Bush admin. uses Saddam-style tactics to block 9/11 commission

[jjones]

Originally posted by: lozina

I'm not arguing if Bush won our particular form of Presidential Election or not. I'm arguing usage of the general term "elected", since it really puts to shame other countries with a more demotcratic way of electing leaders. There needs to be a way to distinugish his Election from others. Perhaps we need a new word... pseudo-elected perhaps?

Perhaps we only need make that distinction for your feeble little mind. Others don't seem to have a problem with understanding how the election process in the US works.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: maXroOt

i wonder when those mass graves were dug, maybe when we were blindly supporting saddam?

Some, I pretty sure were prior to the Gulf War, others were following the Gulf War during the uprising that we left hanging out to dry.

 

[tcsenter]

you'll realize that he merely said that bush is using saddam style tactics ... which according to the article is true. no where did he claim that bush is using ALL of saddams tactics

Well yes, the firefighter who starts a fire to burn a firebreak is using the same 'tactics' as an arsonist (combining an ignition source with an oxidizer and fuel). US police officers serving a lawful warrant on a drug house use the same tactics as Hussein's secret police when raiding the house of a suspected opposition leader (guns, the element of surprise, and an overwhelming show of force). The man who uses a handgun to defend himself from a robber is using the 'same tactics' as a murderer (point the gun and pull the trigger).

And yet, it speaks volumes about the dishonesty of a person who would accuse the fireman of using the 'same tactics of an arsonist'. Or perhaps they're just too stupid to understand the difference.

 

[phillyTIM]

Funny, they were talking about this story on NBC's Today show yesterday, and I was listening, making the connection that the Bush Regime IS in fact doing the same stall tactics that Saddam did.

What a joker, that Bush! Monkey see, Monkey do. When it's convenient, of course.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.
CkG

What's all this whining about bashing Bush?! Maybe if you don't like living in a country that allows such open criticism of the government, you should move someplace that doesn't?
😛

 

[phillyTIM]

Hey what's wrong with bashing a LIER? Especially one that continues to cause the bloodshed and death of Americans, the people who patriotically do his bidding.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.
CkG

What's all this whining about bashing Bush?! Maybe if you don't like living in a country that allows such open criticism of the government, you should move someplace that doesn't?
😛

I don't have a problem with open criticism, what I have a problem with is the amount of attacks directed towards Bush that's sole intent is to Bash him. Just because you have the freedom to spout tripe does not mean you are free from the repercussions of spouting that tripe. You bash Bush, I label you a Bush basher. The reason for people posting threads like this is to point their finger at President Bush and call him names and to try to push their agenda. I'm calling it what it is. I don't doubt some of the content of the strories but the context in which certain people post the stories are reported here is blatantly Bush Bashing.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Hey what's wrong with bashing a LIER? Especially one that continues to cause the bloodshed and death of Americans, the people who patriotically do his bidding.

^^^Bush Basher^^^

Need I say more?

CkG

 

[phillyTIM]

^^^BUSH WAR HAWK ABOVE^^^^

need we know anything more?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[Yep - just as soon as people admit their reason, for posting threads like these, is to bash Bush.
CkG

What's all this whining about bashing Bush?! Maybe if you don't like living in a country that allows such open criticism of the government, you should move someplace that doesn't?
😛

I don't have a problem with open criticism, what I have a problem with is the amount of attacks directed towards Bush that's sole intent is to Bash him. Just because you have the freedom to spout tripe does not mean you are free from the repercussions of spouting that tripe. You bash Bush, I label you a Bush basher. The reason for people posting threads like this is to point their finger at President Bush and call him names and to try to push their agenda. I'm calling it what it is. I don't doubt some of the content of the strories but the context in which certain people post the stories are reported here is blatantly Bush Bashing.

CkG

I don't think pointing out similarities in the way two people function is Bush Bashing. If they use similar tactics, what's wrong with pointing them out? Isn't that the whole principle of the Axis of Evil? You have three countries who behave in much the same way, albeit in various degrees, and they are lumped together and compared on the basis of similarities in their actions. Not quite apples and oranges but still a valid arguement to justify compareing Bush and Saddam IMO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
^^^BUSH WAR HAWK ABOVE^^^^

need we know anything more?

Wrong - you make assumptions about my views. I am not a person who looks to war to solve all international conflicts. You on the otherhand have repeatedly shown yourself to blatantly bash Bush - as you proved above. 🙂

CkG

 

[Fencer128]

Wow - this thread has managed to move away from the very valid issue of member(s) of Bush's own party criticising his attempts at an "intimidating" investigation technique to:

"You hate Bush!"

"You're ignoring my points!"

exchanges.

Why not call a truce and discuss the merits of having your boss standing over you whilst you may be (quite correctly) criticising them?

Andy

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
^^^BUSH WAR HAWK ABOVE^^^^

need we know anything more?

Wrong - you make assumptions about my views. I am not a person who looks to war to solve all international conflicts. You on the otherhand have repeatedly shown yourself to blatantly bash Bush - as you proved above. 🙂

CkG

No one needs to "blatantly bash Bush" - just let Bush and Co. be themselves. They provide plenty of self bashing.

 

[MonkeyK]

The point of the minders is the same in both cases: to make sure that things that someone does not want said are not said. We may say it's for National Security, I'm sure that Saddam would have said the same thing.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

so let's cut the spin and go with:
]
Hussein (a murderous dictator -I won't argue that): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: lozina

I'm not arguing if Bush won our particular form of Presidential Election or not. I'm arguing usage of the general term "elected", since it really puts to shame other countries with a more demotcratic way of electing leaders. There needs to be a way to distinugish his Election from others. Perhaps we need a new word... pseudo-elected perhaps?

Perhaps we only need make that distinction for your feeble little mind. Others don't seem to have a problem with understanding how the election process in the US works.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the SC is allowed to stop the election process?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

you'll realize that he merely said that bush is using saddam style tactics ... which according to the article is true. no where did he claim that bush is using ALL of saddams tactics

Well yes, the firefighter who starts a fire to burn a firebreak is using the same 'tactics' as an arsonist (combining an ignition source with an oxidizer and fuel). US police officers serving a lawful warrant on a drug house use the same tactics as Hussein's secret police when raiding the house of a suspected opposition leader (guns, the element of surprise, and an overwhelming show of force). The man who uses a handgun to defend himself from a robber is using the 'same tactics' as a murderer (point the gun and pull the trigger).

And yet, it speaks volumes about the dishonesty of a person who would accuse the fireman of using the 'same tactics of an arsonist'. Or perhaps they're just too stupid to understand the difference.

Tell me one good reason why government minders need be there when govt agents are interviewed by the 9/11 commission. If you say national security please provide some examples of how national security could be comprimised by allowing govt agents to be freely interviewed by a government commission. Also explain how government minders will prevent breaches in national security by being present in the interviews.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: lozina

I'm not arguing if Bush won our particular form of Presidential Election or not. I'm arguing usage of the general term "elected", since it really puts to shame other countries with a more demotcratic way of electing leaders. There needs to be a way to distinugish his Election from others. Perhaps we need a new word... pseudo-elected perhaps?

Perhaps we only need make that distinction for your feeble little mind. Others don't seem to have a problem with understanding how the election process in the US works.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the SC is allowed to stop the election process?

"Where in the Constitution does it say that the" way votes are counted can be changed to recount the ballots?

Both answers are "nowhere" 😉

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

you'll realize that he merely said that bush is using saddam style tactics ... which according to the article is true. no where did he claim that bush is using ALL of saddams tactics

Well yes, the firefighter who starts a fire to burn a firebreak is using the same 'tactics' as an arsonist (combining an ignition source with an oxidizer and fuel). US police officers serving a lawful warrant on a drug house use the same tactics as Hussein's secret police when raiding the house of a suspected opposition leader (guns, the element of surprise, and an overwhelming show of force). The man who uses a handgun to defend himself from a robber is using the 'same tactics' as a murderer (point the gun and pull the trigger).

And yet, it speaks volumes about the dishonesty of a person who would accuse the fireman of using the 'same tactics of an arsonist'. Or perhaps they're just too stupid to understand the difference.

Tell me one good reason why government minders need be there when govt agents are interviewed by the 9/11 commission. If you say national security please provide some examples of how national security could be comprimised by allowing govt agents to be freely interviewed by a government commission. Also explain how government minders will prevent breaches in national security by being present in the interviews.

Who is to say they only talk about one "topic"? If someone has clearance in one area doesn't mean that he has clearance in another.

CkG

 

[MonkeyK]

If the argument holds for us, questioning within , why doesn't it hold our own nation, why is the argument not equally valid for Iraq?

 

[tcsenter]

Hussein (a murderous dictator - I won't argue that): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

[information which is potentially nefarious and prohibited, or we will kill your entire family but not before mercilessly torturing them]. Fireman =! Arsonist

Tell me one good reason why government minders need be there when govt agents are interviewed by the 9/11 commission. If you say national security please provide some examples of how national security could be comprimised by allowing govt agents to be freely interviewed by a government commission. Also explain how government minders will prevent breaches in national security by being present in the interviews.

Members of Congress have leaked classified information after members of the intelligence community were deposed or interviewed in closed session. The Justice Department responded by threatening to withhold classified information from any members without a security clearance and executive branch approval - and they can do it.

The Commission is granted the authority to have access to classified or sensitive information on a 'need to know' basis. It is the duty of the Justice Department and other government agencies to protect all manners of sensitive and classified information. As such, those agencies have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to the manner in which requests for sensitive information are fullfilled. If they chose to meet this request by in-person deposition, that is their choice. If they chose not to, then the Commission must request it in writing. This discretion lay with the Justice Department, not the Commission.

By sending a representative of the agency, they can better assess which requests or lines of questioning are better answered in person, including whom is best able or qualified to answer any particular line of questioning, or whether the requests are better answered through written communication.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hussein (a murderous dictator - I won't argue that): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

[information which is potentially nefarious and prohibited, or we will kill your entire family but not before mercilessly torturing them]. Fireman =! Arsonist

Says you. What it all comes down to is the interpretation of the same act in different ways. If the US administration has potential legitimate reasons for "minders", so did the late Iraqi administration. If the late Iraqi administration popentially misused minders, then the potential exists here too.

 

[tcsenter]

Says you. What it all comes down to is the interpretation of the same act in different ways. If the US administration has potential legitimate reasons for "minders", so did the late Iraqi administration. If the late Iraqi administration popentially misused minders, then the potential exists here too.

lol! I suppose then that convicted pedophile has "potential legitimate reasons" for hanging around an elementary school yard, just like everyone else.

 

[MonkeyK]

Good argument, but not a good point. I'll see your

and raise you one

All governments (even bad ones) may have issues that they consider issues of national security.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hussein (a murderous dictator): "You will not be deposed without one of my henchmen present to serve as a constant reminder that your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and murdered if you disclose any information about the nefarious and prohibited activities of my regime."

Bush (a lawfully elected president of the United States): "You will not be deposed without an agency representative present to ensure that you do not unwittingly disclose highly classified information and National Security secrets without agency approval."

Yeah, its the same.

As soon as we start digging up tens of thousands of Americans in mass graves them maybe I will compare the 2.

If we stop asking questions, speaking out and demanding honesty and integrity from our leaders, that day might just come.