"We Got What the President Asked For" - Page 4

barney-fife · #31 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 05:29 PM

Amen! Protect terrorists first!

The12thMan · #32 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amepro";p=&quot

The information about "no torture" is in the article that Beagle provided, yet the "four tortureteers" totally ignore it. You're pathetic.

If Bush wants to pretend he got his way to save face, fine... He may also score some points with the American people. To me, I will now see him as the Pro-torture president. G.W. the water-board king.

Please give us a few quotes from Bush showing he's pro-torture. He asked for clarification, not permission to torture.

Y'all are believing your own talking points.

bushndick · #33 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

Amen! Protect terrorists first!

no, torture them first then ask questions, then if they dont give desired answers blame it on ruskies

sputterman · #34 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle66";p=&quot

rather than the entire article that she's lying through her teeth. I was CORRECT!

Here's the entire article -- I've bolded exactly what I said Bush would cave on.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The White House and rebellious Senate Republicans announced agreement Thursday on rules for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror. President Bush urged Congress to put it into law before adjourning for the midterm elections.

"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," the president said, shortly after administration officials and key lawmakers announced agreement following a week of high-profile intraparty disagreement.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, one of three GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn't have the legislation the way he initially asked for it, said, "The agreement that we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice."

"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," McCain said, referring to international agreements that cover the treatment of prisoners in wartime.

Details of the agreement were sketchy.

The central sticking point had involved a demand from McCain, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia and Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina for a provision making it clear that torture of suspects would be barred.

One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations.

Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."

In turn, this official said, negotiators agreed to clarify what acts constitute a war crime. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he had not been authorized to discuss the details.

The agreement did not extend to a related issue — whether suspects and their lawyers would be permitted to see any classified evidence in the cases against them.
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wouldn't consider the agreement sealed until Bush signed on.

That happened within an hour, when the president stepped before microphones in Orlando, Fla., where he was campaigning for Republican candidates in the fall.

The agreement "clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do — to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists and then to try them," he said.

The accord was sealed in a 90-minute session in the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had earlier in the day told Warner, McCain and Graham it was time to close the deal. The four lawmakers were joined by Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, as well as other administration officials, for the final session.

If it survives scrutiny, the accord would fulfill a Republican political and legislative imperative — pre-election party unity on an issue related to the war on terror, and possible enactment of one of Bush's top remaining priorities of the year.

The evident compromise came less than a week after Bush emphatically warned lawmakers at a news conference he would shut down the interrogation of terror suspects unless legislation was sent to his desk. "Time's running out," he said.

The White House shifted its tone from combative to compromising within 48 hours, though, and officials began talking of a need for an agreement that all sides would be comfortable with.

Whatever the outcome, the controversy has handed critics of the president's conduct of the war on terror election-year ammunition.

Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell, dismayed the administration when he sided with Warner, McCain and Graham. He said Bush's plan, which would have formally changed the U.S. view of the Geneva Conventions on rules of warfare, would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."

The handling of suspects is one of two administration priorities relating to the war on terror.

The other involves the president's request for legislation to explicitly allow wiretapping without a court warrant on international calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists in the United States and abroad. One official said Republicans had narrowed their differences with the White House over that issue, as well, and hoped for an agreement soon.

Republican leaders have said they intend to adjourn Congress by the end of the month to give lawmakers time to campaign for re-election.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that Bush's plan for trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law.

The court, in a 5-3 ruling, found that Congress had not given Bush the authority to create the special type of military trial and that the president did not provide a valid reason for the new system. The justices also said the proposed trials did not provide for minimum legal protections under international law.

About 450 terrorism suspects, most of them captured in Afghanistan and none of them in the U.S., are being held by military authorities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Ten have been charged with crimes.

Ouch! The exact quote I think just butch-slapped Bush and his minions in here:

Quote:

One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations.

Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."

No change to Geneva Convention General Article 3. No agreement on withholding secret evidence from defendants (which wouldn't have mattered since the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say on that issue and they've already preliminarily said NO!). And the only thing I see that the Bush administration got in this compromise was a vague promise to look into defining war crimes.

HA HA HA! I WAS RIGHT!

There will be no torture!

barney-fife · #35 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 07:12 PM

Hey stutter--plan a terrrorist attack and get back to us about there being "no torture."

Splash town is open for business! Grab your boards and let's go water boarding!

Zoe · #36 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by amepro";p=&quot

The information about "no torture" is in the article that Beagle provided, yet the "four tortureteers" totally ignore it. You're pathetic.

If Bush wants to pretend he got his way to save face, fine... He may also score some points with the American people. To me, I will now see him as the Pro-torture president. G.W. the water-board king.

Please give us a few quotes from Bush showing he's pro-torture. He asked for clarification, not permission to torture.

Y'all are believing your own talking points.

Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the testimony of those who have been released/rescued from these detentions: how much evidence do you need that the administration is comfortable with torture? "Clarification"? -B.S.! Who is going to write that encyclopdedia? So if it is your son, is the practice of pulling finger nails out quickly an acceptable technique? How about pulling finger nails out slowly? Is that torture? Does it matter to you that this abuse rarely produces useful intelligence?
slowly?

The12thMan · #37 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 08:05 PM

Y'all have got to get some new talking points.

DuH2 · #38 (**permalink**) 09-21-2006, 08:53 PM

This proves to me once agian how and why the far left is so utterly incompetent politically. They read something like what has been shown and come away from it with a conclusion that is completely naive and totally removed from all reality.

Its also laughably apparent that they are trying to twist this news into beinga victory for their idealism..which its obviously not.
...and its been obvious for months and months(really ever since the Far Left realized how popular McCain is) that they as a group are trying to use McCain while at the same time discrediting him in the eyes of his supporters.

Oh wel not like it matters..reality matters..BS just stinks.

Beagle66 · #39 (**permalink**) 09-22-2006, 06:14 AM

Bush wanted to redefine Geneva Conventions General Article 3 because he claimed it was vague.

Answer to Bush's desire -- no vagueness whatsoever. Bush must comply.

No more, let's fudge the meaning of torture.

But fudging facts is exactly Republicans' forte as seen by the title of this topic and the distortion that JP5 along with Rebellion and 12thman attempted to do. After all it was JP5's link that had the details but when I asked about the details of the "compromise", no information was forthcoming until I read the article and posted the entire thing -- not just quotes taken out of context like JP5 did and then claimed victory.

A lie is a lie. JP5 lied. But in the end, I had great enjoyment at exposing her lies and the desperate fraud that Republican Party supporters have become. When Republicans declare they're winning anything, DON'T YOU DARE BELIEVE THEM. Look it up for yourself and look up the entire information needed to make a truthful conclusion.

Republicans lie because they're desperation drives them to it. Democrats tell the truth because it's simply fun watching Republicans wince and then have to retreat into their little worlds of fantasy.

amepro · #40 (**permalink**) 09-22-2006, 07:01 AM

Let me get this straight....

JP5 - pro-torture

Barney - pro-torture

Duh - pro-torture

12th - Bush doesn't agree with torture

Please don't go on about what the meaning of "is" is. You sound like Clinton when you do that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode