Journal WolfElvendar's Journal: WTF!!!! 39
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!
good question (Score:2)
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
Re:good question (Score:1)
A bit harsh (Score:2)
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.
Re:A bit harsh (Score:1)
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
Re:A bit harsh (Score:1)
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
George Washington -- reluctant President? (Score:2)
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
Uncritical gaze on America (Score:2)
But applying a fatal American version of
Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
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, (
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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:
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Conflating Saddam and 9-11 (Score:2)
. 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
Re:Conflating Saddam and 9-11 (Score:2)
"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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Let's get to the bottom of this Sarin shell ! (Score:2)
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
Re:Let's get to the bottom of this Sarin shell ! (Score:2)
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
Re:Let's get to the bottom of this Sarin shell ! (Score:2)
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?
Re:Let's get to the bottom of this Sarin shell ! (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Twisted lawyers twist the definition of torture. (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 and the Geneva Convention... (Score:2)
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
And one other thing... (Score:1)
Re:And one other thing... (Score:1)
I hope you don't mind..... (Score:1)
I think I will join you in voting for Bozo the Clown.....who else wants to throw their hat in this bulll ring??
Re:I hope you don't mind..... (Score:1)
Re:I hope you don't mind..... (Score:1)