President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Foxfyre 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.

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.

But saying "we don't do torture" while simultaneously opposing legislation that would prevent the use of torture by US personnel seems, I don't know, kinda like he was lying.

This goes to more than just finding if he told a lie, it goes to integrity and it goes to trust. If he lies about something as important as going to war, if he lies about something as important as prisoner treatment, how can we believe anything he says about Social Security, or immigration, or who really benefits from tax cuts?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

So what is an appropriate punishment for torturing an innocent to death? Hum. How about.... 75 days?

Quote:

Soldier Gets 75 Days in Afghan Abuse Case

The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 30, 2005; 11:17 PM

EL PASO, Texas -- An Army reservist was sentenced Tuesday to 75 days in prison, a reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge after admitting that he assaulted a prisoner in Afghanistan.

Sgt. Anthony M. Morden was among five soldiers accused of mistreating the prisoner, known as Dilawar. Autopsy records show Dilawar's legs were so badly beaten that they would have been amputated had he lived.

"I never struck a detainee for fun or just to cause him pain," Morden told the judge. "I gave in to the stress I was feeling at that moment and made a terrible decision."

[...]

Lawyers for former Pfc. Willie V. Brand, who worked with Morden at Bagram, argued that he was only doing what he was taught and what soldiers senior to him were doing. Brand earlier this month was convicted and reduced in rank but escaped jail time.

Morden's parents appeared as character witnesses for their son. They said in a telephone interview with the newspaper that his punishment was unfair, noting light sentences given to some of the others convicted of similar charges in the same incidents.

"Those (lighter sentences) were a message to the judge that the proper punishment for any of these charges was a lot less," David Morden, the soldier's father, told the newspaper. "Obviously, I think that was a very unfair punishment to my son. There is inconsistency in the military justice system."

0 Replies

"The abuse is not worse than in any war ever fought before. Those responsible have been punished. Vigorously punished. We're fine! Now, let's talk about McKinney...."

0 Replies

Old Europe writes

Quote:

So what is an appropriate punishment for torturing an innocent to death? Hum. How about.... 75 days?

Are you seriously suggesting that our President either ordered or condoned this?

And are you suggesting the U.S. treatment of war prisoners is somehow less conscionable than say Germany has treated theirs?

I heard that somebody was mugged and raped in Munich recently. Does your leadership condone that sort of thing? Of course that is the way your government does things. (This is extreme sarcasm for example only of course.)

I don't think you would appreciate us accusing your government of ordering or condoning every inapprorpriate or bad thing that has ever been done by a German soldier or suggesting that it was the norm or the way things are.

Nobody here is saying bad stuff doesn't happen. But it is not by our President's order and/or consent that it does. And it is the extreme exception when it happens. Some of you on the Left want to make it look like everyday policy. That is not only destructive, but it is a lie.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Old Europe writes

Quote:
So what is an appropriate punishment for torturing an innocent to death? Hum. How about.... 75 days?

Are you seriously suggesting that our President either ordered or condoned this?

And are you suggesting the U.S. treatment of war prisoners is somehow less conscionable than say Germany has treated theirs?

I don't think that soldiers of the Federal Republic of Germany ever tortured a prisoner (not a prisoner of war, mind you! Just a prisoner!) to death. If one did, I would want the chancellor to publicly apologize. To the world, to the country, to the family. I would want to see serious consequences. The superiors of the soldier should step down. There should be investigations about who ordered it. Or who was responsible. Superiors who are unable to intervene or prevent something like that from happening are obviously guilty, too.

0 Replies

The point is: if the Catholic church does something now, the one who is ultimately responsible is the current Pope. No matter what the church has done or a pope has said during the last 2000 years. If Germany does something now, the one who is ultimately responsible is the current Chancellor. No matter what Germany has done or a chancellor has said during the last 60 years. And if the United States do something now, the one who is ultimately responsible is the current President. No matter what the US have done or a president has said during the last 200 years.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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---[/img]

Ummm...all you have to say is what? Are you still claiming that I am this a picture of me, If that is the case, please state that as that would constitute libel. You are posting a picture from imageshack.us. I don't understand what connection you are claiming.

Anyway, please state clearly what you are claiming and you will be dealt with.

BTW even if if this were me, this would bean outrageous invasion of privacy and certainly against a2k TOS.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you distrust your President and your country so much, why don't you just move? I would.

I prefer to stay and make my country a better place. This nation was founded by people with no respect for authority, and I intend to do my part to keep it that way. You, however, may certainly move someplace where a servile attitude toward one's government is appreciated.

So, it looks like we have two arguments against classifying "we don't do torture" as a lie. The first, by Brandon, is that we do torture, but no worse than we ever did, so it wasn't a lie. The second, by Foxfyre, is that we don't torture, but a few bad apples do.

The first argument is a nonstarter as it doesn't address the possibility that the president lied. The second doesn't seem to take in all of the evidence. Whether or not the president authorized torture (we won't know until long after he has left office) he must know that we have a problem with it. Enough reports have been made public to suggest that it is widespread. So the assertion that the United States does not torture would appear to be incorrect or, at least, disputed. Since he is the president of the United States, it is reasonable to assume that he would know this.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

[ If you distrust your President and your country so much, why don't you just move? I would.

Since you hate Mexican-Americans so much, why don't you move to North Dakota or Canada?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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:

Ummm...all you have to say is what? Are you still claiming that I am this a picture of me, If that is the case, please state that as that would constitute libel. You are posting a picture from imageshack.us. I don't understand what connection you are claiming.

I've never seen you, but this is the avatar you were using when you were posting at this site under the username "Harper"... as you know. I don't know if it is a true and accurate depiction of your visage, but the one thing I can say is somebody who looks like that has no business calling anybody else unattractive. Again, I've no idea if you look like that, or if you just pulled some anonymous picture to use as your Harper avatar.

Quote:

Anyway, please state clearly what you are claiming and you will be dealt with.

See above.

Quote:

BTW even if if this were me, this would bean outrageous invasion of privacy and certainly against a2k TOS.

If it is you, you posted that picture yourself, so I fail to see how that could possibly be construed as an invasion of your privacy.

If it isn't you, you have nothing to complain about.

0 Replies

Perhaps she could complain about your incessant attacks upon her?

Why don't you grow up, Tico?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I have not seen any links to the many "cut & pastes" recently provided by c.i., nor any criticism from those that would carp on BernardR for doing the same.

When C.I. did his copy and past postings, he did provide sources which were used for the materials he posted.

C.I. in Post #2039229 wrote:

Finding WMDs

BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

THE FACTS

The Washington Post reported . . .

C.I. in Post #2039837 wrote:

THE FACTS
Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found: etc.,

And

National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following: etc.

Whereas it is true that he did not provide links, sources for his contention were included in the articles he posted. In Bernard's post #2039774, for which i asked that he provide a link, no such sources are given--there are simply statements from authority, and without at least a citation of the source from which he copied and pasted the screed, we have no way to judge the validity of the claims made therein. Neither C.I. nor Bernard provided links for those posts--but C.I.'s posts do contain the sources the author cited for that information.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps she could complain about your incessant attacks upon her?

What attack, and upon whom? Roxxxxxanne disclaims being Harper, so any "attack" upon Harper is not an attack upon Roxxxxxanne, at least in her mind. I fail to see how she can claim otherwise, unless she's going to own up to being Harper. "Harper" hasn't posted at this site since November 21, 2004.

All I was really saying was those in glass houses ought not to throw stones. In this sense I was responding to the second post from Roxxxxxanne/Chrissee/Harper/Nikki in as many days were she has attacked someone else as being unattractive. Are you suggesting her attack upon snood was not worthy of a response, or just not a response from me?

In any event, she requested clarification, and I provided it.

Quote:

Why don't you grow up, Tico?

Cycloptichorn

Why don't you mind your own business, Cyclops?

0 Replies

Maybe "we don't do torture" is too broad. Let's try "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture." (Jan. 27, 2005)

Wikipedia article on rendition.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I have not seen any links to the many "cut & pastes" recently provided by c.i., nor any criticism from those that would carp on BernardR for doing the same.

When C.I. did his copy and past postings, he did provide sources which were used for the materials he posted.

C.I. in Post #2039229 wrote:
Finding WMDs

BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

THE FACTS

The Washington Post reported . . .

C.I. in Post #2039837 wrote:
THE FACTS
Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found: etc.,

And

National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following: etc.

Whereas it is true that he did not provide links, sources for his contention were included in the articles he posted. In Bernard's post #2039774, for which i asked that he provide a link, no such sources are given--there are simply statements from authority, and without at least a citation of the source from which he copied and pasted the screed, we have no way to judge the validity of the claims made therein. Neither C.I. nor Bernard provided links for those posts--but C.I.'s posts do contain the sources the author cited for that information.

I see lots of citations to primary sources equivalent to those in c.i.'s posts in BernardR's post #2039774.

He cites to "the British government," "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times," "Valerie Plame Wilson" writing in a memo to her boss at the CIA, "Walter Pincus of the Washington Post," a op-ed piece written by Joseph C. Wilson, "the White House," "Britain's independent Butler commission," the "Senate Intelligence Committee report," the "State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research," "the Washington Post," the "the Senate Intelligence Committee" ... lots of citations to primary sources of the caliber included by c.i. in his posts. You should not condemn BernardR and praise c.i. for doing the same thing.

0 Replies

Tico, you've been beating this drum for a long time.

I would say that I don't feel it is appropriate to have simulatneous accounts, but there's nothing wrong at all with having consecutive ones; our own Lash used to have a different name, and so did Blueveinedthrobber.

I don't know if Rox used to have other accounts, and I don't care; why should it matter? But it apparently matters quite a bit to you. Why?

If you don't like her, just ignore her. Otherwise you come off as a child. And I'll stick my nose into whatever business I damn well please, thank you very much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

How about deploring the lack of a link from both? The British government, the White House, an alleged memo from Miss Plame to her supervisor, an otherwise unspecified op-ed piece attributed to Wilson (without a mention of the newspaper), an otherwise unspecified Senate Intelligence Committee report?--these are citations of primary sources? The Butler Commission and the Washington post are as close as Bernard's copy and paste job comes. C.I.'s post have more specific references to a quote of Bush and reports of organizations on specific topics.

Nevertheless, i'd be willing to settle for both of them being required to provide links. At all events, i complained at Bernard for posting an unattributed screed in response to what i had posted. If i did not complain about C.I. having failed to provide links, it is worth noting that C.I. was not responding to my posts, nor addressing me.

0 Replies

Isn't it strange that Ticomaya interferes with a discussion between BD and I, but doesn't like it when Cyclo interferes in his and Roxxxanne's?

Ticomaya needs to grow up, is right on!

0 Replies

You know, I've changed my mind about torture. I think it should be legal now so that I can torture Bernard, CI, Tico, Cyclop, and Set until they swear to quit the goddamned bickering. We have lies to prove or disprove here, gentlemen. Nobody gives a **** about Roxx's alter-ego or Bernard's and CI's lack of linking. And if I see another page long post about any of those things I swear I am going to .... complain and rant some more about it until you're all sorry.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico, you've been beating this drum for a long time.

I would say that I don't feel it is appropriate to have simulatneous accounts, but there's nothing wrong at all with having consecutive ones; our own Lash used to have a different name, and so did Blueveinedthrobber.

And both admitted to it, in fact they announced it. They didn't try to be sneaky about it, and they certainly didn't deny it when accused. My particular issue with her at this point in time is not the issue of her multiple accounts and denial of same, it's her attacks upon other posters at this site. There's no denying I don't like her and likely never will, but a lot of that goes back to the way I was treated by Harper when I first joined this site, and it continues to this day.

Quote:

I don't know if Rox used to have other accounts, and I don't care; why should it matter? But it apparently matters quite a bit to you. Why?

Because she lies about it. That's the only reason. I have no problem with her having multiple personalities, but she ought to be up front about it.

Quote:

If you don't like her, just ignore her. Otherwise you come off as a child. And I'll stick my nose into whatever business I damn well please, thank you very much.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, and I'll choose whether to ignore her or not, and I fail to see how this is any concern of yours one way or the other. If you don't like what I have to say, follow your own advice and ignore me.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know