Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[bcvillastwo]

But when lives are put in harms way I do believe one should go the 'extra mile' to ensure that all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted.

As I recall, this approach has been tried in the past and it wasn't very successful. Does anyone remember the "peace in our time" quote. As I recall, Prime Minister Nevell Chamberlain said this after coming back from signing a treaty with Adolf Hitler. Shortly thereafter WWII started. Winston Churchill later commented many times that the war could have easily been averted if the people in power had been more proactive (my words not his).

So, fast forward to our time. You are the President, you know you have a bad actor in Saddam Hussein, you are getting what you think is good intelligence about WMD, you know he's used WMD on his own people in the past, you know he's killed thousands of his own countrymen, and you've got the events of 9-11 not to far behind you in your rearview mirror.

Do you act or not? Do you take the risk of acting or not? If you act you are going to be 2nd guessed by 1/2 the population if you don't act and something bad happens that could have been stopped, everyone 2nd guesses you. So, in almost every way you are damned if you do and potentially even more damned if you don't.

Take a few moments, read about the history of WWII and it's aftermath. How many millions of people were eventually killed directlu and indirectly by the war. We can't change the past but I happen to agree with Churchill's view that if action had been taken by the free world before 1938 or so, it's very likely the WWII would not have started and millions of lives would have been saved.

It's damned easy to 2nd guess other's decisions but it's damned hard to be put into that kind of decision making position and to know what to do.

History will tell if President Bush was correct with respect to his decision to invate Iraq, just as history has and will continue to pronounce its judgement on the actions that leaders took before and during WWII.

 

[DisDuck]

Big difference between events leading up to WWII and events leading up to Iraq. For one Bush didn't go to Iraq and sign any kind of treaty. UN inspectors were onsite since 11/2002 or thereabouts and complaining about lack of documentation not 'hey look what we found'. Iraq had not invaded/taken over another country in 2002 like Germany did with Czech, Austria and the Jutland between 1936 and 1938 (or thereabouts). No one was pushing for war with Iraq except the Administration after 9/11. Afghanistan and Bin Laden were the targets. Even with hind-sight there is no evidence that anything was in the planning by Saddam against anyone so if the inspectors were given the 3-6 months as requested we would not be having this 'conversation'. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians (for which we did not complain much) then against his own people, all in the late 80's. After Gulf 1, his capability was destroyed. Even when inspectors left in 1998 Saddam had nothing with which to reconstitute on.

 

[7thdwarf/dopey]

Time's article, authenticated by Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita, outlines al-Qahtani's treatment, which included being refused a bathroom break and forced to urinate in his pants, having a female guard straddle him, being forced to wear pictures of scantily clad women around his neck and being forced to bark and act like a dog.

This is what America has become under the Bu$h administration.



"In spite of that they are still treated with respect and dignity,"-Dick Cheney.

Respect and dignity???

Lets see,, you were born in 1958....I'll bet your not even a Vet.

 

[Lebjwb]

It is your opinion that Bush's statements make him a liar. It seems fairly obvious that this assertion is not accepted as factual by a large number of people.

And a "large number of people"...%50... say he's a liar. thankfully for you, this poll only reflects Americans. Your argument clearly fails to withstand the world test...take our friends just to the North for example...

...Two-thirds (67 per cent) of adult Canadians said they agreed with the statement that Mr. Bush "knowingly lied to the world to justify his war with Iraq" a year ago, The Globe and Mail-CTV News poll says.




Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs

By E&P Staff

Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

 

[jrydberg]

Sooo... 50% don't think he's a liar and yet you're still claiming it as fact?

 

[dcentity2000]

Incorrect. That is your opinion. But we've been through this before.

Blair lying is a fact ie. an option most likely by large majority.

He said the case was "strong" whilst MI6 told him it was "flimsy". Try and excuse that.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Nope, don't need a refresher course, thanks. I'll let your partisan venom speak for itself.

Better than being a sheep



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Bu$h cited a report that didn't exsist...that's a lie and the argument I was making.

Bu$h lied about SS being bankrupt.

He's a liar...that was my point and you haven't stated anything to the contrary.

And he's the President. Everything he commits to in public must be firmly checked for any error; this evidently was not done.

Any leader who half cared about his people would take teh time and bother. Bush didn't.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Did you find the CIA blameless all through the Clinton Administration or something?

Make love, not war!



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

If that's your standard, then everyone in the Administration, Congress, anyone in politics is a liar (as are most in the corporate world). That's fine if you apply that across the board, but in my experience, you don't. You just apply it to Bush.

We apply it more to our leaders as they are in a greater position of responsibility.



Rich::

 

[Lebjwb]

Lets see,, you were born in 1958....I'll bet your not even a Vet.

And I don't like lima beans either..................

Do you have a point or are you just going to tread water?

 

[jrydberg]

Better than being a sheep



Rich::

But, of course, it's not a choice between the two. I can be called many things, but I don't think sheep applies.

As for Blair, I don't know enough about his circumstances and statements to judge that. I'll leave that to you. My statements were specifically concerning President Bush and his administration.

 

[Teejay32]

Ding, ding, ding,ding............took 92 posts to bring it all back to Bill Clinton.

So, in other words, it's your contention the CIA is doing this all on their own without any input or against the wishes of the WH?

You can't make this stuff up.

I never won anything in a thread before, and after 5+ years you'd think people could scrape up some cash...

The Clinton administration has the distinction of being the one before the Bush admin, that's all that means, and it was sometime during that one that I began to think the CIA might be some kind of law unto itself. A better way to put it is, does the CIA tend to do things without any input from anyone? Sure they do.

 

[jrydberg]

We apply it more to our leaders as they are in a greater position of responsibility.



Rich::

My point is that the same standard has not been applied to Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, etc. Nor has it applied to leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives, past and present. If it is to be the standard, it must apply to all, not just the guy currently there.

 

[Lebjwb]

Sooo... 50% don't think he's a liar and yet you're still claiming it as fact?

You bet! Bu$h is a liar and today you have done a very poor job of defending that fact.

...oh and thanks for being the sounding board "du jour"...I'm not here for you....I'm here for the lurkers.

 

[jrydberg]

You bet! Bu$h is a liar and today you have done a very poor job of defending that fact.

...oh and thanks for being the sounding board "du jour"...I'm not here for you....I'm here for the lurkers.

Well, of course I've done a poor job of defending the "fact" that Bush is a liar -- it's not a fact and I'm not defending it

If you honestly believe being so biased attracts people to your cause, more power to ya. Honestly, I think you seriously damage the credibility of your cause.

 

[ThAnswr]

I never won anything in a thread before, and after 5+ years you'd think people could scrape up some cash...

The Clinton administration has the distinction of being the one before the Bush admin, that's all that means, and it was sometime during that one that I began to think the CIA might be some kind of law unto itself. A better way to put it is, does the CIA tend to do things without any input from anyone? Sure they do.

The CIA is not a law unto themselves and, yes, there are rogue groups all over this government. However, the policy of "rendition" is official Bush administration policy and NOT a rogue group within the CIA doing whatever it wants to do.

 

[Teejay32]

Extraordinary rendition is a CIA policy. Specifically for members of Islamic terror groups. Look it up.

 

[Lebjwb]

Well, of course I've done a poor job of defending the "fact" that Bush is a liar -- it's not a fact and I'm not defending it

If you honestly believe being so biased attracts people to your cause, more power to ya. Honestly, I think you seriously damage the credibility of your cause.

I suppose it's not a fact if you want to change the definition of what constitutes a lie.

Bu$h is a liar or he's incompetent, which you think are admirable qualities in a president...and you question the credibility of "my cause"?

 

[Professor Mouse]

Bush's statement was factually correct. It did not mention some details that would make the administration look less successful. Now if you want to define that as a lie, go right ahead. But I sure didn't see anyone defining that as lying in any previous administration -- rest assured, *every* previous administration did the same thing on a daily basis.

Your definition of lies does not comport with the legal definition of lying. Look at a section of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading

The Bush adminstration has repeatedly lied or misrepresented the facts on a number of things from the Niger yellowcake purchases to the suppose meeting of Mohammed Atta with an Iraqi figure in Bulgaria. The recently released Brittish memos show a further pattern of Bush adminstration lies. For example Wolfowitze acknowledged that there was no real proof that Atta was in Bulgaria but VP. Cheney has repeatedly claimed that the meeting took place and was justification for the war. Here is a link to one of the latest memos leaked about Wolfowitz http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/meyermemo.pdf These memos have now been verified by NBC news as being authentic. More British memos on pre-Iraq war concerns It is pretty cleared that Bush and Cheney have repeatedly lied.