hoodwinked so completely. He just keeps repeating the same thing over and over again despite the facts to the contrary right in his face.

Cheney, I’d do it again in a minute.”

John O Brennan, "unknowable" whether the brutal interrogation techniques employed by the CIA had produced useful intelligence.

There is a slight problem with your argument.

War crimes like torture have no statute of limitations. The crimes you are accusing Clinton would probably all be long past their time limit to prosecute. You can't charge Clinton with anything under the law.

Don't need to. Your statement proves his guilt. And what is the statute of limitations for rape?

What would the point be in "prosecuting" anyone in the Bush administration for war crimes?

First, there was no declared war.
Second, even if you could prove torture, it would only make you feel better about yourself and give the real terrorists another reason to attack inside America.

Like they need any more reasons, we have given them plenty over the years since 9/11.




President Bush announces military action in Afghanistan

That is laughable. We gave them reason to attack us, but I'm sure in your eyes, we had no reason to go after them in the first place. Terrorist apologist?

What has torture to do with "going after terrorists"?
Edited: in modern times, I mean. Not in the medieval ages or early modern age.

I disagree on a couple levels.

First, even if we accept the idea that Iraq-2003 was a bad idea, that doesn't mean Bush is stupid or ignorant. No leader has ever waged war perfectly. Mistakes can always be found in anybody's strategy.

I wouldn't list Bush as being one of the greatest military leaders of all time, but I don't see that he was a particularly bad one either.


Second, I'm not so sure that Iraq-2003 was even a mistake. I don't think I would have done it, were it my call to make, but things might be even worse right now if we hadn't toppled Saddam.

For instance, if Saddam were still in power, we would probably still have troops on Saudi Arabian soil. That would have been a great rallying cry for al-Qa'ida throughout the past decade of the war on terror, and the troops would have been a target for terrorist attacks, as they were before we pulled them out.

It's impossible to re-run history to see how various scenarios would actually play out, but if our troops had remained on Saudi soil, the Saudis might be overthrown by now. And that might put both Iran and Islamic State in an even stronger position than they occupy today.

That is an erroneous fact, not an opinion. Bush was fully in control. He did listen to Cheney a lot in the early years however.

He would have done better to keep listening to Cheney in the later years.