• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This man is a hero to lots of people

What scares me is that Bush seems to have actually bought his own BS. The fact that the man can't think far enough ahead to realise his own position is undefenseable does not speak well for his thinking ability or people skills. I have to somewhat wonder if his advisors are hammering any possible defenses into his head and that he is himself brainwashed.

But if you somewhat buy that latter premise, one then conclude that the reason may be a total lack of any alternative views in his set of advisors---and one then can conclude its a question of the blind leading the blind. And thinking like that explains why he does not replace people like Rumsfeld and Gonzales with more rational people---and why Powell had to go. After all, one good apple can spoil a whole barrel of rotten ones.

What becomes sadder still is a lack of listening to results. You have a policy that is not working---your advisors tell you the idea is right so you stay the course hoping for better results next time. And therefore never consider the bad results you get actually has something to do with bad policy.

Which then sounds like the definition of insanity---you keep pushing the same old button
time after time hoping for a different result.
 
Everything Bush says makes sense . . . . if you start with the premise that he's a complete idiot.
 
the guy asked a question that didn't make any sense. the news reporter communicated it unclearly. I still have no idea what he was asking.
 
Here's exactly what he's saying: "If Congress doesn't pass the law that we have asked them to pass that makes various forms of torture during interrogation legal, well then we'll just shut down the whole program. We'll shut it down and then the next big intel failure will be on their heads."

It's called playing "chicken" and he's doing it with the NSA domestic spying legislation as well.
 
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
the guy asked a question that didn't make any sense. the news reporter communicated it unclearly. I still have no idea what he was asking.
Click to expand...

Gregory: "Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?"
Click to expand...

The question appears very straight forward to me.

The Presidents answer is the problem.

Bush: "David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards......
Click to expand...

quotes from http://newsbusters.org/node/7676

The way I hear the "President" is he could care less about U.S. trooops if they are captured. Kind of like Stalin/USSR during and after W.W. II where Soviet POW's where sent to Gulags after their release from Concentration/POW camps for the crime of being captured by the NAZI's.
 
He avoids the question about individual Nations interpreting Geneva Conventions to their liking by stating that he'd like it if other Nations used his interpretations of the Geneva Conventions. IOWs, he wants to interpret the conventions anyway he wants, but he doesn't want other Nations to do the same. Unfortunetly for him, the US does not hold the same weight the Conventions do, so his precedent of using them as he sees fit will be the justification of other Nations doing the same and not other Nations adopting the US interpretations.
 
These were the four and a half most embarrasing minutes of Bush I've seen... What is left to interpretation in the Geneva Convention? Why does Bush call Article 3 a "vague" standard @2:00? There is no scope left to interpret some forms of torture as acceptable under the Geneva Convention.
 
I think one of Bush's problems when speaking is that he believes everyone is as stupid as he is.

The guy asks him a straightforward question, and all he can do is rant and rave stubbornly at a predetermined point...
 
I just want to point out that the Geneva Conventions weren't "ambiguous" for the past 50+ years. Apparently, our military figured out a way to work within the letter of the law and has done so ever since. It's only when you want to torture prisoners and let them linger in a legal black hole in solitary confinement for an undetermined period of time with no legal recourse that you start running into a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top