roger
 
  1  
Fri 4 Feb, 2011 06:32 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yeah, but of the four, I bet Clinton had the greatest shot at reelection, barring the term limit. That man could make a speech.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:58 am
@roger,
So could ronny raygun. The fact he was a brain dead actor who couldent make a speech without a script went over most peoples heads. I blame him for our present troubles. He never had a new idea, that he dident steal from someone else in his life. Why the rant, because the conserative nuts are trying to make him into a hero!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 10:37 am
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
GW Bush: 95%-51% (gap: 44)


Nothing like a few boogeymen to get all the natives restless and looking to their king for protection.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:05 pm
Obama's Rasmussen poll numbers sliding downward again. It appears to me that the primary reason his numbers recently recovered somewhat was because of his agreement to continue some of Bush's tax cuts, so any positive move in the polls was certainly not due to any of his preferred policies, but instead due to a very limited surrender to more conservative policies. Obama's policies continue to be roundly rejected by Americans, and his handling of the crisis in Egypt underscores his ineptness in foreign policy. I have highlighted in red the parts of the quote from Rasmussen that I believe demonstrates what I have just written.

As an interesting sidelight, having watched the unfolding of events in Egypt and Obama calling for Mubarek to step down because he no longer enjoys popular support of the people, I have wondered if Obama would like to be consistent with that rather shallow minded call, and offer to step down himself, now that he no longer enjoys a clear majority of the voting public's popular support here in this country? I realize this thread is not the place to post it, but I have been away from the forum for a few days, and would like to quickly make the observation that I have been absolutely amazed at how amateurish both the press and the administration have been in regard to the Egyptian situation.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

" The president’s Approval Index ratings have fallen nine points since Monday as the crisis in Egypt unfolds. Most of the decline comes from a fall in the number who Strongly Approve of the president’s performance (30% on Monday, 23% now). However, for the first time since mid-December, the number who Strongly Disapprove has moved back over the 40% mark for five straight days. The Strongly Disapprove total had been above 40% for most of 2010 but fell to the high-30s after the president and Senate Republicans reached a deal to extend the Bush Administration tax cuts."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/february_2011/obama_approval_index_february_5_2011/447637-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_february_5_2011.jpg
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:48 pm
@okie,
Yeah, Okie, Obama has taken a beating this week on the situation in Egypt. Perhaps a well deserved shellacking.
There is a thread on Egypt with JPB contributing a lot of stuff. We haven't seen you there yet.
As an aside, I note this evening that G.W. Bush has canceled a trip to Switzerland. It seems that there could be protests and even a call for an investigation by the Swiss into human rights abuses during his administration.
okie
 
  0  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 10:38 pm
@realjohnboy,
And just who would be investigating those supposed human rights abuses by Bush?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 10:52 pm
The article I read cited Amnesty International but also noted that "...Prosecutors and judges in Spain and Germany have in the past proved willing to pursue long-shot international cases against foreign leaders."
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sat 5 Feb, 2011 11:05 pm
@realjohnboy,
From Amnesty.org:
Quote:
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission

10 November 2010

AI Index: PRE01/370/2010

Amnesty International today urged a criminal investigation into the role of former US President George W. Bush and other officials in the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against detainees held in secret US custody after the former president admitted authorizing their use.

In his memoirs, published yesterday, and in an interview on NBC News broadcast on 8 November 2010, the former President confirmed his personal involvement in authorising “water-boarding” and other techniques against “high value detainees”.
“Under international law, the former President’s admission to having authorized acts that amount to torture are enough to trigger the USA’s obligations to investigate his admissions and if substantiated, to prosecute him,” said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director at Amnesty International.
“His admissions also highlight once again the absence of accountability for the crimes under international law of torture and enforced disappearance committed by the USA.”

In his memoirs, former President Bush focused on the cases of two detainees held in the secret program.

Abu Zubaydah was held at various undisclosed locations from April 2002 to September 2006, In August 2002, he was subjected to “water-boarding,” in which water is used to begin the process of drowning, more than 80 times.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested on 1 March 2003 in Pakistan and transferred to secret CIA custody. That same month he was “water-boarded” 183 times, according to a report by the CIA Inspector General.

After three and a half years being held incommunicado in solitary confinement in secret locations, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was transferred to military custody in Guantánamo, where he and Abu Zubayhdah remain held without trial, along with more than 150 others.

Water-boarding was far from the only technique alleged to have been used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayhdah and others held in the secret program that violated the international prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Other techniques included prolonged nudity, threats, exposure to cold temperatures, stress positions, physical assaults, prolonged use of shackles, and sleep.

“Under international law, anyone involved in torture must be brought to justice, and that does not exclude former President George W. Bush. If his admission is substantiated, the USA has the obligation to prosecute him,” said Claudio Cordone.

“In the absence of a US investigation, other states must step in and carry out such an investigation themselves,” said Claudio Cordone.

Background
The USA ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1994. Under UNCAT, in every case where there is evidence against a person of their having committed or attempted to commit torture, or of having committed acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture, the case must be submitted to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
Failing to proceed with a prosecution on the basis that the accused held public office of any rank, or citing justifications based in “exceptional circumstances”, whether states of war or other public emergencies, is not permitted by UNCAT.

In another development yesterday, the US Department of Justice announced that no one will face criminal charges for the destruction by the CIA in 2005 of nearly 100 videotapes made of interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and ‘Abd al-Nashiri, another detainee held in the secret CIA program. Twelve of the tapes depicted use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, including “water-boarding”. ‘Abd al-Nashiri was subjected to waterboarding in late November 2002.
Again, torture and enforced disappearance are crimes under international law. As such, the destruction of the tapes may have concealed government crimes.
In a brief statement released on 9 November 2010, however, the Department of Justice announced that after an “exhaustive investigation” into the matter a federal prosecutor had concluded that he would “not pursue criminal charges for the destruction of the interrogation tapes”.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:27 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
The article I read cited Amnesty International but also noted that "...Prosecutors and judges in Spain and Germany have in the past proved willing to pursue long-shot international cases against foreign leaders."
So we are supposed to place confidence in an organization like Amnesty International to push for human rights, when that same organization is in favor of killing the innocent unborn, also when that organization chooses to criticize free nations instead of nations such as Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam that clearly have more serious human rights abuses going on ?

In short, rjb, Amnesty International is simply a left wing organization with political axes to grind against conservative ideals. Therefore, I would not recommend anyone take them as a credible champion of human rights deserving of investigating George Bush. It is frankly an insult.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:34 pm
@okie,
True enough about Amnesty International, I guess, which is why I made reference to prosecutors and judges in Spain and Germany. Please tell us what you know about them.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:36 pm
@okie,
okie, Amnesty International (as a left wing organization) works to protect human rights.

From their website:
Quote:
Amnesty International (AI) is a nonprofit, independent international organization that works zealously to protect Human Rights around the world. Since its inception in 1961, Amnesty International has coordinated research, information, and education campaigns in order to focus world attention on such issues as freedom of conscience and expression, freedom from discrimination, and the cessation of physical and mental abuse and torture suffered by the victims of human rights violations.

With a membership of more than one million people and supporters and donors in more than 140 countries and territories, Amnesty International is the world's largest grassroots human rights organization. The organization was started by a British lawyer, Peter Benenson, who in an article he wrote in 1961 in The Observer posited that the pressure of public opinion could be brought to bear on those who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing people based on their political opinions. Benenson wrote in support of several political prisoners whom he termed "prisoners of conscience" because they had been imprisoned for expressing their beliefs in a peaceful manner. The term came to encompass all men, women, and children who have been imprisoned because of their political or religious beliefs.

Amnesty International carries out its struggle for human dignity for all human rights victims by mobilizing public opinion throughout the world to pressure government officials and other influential persons to stop human rights abuses. Violations of human rights include the following: torture of a person and/or his or her family members by mental or physical means, the "disappearance" of persons considered to be enemies of the state, the imposition by governments of the death penalty, the death of those held in custody or being detained, and the forcible return of persons to countries where they face torture or death. Amnesty International describes "disappeared persons" as persons who are taken into custody, kept hidden and unable to communicate with others, and whose whereabouts are denied by the government agents who arrested them. The prisoners are often tortured. If they are not murdered, they can be held incommunicado for years while the government agents responsible routinely deny that they have custody of these prisoners or knowledge of their fates and often suggest that the prisoners have "disappeared" of their own volition.


Your conservative leanings shows how you are uncaring of our government's illegal activities against all peoples. What's your excuse?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:40 pm
@realjohnboy,
I do not know anything about them, but the subject is pointless anyway, because neither they nor Amnesty International have any jurisdiction over the actions of George Bush. By the way, George Bush may have saved millions of lives around the world anyway, so the case against the man is weak to non-existent. Besides, if this is a serious activity and past presidents are fair game, why be partisan about this and why not consider folks like FDR, Truman, LBJ, and a few others?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:43 pm
@okie,
okie, What world do you live in? GW Bush's shock and awe in Iraq killed thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Please outline in detail for us the millions he saved around the world by dates and countries?
okie
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 06:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am sure some innocents died in the Civil War as well. Are you going to be consistent and condemn that war, as well as condemn Abraham Lincoln, as well as advocating trying him posthumously for human rights abuses?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 07:01 pm
@okie,
Quit with your diversions; answer the damn question.
okie
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 07:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quit with your diversions; answer the damn question.
As with any fair debate, I think some ground rules should be established here. For example, if we are going to condemn any war when innocent people were affected or died, then we need to be consistent.

Also, in regard to your question about how many lives did Bush save, that is subject to speculation and opinion. Likewise, how many innocent people were killed in Iraq, that is also subject to speculation and opinion.
okie
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 07:29 pm
@okie,
Another point, ci, we and the Brits probably killed many innocents in World War II in order to stop Hitler and the Japanese Emporer, but do you think the world would be better off and fewer people would have died if we had not stopped them?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 07:45 pm
@okie,
What has that got to do with GW Bush's killings of innocent people in Iraq, and his approval of torture against international laws?
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 08:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
When the USA and/or other nations fight a war to limit the mass murder of innocent lives, invariably innocent lives are killed while winning that war and achieving that limit.

Also, alleged international law not withstanding, water boarding torture and other such tortures of mass murderers to get the information required to limit the mass murder of innocent lives, while not killing or maiming those mass murderers, has been necessary to limit the murder of innocent lives and win those wars.
okie
 
  -1  
Sun 6 Feb, 2011 08:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It has everything to do with it, because I continue to try to get you to be consistent with your application of judgement.

Regardless, I see no need to rehash old news merely because of your partisan hatred of the liberals favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush. Besides, you can do nothing now to tarnish the reputation of a good and decent American.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1933
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:31:57