Jim itâ€™s truly disappointing that you canâ€™t find anything new in ways to condemn Bush and his Cabinet. The Democrat controlled Congress has had almost two years to do something but have failed miserably in every attempt, why is that? You have pointed out that Bush has had failed policies, and without any regard as to whether or not that is true, why is it that the Democrat controlled Congress cannot or will not do anything to change that? They clearly have the majority and yet they still canâ€™t get their act together. Maybe it's because they know more than you do, and can see furter than just a few feet in front of their collective noses..................
Shame on them, they deserve even more blame than he does, they were elected (according to the left) to stop him and they have donelittle or nothing.
I will color code my responses to make things clear for the readers.
The Bush Administration has done little more than labor under the blunder of their first 6 years in power as it has occupied nearly all of their effort to keep the spin machine operating with data that suggests reality is not what anyone else perceives it is. Also, given the last year (15 months, not two years) has been with an admittedly relatively ineffective Democratic majority, even that slight bit of added resistance has stymied efforts to implement further blunders. So, the up to date, current information is, Bush has established a new low approval rating with the American people. And it is based on his handling of the nation's business, not that he has eyes too close together, or says dumb things all the time. It is because the American people have concluded after 7 years and 3 months, that he is a loser.
While it is likely those in Congress know more about the issues they vote on than me, the fundamental lack of follow through on the campaign promises is very frustrating. If they are changing their minds about something it would be helpful to have an explanation. Instead what we see is a Democratic Party that is a much more loosely tied together political entity. While that in and of itself should be a positive characteristic as it allows other than party politics to be front and center for each elected official, the failure to force Bush to as a minimum address Congress himself and explain his policies, justify his decisions and work in accordance with the Constitution instead of against it, is very disappointing. Instead they let him have a good General do his dirty work and get his good name dragged through the mud for his Iraq policy.
Really bad logic there Bruce. That is like saying the fact that your house burned down is the fault of the fire department being unable to put it out, instead of the arsonist who set it on fire.
No, it is not bizarre. It is realistic. I am not about to suggest that it is even remotely within the scope of possibility that I am going to track down and beat the truth out of someone involved in harming a family member. It is not in my skillset for one, and I am not so stupid as to believe I could succeed if it were. It is something the police would be involved with, as I am not a vigilante either. And I very much doubt it would be perceived as anything but "tempting" to them based on my pleas, even if I were inclined to make such pleas.
So itâ€™s only â€śtemptingâ€ť to you to save your family if their lives depended on torture of another, or did I misunderstand? Are you saying that your â€śrespect for the lawâ€ť would force you to let your family die while the terrorist laughed in your face? Please Jim, Iâ€™ll go along with a lot of nonsense, but even coming from you that sounds bazaar.
Your example also misses the point. I am against a policy of allowing torture under any circumstances. The situation you so vividly describe and get yourself worked up about does not happen in real life. Citizens do not find out about terrorists about to murder their wives and kids, and then get the chance to beat the truth out of them, so it is ludicrous to base policy on such a hypothetical situation. Things that can happen only in your imagination are not good things to base policy on - I hope that is clear to you. Your situation also likely has never happened in real life, with real soldiers in real circumstances. You watch too much 24. Exciting show, but not an accurate depiction of any 24 hour period in all of our history. Not a single season.
American policy should reflect what we stand for, and my version of America doesn't allow torture as a matter of policy.
I can tell you one thing Jim, If I were (and Iâ€™ll bet most here feel the same, if they admit it or not) to find out that someone had a prisoner that knew a city was to be bombed and didnâ€™t get that information out of them before the event and failed to save even one life, they would have to pay for that with theirs. That is the way it has always been, and that as far as Iâ€™m concerned is the way it should be. I DO NOT advocate torture at every level or for no reason, and never have, but if required I have no hesitation. You may call that hypocrisy, I call it self defense.
Now, this is a slight modification, and I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying the person interrogating the suspect should be killed if they fail to extract the information they were looking for in time to prevent the terror attack? Seems odd, and unbalanced. I cannot support that.
But if it is the suspect, who is found guilty of being a contributor or part of the conspiracy that spawned the attack, well, once convicted the shitbird should be punished. If that is the death penalty, so be it. I am ok with that. If you are advocating vigilantism, well I am not ok with that. If you can't make the case in court that the suspect is guilty, you have no business killing him on your own.
People in combat are another thing. They are engaged in killing or being killed. Calls for all kinds of people with all kinds of backgrounds and skill sets to make all kinds of decisions in split seconds in all kinds of circumstances. That breeds all kinds of results. I have a lot more room for definition of what is within the rules there, but torture isn't one as a matter of policy.
So what youâ€™re saying is that he is guilty until proven innocent? Funny, but it seems to me just a few paragraphs above you said you had â€śrespect for the lawâ€ť. What happened to all that â€śrespectâ€ť, does it only apply to you and yours?
No, I am saying if he, while acting as the President while doing the business of leading the American people had the Justice Department prepare memos at his direction that were used to justify implementing a policy that violated our laws and our Constitution, he has no rights to hide such documentation from the public, and especially not using the resources at his disposal that are provided to him by the American public. I think that is pretty clear and simple.
If he is acting as a private citizen, not engaged in executing his duties as the President and gets caught, say, getting blow job and his wife sues him for divorce, then he gets the same rights we all get in his dispute with his soon to be ex-wife. Or he gets caught shoplifting. Or stealing booze from a liquor store. You get the picture.
The work of the agencies being paid for by the taxpayer are not owned by the President, even if they prepared them at his behest. They belong to the taxpayers. The rules for their disclosure should be no different than any other papers prepared by a government agency or contractor to a government agency. The product belongs to the American people. The President may have used it, or not. But the product belongs to us. The President and the Attorney General have no business denying access to the documents when asked by Congress.