Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Matrix

Journal WolfElvendar's Journal: WTF!!!! 39

Journal by WolfElvendar
OK, I have pretty much kept the politics out of my Journal, but WTF! Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws

In light of the President's recent trying to get by on technicalities of what he said before CRAP that is going on now how can we believe when he says something like, "I have never ordered torture, I will never order torture." Ok, if he doesn't "order" it, just knows about it of even mentioned it to someone, I guess he would be fine even if they were tortured with him having FULL KNOWLEDGE. I mean how the hell can you tell anymore. The statement is too fucking vague, and we all know his vague statements are technical horseshit now, don't we!

"I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice (news - web sites) that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time," was another of the President's quotes. Why even bother with having international law George?!?! Why don't you just go ahead and anoint yourself emperor of the world and proclaim your every whim the rule over all nations.

At least we KNEW that Billy Clinton was fucking lying to us, and it was about shit that didn't matter. Billy never did anything that really mattered either. Bush is fucking with the world in a way that hasn't been done since HITLER AND STALIN! WTF! Why the FUCK did I vote for him again? Yea I admit that 9/11 under Clinton would have probably involved grieving with prostitutes at the remains of the WTC, followed by orgies and cigar smoking in the oval office, but damn! At least I knew he was worthless. Slick Willie ain't shit compared to slimy Bush!

God help us all! I have listened to others rant and go nuts about Bush, and I have discussed it with many people I know. I have tried to look at both sides, but the more that comes out, the less that can be justified. How can ANYONE be left that has any reasoning capacity left not see what is going on!?!?!?! Who but a person that has completely and totally lost their fucking mind still believe the stupid CRAP our government puts out as truth based on ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING based in fact. Memos are found, and "misinterpreted." HOW! If you say the sky is blue and later say you meant that the sky was plaid HOW the fuck did I misinterpret that!?!?!

Damn. Somebody get me off this ride before I puke!!!!

Vote Bozo the Clown for Pres in '04!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WTF!!!! More

WTF!!!!

Comments Filter:
  • How can ANYONE be left that has any reasoning capacity left not see what is going on!?!?!?!

    This is a very good question. To me this whole debacle has pretty much fallen under the "duh" category from the word go. However, I think the answer to your question is, obfuscation.

    No matter how obvious the evidence is, not matter how many times you are caught lying, you can always complicate and obfuscate the issue so much that all the general public sees is that there are two sides of the issue shouting at each

    • So are you saying the "normal" person on the street is a complete raving lunatic, or just a complete brain dead moron, or an irrational cranial-rectally inverted fanatic? I think it is a combination of all three. We that think are the extremely few among the hoards now a days.
      • So are you saying the "normal" person on the street is a complete raving lunatic, or just a complete brain dead moron, or an irrational cranial-rectally inverted fanatic?

        I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think that many people are catching on. I also think that many people are confused. This is hardly surprising. They have learned their ethics and rational thinking skills from action movies, in which the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are usually clearly defined and easily recognizable. In the good guys vs.

        • It might be a bit harsh, and I do see people waking up. I mainly wrote this JE as a rant, I didn't go through the research to it back up with good references, basically because I didn't feel like it... and, I still don't.

          I don't think I will write another political JE, because I don't really like all of the fanaticism that happens on both sides of the fence... and yes, I know my JE sounded fanatical and wasn't backed up with much of anything.

          You are definitely right about people not knowing history. Th

          • ...anyone who wants to be president should never be put in office.

            I say this a lot. There are some practical difficulties, but the fundamental principle is a good one. I think that you're right about Carter; we saw it again in the debacle over the North Korean nuclear program. I think that he just could not believe that they were lying through their teeth.

            You're right about political JE's, too. I'm usually not inclined to write about politics, but I was tired last night, and I felt that I owed
          • Was George Washington a reluctant President? Run, don't walk, to go buy this book [amazon.com], "The making of the president, 1789". Go buy this one too [amazon.com], "George Washington's expense account".

            I don't see it at IMDB, but there were recent rumors of John Cleese [imdb.com] playing George Washington in a comedy based on Kitman's biographies.

            Kitman is a comedic writer, being an amateur Washington scholar seems to be a hobby of his. But this didn't prevent his biographies from being well-researched. But they are funny.

            My im

      • Many (most?) Americans seem to suspend their critical faculties when it comes to criticizing the President during war-time. Once the troops are committed criticizing the President feels unpatriotic, because one has to "support the troops". Why isn't applying a critical gaze to foreign policy issues, so the troops lives are not thrown away on wasteful gestures is not seen as the best way to "support the troops"? I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with Vietnam.

        But applying a fatal American version of

  • I don't see where you got all that in that article. Bush specifically disavowed the use of torture, and said that the US would continue to abide by the Geneva Convention. The fact that some deputy AG is of the opinion that he has the power to suspend that particular treaty with respect to Afghanistan is not particularly disturbing, though I would be more comfortable with that particular person out of government. However, he may in point of fact be correct - most treaties specify the conditions under whic
    • Maybe I should have put my opening in more perspective.

      Bush stated, for the purposes of us going into war in the first place, that Iraq had ties to 9/11 and had dealings with Al Qaida and they had WMDs. Now there is no proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, Al Qaida and Hussein would not deal with each other (as most Religious fanatics, and military dictators don't mix well any way, and Hussein had denied helping Al Qaida for a long time, though did many years ago,) and only 1 WMD has been found, (

      • Bush NEVER made the claim that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. No matter how many times people claim it, it continues to be a false claim. You show me the quote, I buy you a beer.

        Iraq DID have dealings with AQ, as well as a number of other terrorist organizations, at least according to the 9/11 commission.

        Iraq ADMITTED, ON PAPER, TO THE UN that it had TONS of WMDs. It then refused to prove, as required, that it had disposed of them.

        Naturally, when you start with wrong "facts", you reach wrong conclusions

        • Bush NEVER made the claim that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. No matter how many times people claim it, it continues to be a false claim. You show me the quote, I buy you a beer.

          The argument, as I see it, is that what Bush DID say gave that impression to the people who heard or saw the statements. On Lawn and I have been shooting back and forth over this point of contention for days. My position is:

          1. Bush never TECHNICALLY stated that. Therefore, legally, he's in the clear (AFAIK).
          2. Bush's statement
          • At this point, I have no idea what Bush said or did not say about the Iraq/al-Qaida connection. So much offal has been spewed that I can no longer figure out what the facts are. I think that your position is reasonable. I'd really like to see a list of what was actually said (by the President, the National Security Advisor, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld, since they seem to have been the principal spokesmen), from some kind of trustworthy source. But I don't see that happening soon. Everyone
          • So, while I don't think he could be impeached or anything like that for he what he said, I do believe he has a responsibility to explain the way in which the statements were made,

            Maybe a valid point. OTOH, I think those who continually shoot from the mountaintops that he said things he didn't should have a responsibility also.

            As far as the whole right to waive laws thing, I agree that wasn't necessarily the cleverest thing. I think I would have gone with the "I don't know. I don't care. That's not the way

            • I think those who continually shoot from the mountaintops that he said things he didn't should have a responsibility also.

              Well, you're always going to have journalists that want a big, flashy story (as the Yahoo! story here illustrates fairly well) and people who don't know how to properly express their feelings, etc. I think that people who say things like "Well, Bush said there was a connection" just don't realize that what they're really thinking is: "Well, Bush made me think was a connection" and the

        • As far as the buying of beer, I'll buy you one on general principles RW.
        • No he didn't, not directly. But he may as well have in so far as the public reaction to what he did say played out.

          Basically here's the mind link order you get from reading or hearing his statements.

          You start out with this preformed:
          Terrorism -> 9/11

          And this is added in:
          Iraq -> Terrorism

          And these three things are typically referred to in Bush's speeches in this order.
          Iraq. Terrorism. 9/11.

          A typical person will inevitably link them all together. Basic psych. It's why so many people thought Ira
          • Not directly, nor indirectly. You can try to play games with semantics all day long. When the day is done, he still never made the claim. (I would, btw - and think the evidence supports it. But I am not he.)

            The fact that a bunch of people in the media and the left chose to claim that he said things he didn't may have had just a TEENY bit to do with people saying he did. Or you can do as you did, and assume that most people are incapable of processing more than one idea. and that that "idiot" Bush was just t

            • Look Red. I know he never said it and I never thought he said it. When I was seeing poll data with something like 80% of the country thinking that the 9/11 Hijackers were Iraqi I was shocked.

              That previous post is WHY they thought that the President had said they were linked. Whether or not it was deliberate or not is immaterial AND unproveable. Yes, the media helped, but it WASN'T just the media. The media largely pulled the same shit.

              It wasn't just the left either. A LOT of people thought Bush had
            • Oh and for the record RW, I've been saying for 2 years now that Bush himself has NEVER made the allegation. Ironically mainly in arguments against those in the other camp.
              • So we agree. Sweet. I would go further, and say that the reason that so many people THINK he made the allegation is that the left and the media (but I repeat myself) have insisted on claiming that he did. Over and over and over and over. "The Big Lie" I think it's called.
        • Bush and his administration are counting on the short memories of the American public. They did conflate Iraq and 9-11, over and over again. Polls show that most Americans believed them, that most Americans still believe Saddam was involved in 9-11. Cheney was conflating the two as recently as two weeks ago. look here [washingtonpost.com]
          . And Bush defended claiming there was a link on June 18th [washingtonpost.com].

          To this observer the cynicism of Bill Clinton quibbling over the definition of "is" pales before the criminality of quibbling

          • OK, you claim that Bush "conflated" Iraq and 9-11, and post links examples of said conflation. Choice quotes from your examples:
            "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

            So, Bush said that there were ties between Saddam and AQ. (Which, if you read the 9/11 report, they agree.- see below) Bush did NOT say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

            Also from the June 1

        • Iraq ADMITTED, ON PAPER, TO THE UN that it had TONS of WMDs. It then refused to prove, as required, that it had disposed of them.

          And your source for this information is?

          Is this 7,000 page accounting, required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, and submitted on December 8th 2002, the smoking gun [worldnetdaily.com] you are talking about? The article I linked to points out that the reason it was so huges was that Saddam's regime was required to account for all "dual-use" material. The author says it would requir

          • The article I linked to points out that the reason it was so huges was that Saddam's regime was required to account for all "dual-use" material.

            So account for it: "Here is the bakery, Here is the microbrewery. Come in, take a look around." More to the point, that 7,000 page document also listed tons of Mustard Gas (non-dual use), Sarin (non-dual use), VX (non-dual use). We know he had and used them, as in addition to TELLING us, he used them to remove entire villiages. Interestingly enough, that article wa

            • ...search for the WMDs that we know exist in Iraq, because they've already been used on US soldiers by terrorists who managed to get their hands on Sarin tipped artillery shells. Yeah...non existent WMD's my ass...

              You and I can agree on some things. Saddam possessed nerve gas. Rumsfeld helped him to acquire it. He used gas warfare in his war with Iran. And he used it against some Kurdish villages. About twenty-five years ago the Israelis launched an air-strike against an Iraqi nuclear plant, beca

              • I'm not sure who you were quoting at the top of your reply, but it wasn't the post you were replying to, and I don't think it was me. Just for the record.

                That being said, whomever it was made a good point, though not the one I was making.

                My point is simply this:SADDAM SAID he had them. Saddam failed to account for them, as required by the cease-fire. End of story.

                My conclusions may be wrong. But I believe that saying this shell contained Sarin gas is a dangerous mistake.

                Your conclusions were wrong. Kimmit

                • My point is simply this:SADDAM SAID he had them. Saddam failed to account for them, as required by the cease-fire. End of story.

                  When you say Saddam said he had them is this an interpretation of the 7,000 page catalog the Iraqis submitted to the UN on 2002-12-08 in response to UN resolution 1441? Or are you citing a claim made at another time?

                  My conclusions may be wrong. But I believe that saying this shell contained Sarin gas is a dangerous mistake.

                  Your conclusions were wrong. Kimmitts was

                  • OK, My first response was much longer, but I realized you want to just vent about your dislike of the war. So I trimmed to just the stuff I'd actually brought up in this JE.

                    When you say Saddam said he had them is this an interpretation of the 7,000 page catalog the Iraqis submitted to the UN on 2002-12-08 in response to UN resolution 1441?

                    No. I am not talking about an interpretation. I am talking about a plain reading: i.e. "I have X tons of Mustard Gas"... No interpretations at all.

                    [1]We don't have bina

      • Well, to tell the truth, I have not paid a whole lot of attention to the controversy of justification and who said what. I consider it mostly a political exercise, and fairly uninteresting. When the whole Iraq thing was blowing up, I did my own research:
        • Iraq at one time had production facilities for chemical weapons, at least VX and probably mustard gas as well.
        • Iraq at one time had a stock of several tons of VX, by their own admission. I was unable to find specifics for mustard gas, though its presenc

    • Bush specifically disavowed the use of torture, and said that the US would continue to abide by the Geneva Convention.

      Did Bush really disavow torture? Did he really disavow what normal people would normally classify as torture? Did he really disavow what Americans would regard as torture if it was done to American GIs?

      Or was he disavowing the practice of the very twisted, convoluted definitions of tortured twisted lawyers were dreaming up. That guy said that something was torture only if it was so

      • The Geneva Convention does allow for some forms of "interogation." That is what the lawyers say is not torture.

        • The Geneva Convention does allow for some forms of "interogation." That is what the lawyers say is not torture.

          Do you know what kind of interrogation the Geneva Convention allows? As I recall the captured soldier isn't obliged to give more than his "name, rank and serial number". Maybe the captors can ask for information beyond this. But the Geneva Convention protects the captive from being compelled to give more information?

          When you say that plain old "interrogation", questioning is what "the la

        • Okay, would you agree this guy was tortured? [cageprisoners.com]

          This site tries to provide biographies of the detainees. Some don't have any, but young British citizen [cageprisoners.com] does.

          Here in Canada we have an organization that fights for the rights of the wrongly accused. It focusses on those held in Canadian prisons, wrongly convicted of criminal offenses. Rubin "Hurricane" Carter is one of the founding members. And, with their help, a number of wrongfully acquitted guys have been freed. A lot of these guys were pressured i

    • Bush specifically disavowed the use of torture, and said that the US would continue to abide by the Geneva Convention.

      I have two problems with this. First, let's leave torture aside for a paragraph or two. The Geneva Convention has other provisions.

      It says captors must protect captives from being exposed to humiliation.

      But we know that it was American policy to humiliate their prisoners. So stripping them naked, making them wear women's lingerie, all by itself is a violation of the Geneva co

  • Your characterization of President Clinton is as abnoxious and off-base as your characterization of President Bush.
    • Yes I exaggerated. I didn't like slick Willie either. I don't think it was off character though. As many as accused him of sexual harassment, and then the Monica thing where he lied about it. In a way I will admit it wasn't everyone's business, except that everyone in the country looks up to the president as an example, so they need to be a moral example, which he was very poor at. He also did very little but go with the flow in my opinion. The last thing he produced was the healthcare reform bill, bu
  • me posting in your journal....not sure what the etiquette is but here it goes. I completely agree with you. Bush is very scarey.....for the simple reason that the american people BELIEVE him. And so many of his comments are so wishy washy; like you said to give him waffle room. John Kerry would be worse though......I don't agree with his politics at all.

    I think I will join you in voting for Bozo the Clown.....who else wants to throw their hat in this bulll ring??

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close