0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:04 am
Not that it has one thing to do with whether the President is a liar or not, but just to keep the record straight on the McKinney matter, her 'apology' and the statement on her website came only after her Democratic colleagues in the House soundly disapproved what she was doing and saying:

Posted on Fri, Apr. 07, 2006
McKinney offers public apology
By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - With a grand jury investigating and little support from House colleagues, Rep. Cynthia McKinney reversed course and apologized yesterday for an altercation in which she entered a Capitol building unrecognized, refused to stop when asked by a police officer, and then hit him.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement," McKinney (D., Ga.), said during a brief appearance on the House floor. "...I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation, and I apologize."

A grand jury was investigating whether to seek assault or other charges. It was unclear what effect McKinney's apology might have.

Her remarks came as two House aides who witnessed the March 29 scuffle prepared to answer subpoenas from the grand jury, convened by U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein. A day earlier, McKinney was shunned on the House floor by several colleagues, while Democratic leaders openly rejected her explanation that she acted in self-defense when she hit the officer.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged McKinney in a private meeting Wednesday night to find a way to put the matter to rest, according to a person familiar with the session. No caucus member has publicly defended her behavior.

What McKinney called a "misunderstanding" yesterday she had labeled "racial profiling" and "inappropriate touching" a day earlier. For nearly a week, she and her lawyers insisted she had been assaulted and had done nothing wrong. She is black; the officer is white.

McKinney, 51, has a history of confrontations with officers.

In this case, she entered a House office building without passing through the metal detector that screens visitors. Members of Congress may bypass the machines, but she was not wearing the pin that identified her as a House member.

The officer, whose name has not been made public, has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. She did not.

Terrance Gainer, outgoing chief of the Capitol Police, has said the officer placed a hand on her and she responded by hitting him. He said McKinney's race was not a factor.

Even as McKinney tried to put the incident behind her, a new scuffle occurred yesterday outside the Capitol between a man apparently protecting her and a reporter who asked the congresswoman whether she had spoken to the grand jury.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/14282893.htm
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:15 am
BernardR wrote:
Drew Dad: I would be more than happy to comment on those items...

Dear Bernard,

That shall have to be classified as a lie; you've had several opportunities to comment but have declined to do so.

The onus is on you to to rebut the post and you are going to have to do your own legwork.

Sincerely,

Drewdad
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:20 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Not that it has one thing to do with whether the President is a liar or not, but just to keep the record straight on the McKinney matter, her 'apology' and the statement on her website came only after her Democratic colleagues in the House soundly disapproved what she was doing and saying


Right. It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Unless you are in favor of Bush's Republican colleagues urging him to publicly apologize, which would be a fine thing.

"I did, indeed, mislead this nation into war. As Commander in Chief, Leader of the Free World and President of the United States, I should not have done that. I apologize."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:24 am
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Not that it has one thing to do with whether the President is a liar or not, but just to keep the record straight on the McKinney matter, her 'apology' and the statement on her website came only after her Democratic colleagues in the House soundly disapproved what she was doing and saying


Right. It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Unless you are in favor of Bush's Republican colleagues urging him to publicly apologize, which would be a fine thing.

"I did, indeed, mislead this nation into war. As Commander in Chief, Leader of the Free World and President of the United States, I should not have done that. I apologize."


Of course if he believes that did not mislead the nation into war, and I don't think he believes he did, it would be a lie to say that wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:29 am
Torture anyone? How about the words "we don't do torture"? A lie? If it's not a lie then 1) he didn't know that we do torture, 2) we really don't torture and the massive evidence suggesting we do is a vast left wing conspiracy, 3) he didn't explain it well, being bad with words and all.

For your reading pleasure, I give you factcheck.

http://www.factcheck.org/article365.html
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:32 am
Haven't you seen the new definition of torture? Torture: stuff that other nasty people do, but we don't call it torture when it's done by us....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:40 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Torture anyone? How about the words "we don't do torture"? A lie? If it's not a lie then 1) he didn't know that we do torture, 2) we really don't torture and the massive evidence suggesting we do is a vast left wing conspiracy, 3) he didn't explain it well, being bad with words and all.

For your reading pleasure, I give you factcheck.

http://www.factcheck.org/article365.html

As far as Abu Ghraib goes, in just about every war, there has probably been some prisoner abuse by misguided interrogators and guards. In the case of Abu Ghraib, apparently the guilty are being punished as they must be. Is there any evidence that the degree or type of torture at Abu Ghraib exceeds what has typically happened in other wars? If it was not authorized from the White House, it resembles what misguided underlings always do in wars, and the guilty are being punished, how does this reflect negatively on the administration or on this war in particular?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:46 am
If you read the article, you'll see that there is evidence that torture has occurred elsewhere besides Abu Ghraib, and that there are many similarities in techniques used in prisons that are very far apart. Then there's the fact that we kidnap people and cart them off to prisons in secret, which suggests we are not talking about battlefield prisoners of war. Whether or not we did this in other wars is irrelevant, since Bush said the US doesn't torture, not that the US doesn't torture any more now than we did before.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:46 am
"We're no worse than anyone else" is a morally bankrupt position.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:49 am
DrewDad wrote:
"We're no worse than anyone else" is a morally bankrupt position.

I never mentioned anyone else. Try reading my posts before responding.

I asked whether the level of unauthorized prisoner abuse by misguided underlings in this war is different from the norm for other wars. My point was clearly not that the abuse is okay or that the guilty shouldn't be thrown in jail. My point was only to ask why this puts the White House in for special censure if it is the same as what has happened historically.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:50 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
"We're no worse than anyone else" is a morally bankrupt position.

I never mentioned anyone else. Try reading my posts before responding.

I asked whether the level of unauthorized prisoner abuse by misguided underlings in this war is different from the norm for other wars. My point was clearly not that the abuse is okay or that the guilty shouldn't be thrown in jail. My point was only to ask why this puts the White House in for special censure if it is the same as what has happened historically.

LOL.

OK, then. "We're no worse than we were before" is a morally bankrupt position.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:52 am
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
"We're no worse than anyone else" is a morally bankrupt position.

I never mentioned anyone else. Try reading my posts before responding.

I asked whether the level of unauthorized prisoner abuse by misguided underlings in this war is different from the norm for other wars. My point was clearly not that the abuse is okay or that the guilty shouldn't be thrown in jail. My point was only to ask why this puts the White House in for special censure if it is the same as what has happened historically.

LOL.

OK, then. "We're no worse than we were before" is a morally bankrupt position.

It would be if I used it to try to justify the prisoner abuse, but I am not. I am saying that the guilty should be rounded up and punished.

I am only asking this one single question which you seem afraid to answer: If something terrible happens in wars 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and then Bush becomes president and the identical thing happens in a war he starts, how does this make him deserve special criticism?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:57 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
snood wrote:
Hey C.I. and Bernard!! Stop cutting and pasting without citing your sources!!!!!!!


So now you are a moderator too. I find it hilarious that you think you are smarter than me or even appear to be smarter than me. And with a face like that, you would be far better to borrow your buddy Intrepid's picture.


All I have to say is:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4271/1041039126418d88fb5a5633fe.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:57 am
When did the US support the use of water boarding in a previous war Brandon?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:59 am
parados wrote:
When did the US support the use of water boarding in a previous war Brandon?

In your opinion has the prisoner abuse that has actually occurred in this war been worse than the prisoner abuse in past wars? Is the abuse that has actually happened to the prisoners been unusual in some way?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 08:00 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
"We're no worse than anyone else" is a morally bankrupt position.

I never mentioned anyone else. Try reading my posts before responding.

I asked whether the level of unauthorized prisoner abuse by misguided underlings in this war is different from the norm for other wars. My point was clearly not that the abuse is okay or that the guilty shouldn't be thrown in jail. My point was only to ask why this puts the White House in for special censure if it is the same as what has happened historically.


What those who blame the President for everything from world hunger to crabgrass fail to acknowledge is that those accused of torture or any abuse of prisioners are investigated and, if found guilty, have been prosecuted and sentenced to appropriate punishments. As far as the general engineered paranoia from the Left goes, I am disgusted with those who assume the worst and who do everything they can to undermine the ability of the administration to fulfill their Constitutional responsibilities to serve and protect.

I'm sure everybody thinks they are doing some kind of national service by unwarranted accusations, innuendo, and attempts to undermine the President's authority. And of course calling him 'liar' no matter how much there is no evidence for it and refusing to give him any credit for what gets done right s just one way of doing that.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 08:01 am
It's called "learning from the past."

Actually, I think those in charge of supervising the prison are at best incompetent and possibly criminally negligent. Anyone who runs a prison should be aware of the Stanford Prison Experiment.




Now, then, care to address the abuses at Guantanimo? Or the practice of moving prisoners to other countries so that they can be tortured?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 08:11 am
DrewDad wrote:
It's called "learning from the past."

Actually, I think those in charge of supervising the prison are at best incompetent and possibly criminally negligent. Anyone who runs a prison should be aware of the Stanford Prison Experiment.




Now, then, care to address the abuses at Guantanimo? Or the practice of moving prisoners to other countries so that they can be tortured?


Refer to my previous post. I think there are some things that the general public does not have to know. I believe the prisoners at Guatanamo have been treated better than any prisoners have ever been treated on a long term basis in the history of the world. If you distrust your President and your country so much, why don't you just move? I would.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 08:16 am
Sorry, Fox, my post was primarily intended for Brandon. We cross-posted.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 08:17 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
When did the US support the use of water boarding in a previous war Brandon?

In your opinion has the prisoner abuse that has actually occurred in this war been worse than the prisoner abuse in past wars? Is the abuse that has actually happened to the prisoners been unusual in some way?

Nice deflection. Care to answer the question?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 10:56:53