Bush Declares: 'We Do Not Torture', AP, 7 Nov 08

Let me as you all a question. How can Bush say that we don't torture and then ask for a CIA exception?

Shouldn't he have said "We don't torture but we would like to?"


"PANAMA CITY, Panama -

President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
He declared, "We do not torture."
Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President

Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the

CIA. It was recently reported that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects. . . .

Not only is the Republican-controlled Congress challenging an element of Bush's policy, but the Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's handling of military tribunals for foreign terror suspects. The case, which won't be decided for months, is a major test of presidential wartime powers."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/...h/bush_torture

__________________
Classic American liberal

How can this man expect anyone in the world, apart from his support base at home, to take him seriously? In countries around the world people see such transparent word spew as completely meaningless, as they know the actuality quite well. Its Orwellian overkill, its that bad.

I suspect that he and Don light up a big fat one down in the White House basement of an evening and just howl and weep with laughter at some of the stuff they got away with all day...and kept a straight face...Don, puce, hardly fit to breathe, "that, 'we dont do torture' line - it just cracked me up"...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Perhaps when the chimp said "We do not torture" he meant he and his mother, Barbara, don't torture.

The proper response is "Great! So then you'll be dropping all attempts to water down or gain exemptions from the Senate anti-torture resolution?"

Saying "we don't torture" while actively attempting to retain legal authority to torture is pathetic.

__________________
Man up.

Isn't it though! They must have to consulted the 1984 orwellian handbook on how to spin a story.

You know, when I am lied to I like to be lied to consistently and be told a plausible story to believe. I also would like to think that it is for the grater good. We already know that the Bush administration has broken some laws relating to prisoners. Like the Padia case. But this situation is just pathetic!

Bush administration's torture policy increasingly under fire

"Nineteen months after the first revelations of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, the Bush administration's position on treating detainees is increasingly under fire. . . .

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again, and so you bet, we'll aggressively pursue them, but we will do so under the law," the president said.

Bush has threatened to veto a measure sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees. The measure, which was attached to a defense spending bill, passed the Senate 90-9.

McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, argued that abuse of detainees harms the United States rather than helps in fighting terrorism."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13106865.htm

__________________
Classic American liberal

Why not just send out engraved invitations to Al Qaeda and terrorists inviting them to a U.S.-funded tea party? Shall we provide little tea cakes or what would you suggest the pastries should consist of?

Hey, I've got it: send invitations to those who attended the wedding at one of the hotels blown up a few hours ago in Jordan. Oh darn....that's right....they won't be able to attend the tea party because they just got blown up.

Oh darn. Who can we invite now???? So sad.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

That's one of the longest non sequiters I've read in a while.

"Refusing to sanction torture" = "being soft on terrorism." Sure.

__________________
Man up.

"Making NO TORTURE public policy"= "Being really, really stupid."

How stupid would that be? To let the terrorists know ....without a doubt.....that nothing bad will happen to them when captured?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Nothing bad besides permanent incarceration in an isolation cell, punctuated by endless interrogations, right?

Not allowing torture does not mean not allowing interrogation. There are all sorts of effective nonviolent, nonabusive interrogation techniques.

Further, the mild advantage you seek over captured terrorists is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage we do to our cause when we torture people. And especially when we're hypocritical about it.

We gain far more from actually adhering to the moral high ground than we do by abandoning it.

__________________
Man up.

We wouldn't be losing any moral high ground....if it were NOT for the Dems and libs in this country who are playing politics with the war.

Because they hate this president....they've done all they can to undermine our country in the eyes of the world.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007