what do you think Bush can do differently?

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Stunt
Was there any evidence implicating Rummy or GWB in promoting the Abu Ghraib tortures?
I wouldn't think they would be held accountable in such a micro situation.

Bush had Gonzales dream up the excuses for torture. But I forgot. When Bush leads, leaders aren't responsible for the results of their decisions.

I fully agree with the accountability point; But did he make the decision to torture people?
This is what I want evidence of, direct implication, or else you cannot hold him to account.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Stunt
Was there any evidence implicating Rummy or GWB in promoting the Abu Ghraib tortures?
I wouldn't think they would be held accountable in such a micro situation.

Bush had Gonzales dream up the excuses for torture. But I forgot. When Bush leads, leaders aren't responsible for the results of their decisions.

I fully agree with the accountability point; But did he make the decision to torture people?
This is what I want evidence of, direct implication, or else you cannot hold him to account.

There may be no direct implication but the justifications for torture came from Gonzales at Bush's request.

To ascertain direct implication I believe an independent counsel is the way to go. An independent counsel without limit in scope, and with free reign to follow evidence wherever it leads.

 

[imported_Pedro69]

IMO he needs to change his attitude, he is/was not interested in other options or opinions if they don't fit into his agenda. On most issues he is not willing to compromise, and if, it is only because he has no other choice.

All he achieves with that is dividing the people, but on the other hand this is maybe what he wants: "You are either with us or against us".

The Question for the american people is what he meant with "us", all Americans or just the ones who agree with him?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: BBond
There may be no direct implication but the justifications for torture came from Gonzales at Bush's request.

To ascertain direct implication I believe an independent counsel is the way to go. An independent counsel without limit in scope, and with free reign to follow evidence wherever it leads.

Sounds like a wild goose chase in hopes to find something he has done wrong for your own personal political benifit. You need far more support and evidence for an independent councel. I'd almost rather not have the waste of tax money for that purpose as Bush will most likely get out of it. It's a lost cause unless you can substantiate your claims better.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: BBond
There may be no direct implication but the justifications for torture came from Gonzales at Bush's request.

To ascertain direct implication I believe an independent counsel is the way to go. An independent counsel without limit in scope, and with free reign to follow evidence wherever it leads.

Sounds like a wild goose chase in hopes to find something he has done wrong for your own personal political benifit.

Sounds like you're describing Ken Starr. What's good for the goose...

 

[BBond]

You know, it's the old "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing. And "the measure you mete shall be meted unto you" or whatever the exact quote is.

 

[BBond]

An independent counsel with unlimited funds like Starr had could dig up far more on Bush than lying about a BJ. I guarantee.