Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

AuthorTopic: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S  (Read 2537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Report: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

One Iraqi prisoner, identified only as Yasser, reported being subjected to electric shocks three times and being sodomized with a stick. His thumbs bore round scars consistent with shocking, according to the report obtained by The Associated Press. He would not allow a full rectal exam.

Another Iraqi, identified only as Rahman, reported he was humiliated by being forced to wear women's underwear, stripped naked and paraded in front of female guards, and was shown pictures of other naked detainees. The psychological exam found that Rahman suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had sexual problems related to his humiliation, the report said.

The report came as the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed documents showing military lawyers warned the Pentagon that methods it was using post-9/11 violated military, U.S. and international law. Those objections were overruled by the top Pentagon lawyer.

President Bush said in 2004, when the prison abuse was revealed, that it was the work of "a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." Bush and other U.S. officials have consistently denied that the U.S. tortures its detainees.

Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., that investigates abuse around the world and advocates for global health and human rights, did not identify the 11 former prisoners to protect their privacy. Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges.

Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on.

The abuse of some prisoners by their American captors is well documented by the government's own reports. Once-secret documents show that the Pentagon and Justice Department allowed, at least for a time, forced nakedness, isolation, sleep deprivation and humiliation at both Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and at Abu Ghraib.

Because the medical examiners did not have access to the 11 patients' medical histories prior to their imprisonment, it was not possible to know whether any of the prisoners' ailments, disabilities and scars pre-dated their confinement. The U.S. military says an al-Qaida training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation.

However, doctors and mental health professionals stated they could link the prisoners' claims of abuse while in U.S. detention to injuries documented by X-rays, medical exams and psychological tests.

"The level of the time, thoroughness and rigor of the exams left me personally without question about the credibility of the individuals," said Dr. Allen Keller, one of the doctors who conducted the exams, in an interview with the AP. "The findings on the physical and psychological exams were consistent with what they reported."

All 11 former detainees reported being subjected to:

_Stress positions, including being suspended for hours by the arms or tightly shackled for days.

_Prolonged isolation and hooding or blindfolding, a form of sensory deprivation.

_Extreme heat or cold. _Threats against themselves, their families or friends from interrogators or guards.

Ten said they were forced to be naked, some for days or weeks. Nine said they were subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation. At least six said they were threatened with military working dogs, often while naked. Four reported being sodomized, subjected to anal probing, or threatened with rape.

The patients underwent intensive, two-day long exams following standards and methods used worldwide to document torture.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," he said.

Keller, who directs the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said the treatment the detainees reported were "eerily familiar" to stories from other torture survivors around the world. He said the sexual humiliation of the prisoners was often the most traumatic experience.

Most former detainees are out of reach of Western doctors because they are either in Iraq or have been returned to their home countries from Guantanamo.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2008, 02:33:28 PM »
I hope all republican supporters for most part rightwinger's and others who are greedy to save a buck on taxes think about the above episodes before voting for the Republican party.  I think to teach a lesson to these tyrants and killers(read that Bush) any one with honor and dignity should not vote for McCain just to let the Republican party know that you cannot lie and mislead people who voted them to power.

I cannot understand how McCain can associate himself with Bush a war criminal IMO and ask for his help to be voted into power.  To me it is a shameless act.  He needs to voted out.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2008, 05:03:06 PM »
US President's job rating hits all-time low since 1938

Washington (PTI): Approval rating of US President George W Bush, now on the last leg of his second term, has reached an all-time low in modern opinion polls since 1938, with a record number of Americans saying the country is on the "wrong track".

Given the growing economic discontent, rising cost of fuel, atop the unpopular Iraq war, Bush's job approval rating has sunk to a new low in latest ABC/Post polls, 29 per cent.

Sixty-eight per cent of Americans now disapprove, the highest in any presidential approval poll dating to Gallup's first in 1938 (surpassing Harry Truman's 67 per cent disapproval and Richard Nixon's 66 per cent), the poll said.

Fifty-four per cent "strongly" disapprove, a new high, dwarfing the 10 per cent who strongly approve. Among other groups, Bush is at record lows in his own party and among conservatives.

Separately, and for the same reasons, a remarkable 84 per cent of Americans who took part in the polls say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, a record high in polls since the early 1970s.

The previous high was 83 per cent in June 1992, the summer before Bush's father lost re-election amid broad economic discontent. It was 82 per cent in May.

Bush is expected to end his two terms as US President on January 20, 2009 when the winner of the November 4 general election- either Republican nominee John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama - will succeed him.

The poll found that 77 per cent of Americans say their president should meet with leaders of hostile foreign nations, rejecting the argument that this could reward their behaviour and make the US look weak. And 63 per cent continue to say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, with just 38 per cent saying the US is winning there.


Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2008, 05:41:28 PM »
House of Representatives and the Senate, both are controlled by Democrats. So what about this?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx


May 14, 2008

Congress' Approval Rating Ties Lowest in Gallup Records
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in the 34 years Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing. Today's 18% score, based on a May 8-11 Gallup Poll, matches the record lows Gallup recorded in August 2007 and March 1992.



<<from year 2000 to 2006, the congress had an approval rating of over 40%. during this time it was Republican controlled. Since 2006, when Dems took control, the rating didn't go above 40%. why is that so?>>

Congressional approval started off the year at a depressed 23%, then dipped to 21% in March and 20% in April, before reaching the current record-tying low. The 76% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992.

Democrats Not Backing Congress

One reason Congress is doing so poorly in the court of public opinion is that rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution. In fact, Democrats are about as likely to approve of Congress as are Republicans: 20% of Republicans approve, versus 16% of Democrats. <<this raises a question. why are the Dem voters not supporting their own controlled congress?>>

Not only is that true today, but it has been the pattern in Gallup's monthly approval ratings of Congress since December 2007. Prior to that -- for the first 10 months of the new Democratic majority in Congress -- Democrats tended to express slightly higher approval than Republicans, averaging seven points higher. However, by contrast, during most of the Republican-led Congress from 2000 to 2006, Republicans' approval of Congress was substantially higher than Democrats'.



Bush Approval Now 29%

The partisan picture is quite different with respect to public approval of President George W. Bush.

The same poll finds President Bush's approval rating at 29%, only a shade above his personal worst approval score of 28%, first reached in April and repeated earlier in May. However, his rating would be even lower if not for the support of most Republicans.

Current Republican approval of Bush is much lower than it was early on in his presidency; however, it remains far better than approval from Democrats. Two-thirds of Republicans (66%) approve of Bush's job performance today, compared with only 7% of Democrats.

Bottom Line

Americans' ratings of Congress are almost always lower than their ratings of the sitting president. With Bush in a period of extremely low approval, and both houses of Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, one might expect that gap to be closer today. And, in fact, it was for a short period after the Democrats first returned to power in Congress at the start of 2007. However, that honeymoon quickly ended (about last August) and since then, Congress has lagged behind the president in approval.



Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,017 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 8-11, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2008, 05:54:40 PM »
House of Representatives and the Senate, both are controlled by Democrats. So what about this?


What can one do?? 

When the guy at the top is * and a killer the rest will have to bear the brunt too.  To me a carry overeffect shows that congress is equally bad as well. 

Another Righwing way to defend a president(point the finger at someone when in fact four are pointing at you) who is so inept and does not know what his job is.

A smart president like Clinton or a Kennedy or even a Carter could have weathered the storm better even if they took over from Bush after the wrongful call to wage an illegal war in 2003. 

May be they should have amended the constitution for Clinton to take over the presidency in 2005 as a stop gap measure before the 2008 election when someone better than a Bush now that candidate is Obama seems like could take over

Unfortunately that stage is passed now.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2008, 06:39:40 PM »
If the guy at the top is * and a killer, then why were the rating above 40% prior to Dems taking charge of the congress? Care to explain that? Why do Americans feel even less satisfied by the Congress now that it is in Dem control?

Oh, I am not defending Bush. I am just pointing out that probably Dem controlled congress is doing even a *tier job than Bush. If Dems wanted to stop the Iraq war, they could have voted twice against Bush's request for Iraq war fund. Why did they not do that, if they really really were the bleeding hearts that they claim they are? If nothing else, then just to show the nation that they want to carry out the promise on which they won the congress, they should have opposed Bush's fund bill twice. But they didn't. Why?
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2008, 07:00:36 PM »
If the guy at the top is * and a killer, then why were the rating above 40% prior to Dems taking charge of the congress? Care to explain that? Why do Americans feel even less satisfied by the Congress now that it is in Dem control?

Oh, I am not defending Bush. I am just pointing out that probably Dem controlled congress is doing even a *tier job than Bush. If Dems wanted to stop the Iraq war, they could have voted twice against Bush's request for Iraq war fund. Why did they not do that, if they really really were the bleeding hearts that they claim they are? If nothing else, then just to show the nation that they want to carry out the promise on which they won the congress, they should have opposed Bush's fund bill twice. But they didn't. Why?
Ruchir we had this discussion before.  His earlier ratings were before the after effects of the war came into the picture.  I think the test of the time told the story.

As for Democrats voting or not when you have a president to veto and shoot everything down it does not matter and when it comes to things as sensitive as a war and have your young men and women in harms way already you are are strapped and your hand is forced.   

So like I said before the buck stops with Bush and should not trickle down to congress in the matters of war.  Simple.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2008, 07:38:07 PM »
Ruchir we had this discussion before.  His earlier ratings were before the after effects of the war came into the picture.  I think the test of the time told the story.

I am not talking about Bush's ratings. I am talking about Congress ratings. They were as high as 45% as late as 2005. Why are they down now?


As for Democrats voting or not when you have a president to veto and shoot everything down it does not matter and when it comes to things as sensitive as a war and have your young men and women in harms way already you are are strapped and your hand is forced.   

That's contradiction and hypocrisy at it's very best.

Dems shouted from rooftops in 2006 that when they get control of the congress, their first job at hand will be to start bringing the troops back from Iraq within 60 days. That was their biggest promise and that's the plank on which they won control of the congress. Now you say that their hands are tied? The least they could do was a show of force. Refuse funding of war and let Bush veto it. At least that would have shown to their electorate that they were really firm in bringing the troops back. That they were firm in carrying out their promises. That their "words" meant something.

That's not what Dems did. They attached their own programs to the war funding bills (knows as pork barrel funding). This mean that they were ready to sign on war funding bill if that bill included funding of their favored domestic programs.

Also, you say that it is a sensitive matter because troops are already in harm's way. So what is the best way (in your opinion) to get them out of the harm's way? Give them more funding so that they can stay in the harm's way or cut the funding so that the army is forced to come back (which is exactly what the Dems want)? Your call.


So like I said before the buck stops with Bush and should not trickle down to congress in the matters of war.  Simple.

That's a typical Sonia Maino mentality. Authority without responsibility. The buck stops at Bush even though the Dems control the congress. Right? If that's the case, why have a congress at all!? If you think Bush is all-powerful then why have a congress, that is completely powerless in your opinion? Congress can do a lot even in this scenario if it has the will and backbone to carry out it's promises. That fact of the matter is that Obama will exactly be like the Dem controlled congress. Saying a lot or words, making a lot of promises and then doing nothing about them.

You relate the party to the president (Repub party to Bush). I am relating (possible) president to his party (Obama to Dem). He will be like the Democratic party of today. Unwilling. Spineless. Deceitful.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2008, 08:12:52 PM »
Ruchir we had this discussion before.  His earlier ratings were before the after effects of the war came into the picture.  I think the test of the time told the story.

I am not talking about Bush's ratings. I am talking about Congress ratings. They were as high as 45% as late as 2005. Why are they down now?


I am talking about Bush's ratings and the sole reason of his poor performance dragging everyone down reflected upon by the morale of the people so down given the high inflation, poor economic conditions and gas prices so high an increase in terms of percentage never seen in the history of U.S.  All because of 8 years of Bush and his ineptitude.


Quote
As for Democrats voting or not when you have a president to veto and shoot everything down it does not matter and when it comes to things as sensitive as a war and have your young men and women in harms way already you are are strapped and your hand is forced.   

That's contradiction and hypocrisy at it's very best.

Dems shouted from rooftops in 2006 that when they get control of the congress, their first job at hand will be to start bringing the troops back from Iraq within 60 days. That was their biggest promise and that's the plank on which they won control of the congress. Now you say that their hands are tied? The least they could do was a show of force. Refuse funding of war and let Bush veto it. At least that would have shown to their electorate that they were really firm in bringing the troops back. That they were firm in carrying out their promises. That their "words" meant something.

That's not what Dems did. They attached their own programs to the war funding bills (knows as pork barrel funding). This mean that they were ready to sign on war funding bill if that bill included funding of their favored domestic programs.

Also, you say that it is a sensitive matter because troops are already in harm's way. So what is the best way (in your opinion) to get them out of the harm's way? Give them more funding so that they can stay in the harm's way or cut the funding so that the army is forced to come back (which is exactly what the Dems want)? Your call.

Again you are basing your rebuttal to point finger at someone than own up to it and accept the mistake.  Why wage an illegal war???  To this day Bush does not own up to his mistakes.  If there is no accountability how can one show improvement.  IMO that is the main reason for the mess.  My way or the highway kind of an attitude the Righwing Republican party has so well embarced seemed to have fit in well with Bush. 




Quote
So like I said before the buck stops with Bush and should not trickle down to congress in the matters of war.  Simple.

That's a typical Sonia Maino mentality. Authority without responsibility. The buck stops at Bush even though the Dems control the congress. Right? If that's the case, why have a congress at all!? If you think Bush is all-powerful then why have a congress, that is completely powerless in your opinion? Congress can do a lot even in this scenario if it has the will and backbone to carry out it's promises. That fact of the matter is that Obama will exactly be like the Dem controlled congress. Saying a lot or words, making a lot of promises and then doing nothing about them.

You relate the party to the president (Repub party to Bush). I am relating (possible) president to his party (Obama to Dem). He will be like the Democratic party of today. Unwilling. Spineless. Deceitful.
No again your interpretation is wrong.  I said everything that has to do with Iraq is Bush's doing.  He had dug such a deep hole even for someone like a Clinton it will take years to come out of.   So all the good work the Congress is doing will take shape and bear fruit in the coming years.

Bush is by far the worst president in the history of U.S..  Just for his lying and killing so many people he needs to be jailed.

A change in party and regime sure can do the trick and Obama is a better bet.  McCain at this stage in his life can barely carry his own weight let alone the country's.  He is past his sell by date.  He will be another Bush and U.S. does not need the more of the same in an already beaten down economy and Iraq.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2008, 08:19:36 PM »
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html


Muslims barred from picture at Obama event
By BEN SMITH | 6/18/08 11:08 AM EST Updated: 6/18/08 3:07 PM EST

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags.

On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also highlight an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials at times seem to imply to some that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”

In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear that headscarves wouldn’t be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref’s case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two others, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a 20-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits.

Miller said yes but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama.

“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you serious?’” Koussan recalled.

PAGES     1       2       NEXT >>

Page 2

Shimaa Abdelfadeel’s story was different. She’d waited in line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they’d like to sit in “special seating” behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take off the headscarf or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats.

After recovering from the shock of the incident, Abdelfadeel went to look for the volunteer and confronted her minutes later, she said in an e-mail interview with Politico.

“We’re not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage,” she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. “It has nothing to do with your religion!”

In most work and school settings, religious dress — such as Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs — is permitted where secular clothing, such as baseball caps, is not.

“The scarf is not just something she can take off — it’s part of her identity,” said Marino.

Photographs of the event also show men with hats in the section behind Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, though not directly behind the candidate.

Abdelfadeel, like Aref, felt “disappointed, angry and let down,” she later wrote.

She said she was “let down that the Obama campaign continuously perpetuates this attitude towards Muslims and Arabs — as if being merely associated [with] one is a sin.”

The two women’s friends who witnessed the incidents were disappointed, too. Aref’s friend Miller said he was “shocked” by the contrast between Obama’s message and their experience.

“He was the one candidate who you would expect to stand up for something like that — and behind the scenes, you have something completely contrary to what he was running on,” said Koussan, Aref’s other friend.

Aref and her friends complained to the campaign, and after those complaints and an inquiry from Politico, Obama’s director of advance, Emmett S. Beliveau, called her to apologize.

An Obama aide also noted that the campaign has no policy against the candidate’s appearing with women in headscarves: The next morning at Wayne State University, Obama posed for a picture with a student wearing a hijab.

Photographs from a Seattle rally earlier this year also clearly show a couple in Muslim garb behind the candidate.

The administrator of the Muslims4Obama group on Obama’s website, which is not a formal part of the campaign, also said she had “not heard anything regarding Muslim supporters being steered away from sitting behind Sen. Obama at the event” and noted that he had Muslim supporters present at events in Minnesota, including one at which he stood with a Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison.

Aref said she was glad Obama had apologized, but she was not entirely satisfied.

“I think this is a much bigger deal than maybe they’re perceiving it as,” she said, noting that Obama had placed a personal call to a television reporter he’d dismissively called “Sweetie.”

“An apology from him personally would be better,” she said, then reconsidered. “If they are true to their word, I think it would suffice to have an invitation to their next rally and have seats behind him and show up on TV.”
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2008, 08:23:18 PM »
Thankfully Obama did not kill hundreds of thousands that Bush and Republican party which McCain is a part of did and are capable of doing, to end the story. :)
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2008, 08:25:23 PM »
Thankfully Obama did not kill hundreds of thousands that Bush and Republican party which McCain is a part of did and are capable of doing, to end the story. :)

What a cute way of ignoring the apparent duplicity of Obama campaign.  ;)
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,964
  • Money: 1066884.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2008, 08:27:54 PM »
Ruchir:

Couple of points -- Congress historically has lower ratings than the president.

Showing congressional ratings proves nothing one way or the other. When things go wrong people blame Congress, when things are good, people are in a general good mood of Congress. The 2005 ratings of Congress are influenced exactly by that.

Also, speaking very broadly Congress is not a proactive leadership body by act and definition --its a body which reacts to leadership as demonstrated by the Executive in either supporting or opposing or modifying executive directorials (its part of checks and balances). So using Congress, its higher approval ratings in 2005 or lower approval ratings now is not an appropriate benchmark to hudge Presidential approval ratings.

Now you can continue with rams.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2008, 08:32:15 PM »
Thankfully Obama did not kill hundreds of thousands that Bush and Republican party which McCain is a part of did and are capable of doing, to end the story. :)

What a cute way of ignoring the apparent duplicity of Obama campaign.  ;)
Is it??  Good.  I could live with incidents like this than playing it good through the campaign and show the true colors once getting elected as Bush and the Republicans did.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2008, 08:39:54 PM »
Couple of points -- Congress historically has lower ratings than the president.

Historically low rating than president, I can understand. But 18% approval rating? Doesn't matter what approval rating president has, but 18%?? There has to be huge, widespread disenchantment of electorate from congress to get that kind of ratings.


Showing congressional ratings proves nothing one way or the other. When things go wrong people blame Congress, when things are good, people are in a general good mood of Congress. The 2005 ratings of Congress are influenced exactly by that.

In 2005, killings in Iraq were at their worst, stock market was down, Katrina happened, still Congress had better rating than today. What was going good in 2005 for congress ratings to be influenced?


Also, speaking very broadly Congress is not a proactive leadership body by act and definition --its a body which reacts to leadership as demonstrated by the Executive in either supporting or opposing or modifying executive directorials (its part of checks and balances). So using Congress, its higher approval ratings in 2005 or lower approval ratings now is not an appropriate benchmark to hudge Presidential approval ratings.

You misread me. I am not at all talking about Bush ratings. I am talking about Congress approval ratings and how it has reacted to various Bush actions and it's own promises. I am using congress ratings to show how incompetent Dems are in carrying out their own promises and how utterly disgusted Dem voters are with the congress they have elected.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2008, 08:41:01 PM »
Thankfully Obama did not kill hundreds of thousands that Bush and Republican party which McCain is a part of did and are capable of doing, to end the story. :)

What a cute way of ignoring the apparent duplicity of Obama campaign.  ;)
Is it??  Good.  I could live with incidents like this than playing it good through the campaign and show the true colors once getting elected as Bush and the Republicans did.


FYI - Bush is not fighting the elections, and neither is McCain another Bush.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,964
  • Money: 1066884.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2008, 08:50:37 PM »
Quote
Historically low rating than president, I can understand. But 18% approval rating? Doesn't matter what approval rating president has, but 18%?? There has to be huge, widespread disenchantment of electorate from congress to get that kind of ratings.

No, we have had that before. Similarly low ratings.

Quote
In 2005, killings in Iraq were at their worst, stock market was down, Katrina happened, still Congress had better rating than today. What was going good in 2005 for congress ratings to be influenced?

In 2005, Katrina was viewed as a natural disaster (the stench with the handling of it later on was not as full blown as now), the stock market was not down forever during the year either, in fact the economy was robust, interest rates were lower, there was a boom in the housing market, jobs were being created. Killings in Iraq continued through 2005, 2006 and 2007 --which means people's hopes that the issue was being resolved or that we were closer to a solution were still existent back in 2005 (aided in no small measure by the adminsitartion's lying of the actual state of the war) have faded irrevocably in the period since.

Quote
You misread me. I am not at all talking about Bush ratings. I am talking about Congress approval ratings and how it has reacted to various Bush actions and it's own promises. I am using congress ratings to show how incompetent Dems are in carrying out their own promises and how utterly disgusted Dem voters are with the congress they have elected

Ok I understand now. But even at that, the use of approval ratings against Congress as a reflection of party performance (whether Dem or Rep) is  far fetched for the same reasons --the historical bias against Congress in the minds of the people, which is reflected in Congressional approval ratings.

And there are other reasons for this as well -- the Dems were elected to change this administration's policies, especially the Iraq policy or bring it under control. Which the Dems have failed to do (combination of several factors, some out of their control and some within their control such as basic lack of a vision). And the approval ratings are expressive of teh voter disgust with their non performance on this count rather than a blanket statement on their incompetency.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2008, 08:55:19 PM »
Kban:I think Ruchir is trying his best to deflect the topic on hand and a thread to discuss Bush's ratings conviniently forgetting people in 2005 were not as disenchanted with the real estate boom and a stable economy only to be undone by Bush's war which only reared its ugly head starting in 2006 and at its worst now.  So they will vote against anyone or any establishment to do with the government be it the President or the Congress although the better question would be who is a bigger culprit Bush or the Congress to which the margin would be a thumping 80% saying that Bush is the bigger culprit needless to say the other 20% voters would be hard nosed rightwing Republicans with which even Ruchir will be ashamed to associate himself with.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 08:56:58 PM by ramshorns »
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2008, 09:12:25 PM »
Quote
Historically low rating than president, I can understand. But 18% approval rating? Doesn't matter what approval rating president has, but 18%?? There has to be huge, widespread disenchantment of electorate from congress to get that kind of ratings.

No, we have had that before. Similarly low ratings.

And such low ratings have been rare. So we should examine the reasons for such low ratings.


Quote
In 2005, killings in Iraq were at their worst, stock market was down, Katrina happened, still Congress had better rating than today. What was going good in 2005 for congress ratings to be influenced?

In 2005, Katrina was viewed as a natural disaster (the stench with the handling of it later on was not as full blown as now), the stock market was not down forever during the year either, in fact the economy was robust, interest rates were lower, there was a boom in the housing market, jobs were being created. Killings in Iraq continued through 2005, 2006 and 2007 --which means people's hopes that the issue was being resolved or that we were closer to a solution were still existent back in 2005 (aided in no small measure by the adminsitartion's lying of the actual state of the war) have faded irrevocably in the period since.

Agreed, but what you say has more bearing on approval rating of the president. I mean, if they feel that president is not able to solve problems, then they look at the congress to give some directions, right? Otherwise what is congress there for? If it can't change the direction of the nation by bringing up bills or by it's voting pattern then what the hell is it there for? IMO that's what the people feel too. So, since 2005 if the mood of the people went downwards, then obviously it was accelerated by the fact that Dem controlled congress did not do anything to stop the downslide. That's what my point is. Dems proposed a lot of stuff before getting power in Congress in 2006. Since then they have not fulfilled any of their major promises. That's what has caused the low approval rating. That is what I am pointing.


Quote
You misread me. I am not at all talking about Bush ratings. I am talking about Congress approval ratings and how it has reacted to various Bush actions and it's own promises. I am using congress ratings to show how incompetent Dems are in carrying out their own promises and how utterly disgusted Dem voters are with the congress they have elected

Ok I understand now. But even at that, the use of approval ratings against Congress as a reflection of party performance (whether Dem or Rep) is  far fetched for the same reasons --the historical bias against Congress in the minds of the people, which is reflected in Congressional approval ratings.

And there are other reasons for this as well -- the Dems were elected to change this administration's policies, especially the Iraq policy or bring it under control. Which the Dems have failed to do (combination of several factors, some out of their control and some within their control such as basic lack of a vision). And the approval ratings are expressive of teh voter disgust with their non performance on this count rather than a blanket statement on their incompetency.

So you will also agree that using Bush to bash Republican part by Rams is wrong too!  ;) What is the reason for non performance of Dem controlled Congress?
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,964
  • Money: 1066884.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2008, 09:34:55 PM »
Quote
And such low ratings have been rare. So we should examine the reasons for such low ratings.

Not as rare as you think.

But Congress suffers from several problems when it comes to ratings. Americans in general trust Congress the institution much less than the trust the presdency as an institution. Also dont forget the institution got 18% approval ratings not the majority or the minority party.

Congress is an easy scapegoat because its a nebulous body of 535 members whereby individual credit or blame cannot be assigned --which means the entire body bears the brunt of it. Its workings are obscure to the average person and there are way too many bad issues (emanating out of  a few members) that affect its entire image. Add to that the issues of lobbyists, pork barrel legislation, grid lock, graft et al and you have a body which does not meet approval of people partly because of historical mistrust and misdeeds and partly because the entire population has one body to blame as the collective rather than parsing between members and their individual deeds.

Quote
Agreed, but what you say has more bearing on approval rating of the president. I mean, if they feel that president is not able to solve problems, then they look at the congress to give some directions, right? Otherwise what is congress there for? If it can't change the direction of the nation by bringing up bills or by it's voting pattern then what the hell is it there for? IMO that's what the people feel too. So, since 2005 if the mood of the people went downwards, then obviously it was accelerated by the fact that Dem controlled congress did not do anything to stop the downslide. That's what my point is. Dems proposed a lot of stuff before getting power in Congress in 2006. Since then they have not fulfilled any of their major promises. That's what has caused the low approval rating. That is what I am pointing.

I think the approval ratings for presidents are a lot more clearer and pointed just by virtue of the structure of the Executive --one person and his /her vision as opposed to a colelctive body like Congress which tries to reach consensus via compromise. These ratings are a reflection of executive policy and while susceptible to general trends regarding economy and well being of citizens, the interference thereof is considerably less. Again, in perception, and in reality too, Congress is not a leadership body, its a legislative one, Also, Congress's powers are subject to curtailment by a Presidential veto or the threat thereof, so the logic that applies with clarity and lucidity to judgment and review of the presidency does not carry over in its entirety to the Congress.

Basically, the point is that approval ratings for the executive are usually more pointed, focussed and accurate than those for Congress. Since presidential functions emanate from one individual and can be analyzed with comparative ease (as opposed to pouring over the individual records of 535 congress members and trying to make sense of it all in summation), the populace is more aware of what can or cannot be pinned on the presidency.

Quote
So you will also agree that using Bush to bash Republican part by Rams is wrong too!


Using Bush to bash the republican party may not be entirely accurate. But rams has a point as to why the majority of the GOP rank and file are still backing this administration.

And why would someone like you be backing this administration ? Clearly Bush contravenes every republican principle economically and he contravenes every democratic principle both socially and economically. Which makes him really a stand out from both sides (Not in a compliementary sense but more in the dhobi ka...... sense)  ;D
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 09:37:55 PM by kban1 »
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2008, 10:03:14 PM »
Quote
And such low ratings have been rare. So we should examine the reasons for such low ratings.

Not as rare as you think.

But Congress suffers from several problems when it comes to ratings. Americans in general trust Congress the institution much less than the trust the presdency as an institution. Also dont forget the institution got 18% approval ratings not the majority or the minority party.

Congress is an easy scapegoat because its a nebulous body of 535 members whereby individual credit or blame cannot be assigned --which means the entire body bears the brunt of it. Its workings are obscure to the average person and there are way too many bad issues (emanating out of  a few members) that affect its entire image. Add to that the issues of lobbyists, pork barrel legislation, grid lock, graft et al and you have a body which does not meet approval of people partly because of historical mistrust and misdeeds and partly because the entire population has one body to blame as the collective rather than parsing between members and their individual deeds.

Well, such ratings happen like once in 15-20 years!? So....

While I agree that congress ratings are for the whole congress, here's the thing. Most Americans are against Iraq war. Congress, under Dem control, passed Iraq war funding. Now, President can't do anything if the Iraq war funding bill is defeated in congress. I mean, President can veto a bill presented to it, but can it overrule a congress vote? I don't think so. That's the checks and balances that Legislative branch has over Executive branch. So, if Dem congressmen wanted, they could pull the army back from Iraq by voting against war funding bill. But they didn't. That added to the disenchantment against the congress and it was directly related to Dem congressmen's voting record.


Quote
Agreed, but what you say has more bearing on approval rating of the president. I mean, if they feel that president is not able to solve problems, then they look at the congress to give some directions, right? Otherwise what is congress there for? If it can't change the direction of the nation by bringing up bills or by it's voting pattern then what the hell is it there for? IMO that's what the people feel too. So, since 2005 if the mood of the people went downwards, then obviously it was accelerated by the fact that Dem controlled congress did not do anything to stop the downslide. That's what my point is. Dems proposed a lot of stuff before getting power in Congress in 2006. Since then they have not fulfilled any of their major promises. That's what has caused the low approval rating. That is what I am pointing.

I think the approval ratings for presidents are a lot more clearer and pointed just by virtue of the structure of the Executive --one person and his /her vision as opposed to a colelctive body like Congress which tries to reach consensus via compromise. These ratings are a reflection of executive policy and while susceptible to general trends regarding economy and well being of citizens, the interference thereof is considerably less. Again, in perception, and in reality too, Congress is not a leadership body, its a legislative one, Also, Congress's powers are subject to curtailment by a Presidential veto or the threat thereof, so the logic that applies with clarity and lucidity to judgment and review of the presidency does not carry over in its entirety to the Congress.

Basically, the point is that approval ratings for the executive are usually more pointed, focussed and accurate than those for Congress. Since presidential functions emanate from one individual and can be analyzed with comparative ease (as opposed to pouring over the individual records of 535 congress members and trying to make sense of it all in summation), the populace is more aware of what can or cannot be pinned on the presidency.

As I said, although president has veto powers, but Congress to has some voting powers that president can't overrule. So, coming back to the relation of congress approval to Dem party, the main bone of contention is Iraq war and Dems can end the war if they want, by voting against it's funding, but they aren't. So in a way, disenchantment with congress is connected to promises made by Dem party.


Quote
So you will also agree that using Bush to bash Republican part by Rams is wrong too!


Using Bush to bash the republican party may not be entirely accurate. But rams has a point as to why the majority of the GOP rank and file are still backing this administration.

What? GOP is not rank and file behind Bush!! McCain differs from Bush on many issues. GOP has been trying to strangulate Bush on his inaction on illegal immigration (to cite a quick example). Where did you get the impression that GOP is rank and file behind Bush?


And why would someone like you be backing this administration ? Clearly Bush contravenes every republican principle economically and he contravenes every democratic principle both socially and economically. Which makes him really a stand out from both sides (Not in a compliementary sense but more in the dhobi ka...... sense)  ;D

I am not and has never backed wholeheartedly Bush or his administration. From what I gather, Republican party basically stands for Low Taxes, more jobs and small government. Bush lowered the taxes but failed on other two issues. McCain wants low taxes, small govt (his views on govt spending), he is for more jobs. You won't find me defending each and every Bush action. The only point I have raised is him being called a killer.
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,754
  • Money: 39747.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2008, 10:55:33 PM »
Democrats have sucked in the Congress. There is no two ways about that. However that is *at best* irrelevant when it comes to discussing Bush's performance. What next -- will we argue that Bush is better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot, so there?

It is also true that this govt has systemically seized powers from the Congree/Senate and negated numerous checks and balances - that surely should be relevant when evaluating the Congress.

Logged

WicketView

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,969
  • Money: 1274271.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2008, 11:10:03 PM »
Quote
And such low ratings have been rare. So we should examine the reasons for such low ratings.

Not as rare as you think.

But Congress suffers from several problems when it comes to ratings. Americans in general trust Congress the institution much less than the trust the presdency as an institution. Also dont forget the institution got 18% approval ratings not the majority or the minority party.

Congress is an easy scapegoat because its a nebulous body of 535 members whereby individual credit or blame cannot be assigned --which means the entire body bears the brunt of it. Its workings are obscure to the average person and there are way too many bad issues (emanating out of  a few members) that affect its entire image. Add to that the issues of lobbyists, pork barrel legislation, grid lock, graft et al and you have a body which does not meet approval of people partly because of historical mistrust and misdeeds and partly because the entire population has one body to blame as the collective rather than parsing between members and their individual deeds.

Well, such ratings happen like once in 15-20 years!? So....

While I agree that congress ratings are for the whole congress, here's the thing. Most Americans are against Iraq war. Congress, under Dem control, passed Iraq war funding. Now, President can't do anything if the Iraq war funding bill is defeated in congress. I mean, President can veto a bill presented to it, but can it overrule a congress vote? I don't think so. That's the checks and balances that Legislative branch has over Executive branch. So, if Dem congressmen wanted, they could pull the army back from Iraq by voting against war funding bill. But they didn't. That added to the disenchantment against the congress and it was directly related to Dem congressmen's voting record.


Quote
Agreed, but what you say has more bearing on approval rating of the president. I mean, if they feel that president is not able to solve problems, then they look at the congress to give some directions, right? Otherwise what is congress there for? If it can't change the direction of the nation by bringing up bills or by it's voting pattern then what the hell is it there for? IMO that's what the people feel too. So, since 2005 if the mood of the people went downwards, then obviously it was accelerated by the fact that Dem controlled congress did not do anything to stop the downslide. That's what my point is. Dems proposed a lot of stuff before getting power in Congress in 2006. Since then they have not fulfilled any of their major promises. That's what has caused the low approval rating. That is what I am pointing.

I think the approval ratings for presidents are a lot more clearer and pointed just by virtue of the structure of the Executive --one person and his /her vision as opposed to a colelctive body like Congress which tries to reach consensus via compromise. These ratings are a reflection of executive policy and while susceptible to general trends regarding economy and well being of citizens, the interference thereof is considerably less. Again, in perception, and in reality too, Congress is not a leadership body, its a legislative one, Also, Congress's powers are subject to curtailment by a Presidential veto or the threat thereof, so the logic that applies with clarity and lucidity to judgment and review of the presidency does not carry over in its entirety to the Congress.

Basically, the point is that approval ratings for the executive are usually more pointed, focussed and accurate than those for Congress. Since presidential functions emanate from one individual and can be analyzed with comparative ease (as opposed to pouring over the individual records of 535 congress members and trying to make sense of it all in summation), the populace is more aware of what can or cannot be pinned on the presidency.

As I said, although president has veto powers, but Congress to has some voting powers that president can't overrule. So, coming back to the relation of congress approval to Dem party, the main bone of contention is Iraq war and Dems can end the war if they want, by voting against it's funding, but they aren't. So in a way, disenchantment with congress is connected to promises made by Dem party.


Quote
So you will also agree that using Bush to bash Republican part by Rams is wrong too!


Using Bush to bash the republican party may not be entirely accurate. But rams has a point as to why the majority of the GOP rank and file are still backing this administration.

What? GOP is not rank and file behind Bush!! McCain differs from Bush on many issues. GOP has been trying to strangulate Bush on his inaction on illegal immigration (to cite a quick example). Where did you get the impression that GOP is rank and file behind Bush?


And why would someone like you be backing this administration ? Clearly Bush contravenes every republican principle economically and he contravenes every democratic principle both socially and economically. Which makes him really a stand out from both sides (Not in a compliementary sense but more in the dhobi ka...... sense)  ;D

I am not and has never backed wholeheartedly Bush or his administration. From what I gather, Republican party basically stands for Low Taxes, more jobs and small government. Bush lowered the taxes but failed on other two issues. McCain wants low taxes, small govt (his views on govt spending), he is for more jobs. You won't find me defending each and every Bush action. The only point I have raised is him being called a killer.
I don't want to get into this debate in its totality. But, I would like to point out two things regarding the approval rating of the congress:
1) When people are dissatisfied, they tend to b***h about everything. As has been pointed out, a smaller fraction of those disenchanted with the Iraq war today, were against it earlier. It was only when they started feeling that the problems had manifested themselves in terms of something they could start feeling (people having to go to the war and suffer/ economy etc.) that people got dissatisfied. And then it is normal to blame everyone.

2) Sometimes, when one is in a pit, there are not that many good options to choose from. Hence, even decent decisions (given realistic constraints) could be bad ones.
Logged

inoc

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,694
  • Money: 355363.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2008, 11:35:42 PM »
ruchir

i agree that 'killer' is a strong word and shouldnt probably be used. you agree, as you have elsewhere, that GWB pursued an unjustified war. that in itself would portray him as a person who lead to loss of life not for justifiable reasons in the history pages. whether other persons justifiably or not did the same shouldnt be a concern in portraying GWB as one.

other than the use of the word 'killer' per se is their anything else which you disagree with pertaining to the war with Iraq?
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2008, 03:11:10 AM »
ruchir

i agree that 'killer' is a strong word and shouldnt probably be used. you agree, as you have elsewhere, that GWB pursued an unjustified war. that in itself would portray him as a person who lead to loss of life not for justifiable reasons in the history pages. whether other persons justifiably or not did the same shouldnt be a concern in portraying GWB as one.

other than the use of the word 'killer' per se is their anything else which you disagree with pertaining to the war with Iraq?

Sure, and I have said this before.

1. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and didn't listen to his father's counsel. His father knew and told him so, that Iraq would be difficult to control post-Saddam. That's one reason he (Bush Sr.) didn't depose him.

2. Bush had no concrete plan whatsoever, for a Saddam free Iraq. He talked about spreading freedom, but did so very late in the day. Even then, his attempt at spreading freedom was half cooked because there was no groundwork done on what kind of govt would replace Saddam.

3. Although Bush said that he invaded based on intelligence he received from CIA, FBI, MI6, he still should have thought 10 times and verified the intelligence many times to be sure it was good intelligence. One thing to remember - Bill Clinton, before leaving office, had been quite vocal in making a case for deposing Saddam. That was the baseline for Bush.

4. He made the mistake of changing his reasoning for invading Iraq often. He started with WMDs, then switched to deposing Saddam, then switched to spreading democracy, then switched to fighting terrorists there, and currently it is terrorists and stopping the civil war. This eroded his credibility.

5. He didn't listen to his generals and other ex-military people early in the war. His generals wanted 300,000-400,000 soldiers there and they went with something like 150,000. Rumsfeld called it lean, mean attack force. That Bush relied heavily on Rumsfeld was a mistake. Heck, McCain had been calling for troop surge for more than 2 years. Finally when the new general got it, it brought down US and civilian killing considerably. So, Bush made the mistake of not listening to the right people.

These are some of the things I can think of quickly where I disagree with Bush. Having said that, that Iraq situation has now taken a different form. With Saddam's ouster the game has changed. Current Iraqi govt is unable to take full control. This mean there is high chance of AQ or Iran or other countries messing with Iraq. Since US invaded it, it is now US responsibility to fix the situation. Pottery barn rule - You break it, you own it.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2008, 03:14:41 AM »
Democrats have sucked in the Congress. There is no two ways about that. However that is *at best* irrelevant when it comes to discussing Bush's performance. What next -- will we argue that Bush is better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot, so there?

Agree, approval rating of a president and of congress are two different things. Still, it is legit to ask why current Dem controlled congress is having an approval rating of 18%. This is independent of Bush approval rating.


It is also true that this govt has systemically seized powers from the Congree/Senate and negated numerous checks and balances - that surely should be relevant when evaluating the Congress.

What powers have been taken away from Congress? They still have the power to defeat any bill presented by the president. President can't do anything about it. That's the biggest balance Congress has with President. Similarly, President can veto any bill that is passed by the Congress. That is a balance that President has with Congress. This check and balance is still there.
Logged

LosingNow

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23,958
  • Money: 1504653.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2008, 04:32:58 AM »
ruchir

i agree that 'killer' is a strong word and shouldnt probably be used. you agree, as you have elsewhere, that GWB pursued an unjustified war. that in itself would portray him as a person who lead to loss of life not for justifiable reasons in the history pages. whether other persons justifiably or not did the same shouldnt be a concern in portraying GWB as one.

other than the use of the word 'killer' per se is their anything else which you disagree with pertaining to the war with Iraq?

Sure, and I have said this before.

1. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and didn't listen to his father's counsel. His father knew and told him so, that Iraq would be difficult to control post-Saddam. That's one reason he (Bush Sr.) didn't depose him.

2. Bush had no concrete plan whatsoever, for a Saddam free Iraq. He talked about spreading freedom, but did so very late in the day. Even then, his attempt at spreading freedom was half cooked because there was no groundwork done on what kind of govt would replace Saddam.

3. Although Bush said that he invaded based on intelligence he received from CIA, FBI, MI6, he still should have thought 10 times and verified the intelligence many times to be sure it was good intelligence. One thing to remember - Bill Clinton, before leaving office, had been quite vocal in making a case for deposing Saddam. That was the baseline for Bush.

4. He made the mistake of changing his reasoning for invading Iraq often. He started with WMDs, then switched to deposing Saddam, then switched to spreading democracy, then switched to fighting terrorists there, and currently it is terrorists and stopping the civil war. This eroded his credibility.

5. He didn't listen to his generals and other ex-military people early in the war. His generals wanted 300,000-400,000 soldiers there and they went with something like 150,000. Rumsfeld called it lean, mean attack force. That Bush relied heavily on Rumsfeld was a mistake. Heck, McCain had been calling for troop surge for more than 2 years. Finally when the new general got it, it brought down US and civilian killing considerably. So, Bush made the mistake of not listening to the right people.

These are some of the things I can think of quickly where I disagree with Bush. Having said that, that Iraq situation has now taken a different form. With Saddam's ouster the game has changed. Current Iraqi govt is unable to take full control. This mean there is high chance of AQ or Iran or other countries messing with Iraq. Since US invaded it, it is now US responsibility to fix the situation. Pottery barn rule - You break it, you own it.
Agree with most of what you say..

...the Bush administration has been incompetent (mostly borne out from their arrogance and ignorance). Exhibit 1 : Iraq, Exhibit 2: Katrina........

The Economist magazine got it right when it endorsed Kerry over Bush in the lead up to 2004 election - The incoherent vs the incompetent!


"This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago."

Logged
Play with heart. Win with class. Lose with dignity

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2008, 11:18:55 AM »
All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks????  I say it is not.

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 02:05:47 PM by ramshorns »
Logged

prfsr

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,754
  • Money: 39747.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2008, 11:39:44 AM »
Democrats have sucked in the Congress. There is no two ways about that. However that is *at best* irrelevant when it comes to discussing Bush's performance. What next -- will we argue that Bush is better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot, so there?

Agree, approval rating of a president and of congress are two different things. Still, it is legit to ask why current Dem controlled congress is having an approval rating of 18%. This is independent of Bush approval rating.


It is also true that this govt has systemically seized powers from the Congree/Senate and negated numerous checks and balances - that surely should be relevant when evaluating the Congress.

What powers have been taken away from Congress? They still have the power to defeat any bill presented by the president. President can't do anything about it. That's the biggest balance Congress has with President. Similarly, President can veto any bill that is passed by the Congress. That is a balance that President has with Congress. This check and balance is still there.

What has been taken away is the right of congress to know facts. Not officially but de facto. The govt has constantly refused to provide information to congress/senate and disregarded orders to testify. It has made more documents classified than any other. It has destoyed all sorts of records, used GOP emails so that emails could not be archived and done many similar things. Yes officially the "checks and balances" duty is still there, but it is like saying we will blindfold and put ear plugs on policemen and then expect them to enforce law and order.
Logged

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,326
  • Money: 893598.00
  • Lachchha Porotta drops a dung cake
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2008, 12:23:28 PM »
All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Why is that surprising? The death of Eyerakis is evening entertainment for various TV news and chat show programmes. Is it unreasonable to expect that Merkins as a nation don't give a damn?

The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all cost even if it means killing people.  And think of all people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks????  I say it is not.

This is where I feel Desi neo-convert green card aspirants/holders have completely lost it. It's deplorable, yet understandable, why Merkins are so laconic about the mayhem in Eyerak. But when Merkin-hopefuls too start circumscribing a discussion about Eyerak to include only the Merkin affected, in a tone that completely erases the suffering of the Eyerakis, it reflects truly on the state of the world we are living in.

Disgusting, racist and utterly deplorable!

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney who takes care of his heart problems so well plus not as killers.

lost u there... ...
Logged
"In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all life presents as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation."

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2008, 02:00:51 PM »
[
And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney who takes care of his heart problems so well plus not as killers.

lost u there... ...
Should read as follows.  My mistake, made while in a rush to get the post and get on with the routine.

And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2008, 02:08:08 PM »
Democrats have sucked in the Congress. There is no two ways about that. However that is *at best* irrelevant when it comes to discussing Bush's performance. What next -- will we argue that Bush is better than Idi Amin or Pol Pot, so there?

Agree, approval rating of a president and of congress are two different things. Still, it is legit to ask why current Dem controlled congress is having an approval rating of 18%. This is independent of Bush approval rating.


It is also true that this govt has systemically seized powers from the Congree/Senate and negated numerous checks and balances - that surely should be relevant when evaluating the Congress.

What powers have been taken away from Congress? They still have the power to defeat any bill presented by the president. President can't do anything about it. That's the biggest balance Congress has with President. Similarly, President can veto any bill that is passed by the Congress. That is a balance that President has with Congress. This check and balance is still there.

What has been taken away is the right of congress to know facts. Not officially but de facto. The govt has constantly refused to provide information to congress/senate and disregarded orders to testify. It has made more documents classified than any other. It has destoyed all sorts of records, used GOP emails so that emails could not be archived and done many similar things. Yes officially the "checks and balances" duty is still there, but it is like saying we will blindfold and put ear plugs on policemen and then expect them to enforce law and order.

Umm... Clinton administration classified a lot of documents too. Recently a former Clinton adviser Sandy Berger was found stuffing uncatalogued, classified Clinton Admin documents in his underwear and socks.

Look, classification and declassification, destruction of documents is done by every administration. That's the nature of politics and governance. You think this didn't happen before? Or is not going to happen in future Admins in USA? This stuff happens in every country, in every govt., and we have a right to be very angry about it. But you can't single out one president and say he crushed my right of information when many before have done the same thing too.

What in your opinion is the logic behind making a document "Classified"? A classified document is hidden from public and most politicians. Why do you think US gives this facility to the Presidents? Bush is not the first one to use it and will not be the last one too. There is a reason behind giving the President the facility of Classifying a document. Sure, it is wrong to destruct documents, blacken out documents before declassifying them, and Bush Admin is wrong to do that. But all this arises from the fact the US president has the facility to hide his activities, his reasons for doing something by making related documents Classified. Every president does that.
Logged

ruchir

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,648
  • Money: 1146017.00
  • WC03 Final - Ganguly is in pain after a fall
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2008, 02:15:56 PM »
All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!


The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks????  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?


And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2008, 02:32:28 PM »
All the Republican and rightwing apologists trying to put a spin on things and trying to make a case for McCain who himself appeared ruthless in numerous interviews in which I remember him saying that he feels bad for families of the U.S soldiers but on a similar scale tried justifying Iraqi's getting killed. 

Wow... that's news to me. I thought McCain was even against torture!!

I am not surprised that it is news to you.  Even Bush is against torture if you read his quote's in the very first post of the thread.  But he aided in torture and looked the other side when things were brought to his notice.  And for McCain if he really does not believe in Bush the president then he would never be asking for his endorsement. In a way as he(McCain) said on occasions when asked about Iraqi deaths that deaths are to be expected in war and he is fine with it excepting that he feels bad for the U.S. soldiers families that died or injured.  So McCain is fine for most part with what Bush did in Iraq.


Quote
The worst of all is Bush attending his daughter's wedding in a grand scale and appearing happy as a family man and enjoying it.  Normally it is fine.  But for what he has done to his country and aiding in killing so many soldiers how can someone be so selfish.  Can he not take a stand and stay away from grand celebrations when there are widows and kids who lost their parent here in U.S. all because of Bush's impulse to go for a war at all costs even if it means killing people.  And think of all the people amputated and permanently confined to the wheel chair.  I am sure when they saw the pictures of Bush's daughter's wedding might be wondering what is it all for they sacrificed.  Is it worth for this president and party which McCain is also part of and similar from the way he appears and talks????  I say it is not.

So, how many days of national mourning was done in USA after Atom Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Remember, Truman knew about the amount civilian causalities, the long term effects of the bomb. Was there mourning held in USA? Oh, I'm sorry. Going by your logic, such stuff should happen only when US soldiers die. Why should we mourn when a Democratic president like Truman butcher/slaughters million of Japanese civilians in cold blood just to save lives of his soldiers? Truman is probably the biggest hero because he saved lives of a lot of US soldiers. It doesn't matter he killed a few million civilians in the bargain. Who gives a * about that?
Atleast I am a witness to the present tyranny and going by what I am seeing.  Your responses have nothing to do with all the flaws I am bringing in Bush's regime and debating that.  Here I said Bush is an Ass for attending and making a big deal of his daughters wedding while his illegal lied war killed thousands and your response does not even mention Bush.  What can I say????   A Righwing trait to justify innocent killings.


Quote
And yes I am the one wrong calling Bush and Cheney (who takes care of his heart problems so well but others lives are so cheap) as killers.

Maybe you should talk to Japanese.
I saw this response from you before.  Deflect anything to support the Killer Bush even if it means getting into an unprovoked, illegal war.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2008, 02:39:02 PM »
I hope some of you had a chance to read how Bush's mother a former First Lady responded in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  And this is the party which McCain is contesting for by asking for Bush's and his family's help to elect him that includes Bush(Sr) and his wife who made the following comments.  Now you tell me who in their right mind would want to vote for McCain.

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,16560.msg219209.html#msg219209
Logged

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,703
  • Money: 939295.00
  • Chamat song
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2008, 03:11:17 PM »
The Iraq war was not Bush's fault alone (although he obviously had maximum responsibility, given the final say).

Congress was shown the 'evidence' and voted on it in "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". The National Intelligence Estimate provided to the senate and congress -- most Democrats said they did not read it - was very detailed and far less scare mongering than the presentations by the Bush administration. Republicans expectedly towed Bush's line but 81 representatives out of 208 Democrats (39%) in the House and 29 senators out of 50 Democrats (58%) in the Senate voted for it. Most painfully, John Kerry, after his significant post-action Vietnam war regrets, also went along. They all bear varying degrees of responsibility.

Lest we forget, the reason they supported it was that significant enough public sentiment was also for the war - irrational belief that attacking Iraq will avenge 9-11. On top of it the pusillanimous press did nothing and went with the majority opinion and the president to cash in on the misdirected nationalistic fervor. So for everyone to point fingers at Bush now and heap all the blame squarely on him is hypocritical. He surely failed us the most, but the entire system failed, including the press which utterly failed in its watchdog duties.

There is another important angle that is rarely discussed -- The 1995 United Nations FAO report (issued prior to the war) claimed that an estimated 567,000 Iraqi children had died due to the sanctions against the country. This number was debated a little, reduced temporarily by others, but the UNICEF came out with an authoritative report in 1999 that validated the half-million estimate. So, Iraq was already in the throes of a major human-inflicted tragedy that no one wanted to talk about. In a rare display of media conscientiousness, when Lesley Stahl asked Madeline Albright - then UN ambassador - about it, she famously replied "The price is worth it". I should hasten to add that the UN tried to do something about it with the Oil-for-food program, but due to Saddam it got hugely delayed and only took effect in 1997 and 1998. So Saddam exacerbated it, but the UN sanctions created it. Is it not fair to ask if the sanctions were justifiable in the first place (it was obvious that Saddam wasn't pliable)?

I utterly dislike Bush and his war-mongering policies, but I cannot hold him and his coterie alone responsible for the tragedy that is Iraq.





Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2008, 03:18:47 PM »
SSL:If all you said is true which I have no reason to believe otherwise why did Bush give other reasons that were proved otherwise later and turned out to be a bunch of lies.  And please do not tell me that Bush is not only one at fault.  Yes he is for being the Commander-in-chief and he is the one who called it when he should not have.
Logged

RicePlateReddy

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,703
  • Money: 939295.00
  • Chamat song
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2008, 03:22:59 PM »
rams, I am not defending him. I am an avowed Democrat and anti-war. But I cannot hold only him and the neo-cons responsible, sorry.

Here is a little bit more food for thought:

We all know about the Authorization for use of Military Force. 3 Amendments were attempted:

Byrd, Robert (D) - no further constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed. Lost 14-86.

Levin, Carl (D) - Iraq must grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorization of use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Lost 24-75.

Durbin, Dick (D) - Authorization to use force to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Lost 30-70.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 03:44:50 PM by ShortSquatLeg »
Logged
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. - (thanks, Hugh Gallagher)

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,981
  • Money: 3865939.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2008, 03:58:56 PM »
rams, I am not defending him. I am an avowed Democrat and anti-war. But I cannot hold only him and the neo-cons responsible, sorry.


SSL:Good to know that.  And being one myself I will try my best to link McCain to Bush for taking his help rather than distancing himself.  Despite all that has been said and written on how Bush was the not the only reason I am of the firm belief that he is after watching reels of tape and reading stuff.  I am convinced that based on all he knew he could have averted the war if he wanted to when he knew that there was no compelling reason to do so.

As for McCain I already said enough times he will be no better than Bush for Americans and Immigrants alike.  Obama is clearly better than him.
Logged

WicketView

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,969
  • Money: 1274271.00
Re: Bush regime's torture of detainees. shameful for all living in U.S
« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2008, 04:07:35 PM »
The Iraq war was not Bush's fault alone (although he obviously had maximum responsibility, given the final say).

Congress was shown the 'evidence' and voted on it in "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". The National Intelligence Estimate provided to the senate and congress -- most Democrats said they did not read it - was very detailed and far less scare mongering than the presentations by the Bush administration. Republicans expectedly towed Bush's line but 81 representatives out of 208 Democrats (39%) in the House and 29 senators out of 50 Democrats (58%) in the Senate voted for it. Most painfully, John Kerry, after his significant post-action Vietnam war regrets, also went along. They all bear varying degrees of responsibility.

Lest we forget, the reason they supported it was that significant enough public sentiment was also for the war - irrational belief that attacking Iraq will avenge 9-11. On top of it the pusillanimous press did nothing and went with the majority opinion and the president to cash in on the misdirected nationalistic fervor. So for everyone to point fingers at Bush now and heap all the blame squarely on him is hypocritical. He surely failed us the most, but the entire system failed, including the press which utterly failed in its watchdog duties.

There is another important angle that is rarely discussed -- The 1995 United Nations FAO report (issued prior to the war) claimed that an estimated 567,000 Iraqi children had died due to the sanctions against the country. This number was debated a little, reduced temporarily by others, but the UNICEF came out with an authoritative report in 1999 that validated the half-million estimate. So, Iraq was already in the throes of a major human-inflicted tragedy that no one wanted to talk about. In a rare display of media conscientiousness, when Lesley Stahl asked Madeline Albright - then UN ambassador - about it, she famously replied "The price is worth it". I should hasten to add that the UN tried to do something about it with the Oil-for-food program, but due to Saddam it got hugely delayed and only took effect in 1997 and 1998. So Saddam exacerbated it, but the UN sanctions created it. Is it not fair to ask if the sanctions were justifiable in the first place (it was obvious that Saddam wasn't pliable)?

I utterly dislike Bush and his war-mongering policies, but I cannot hold him and his coterie alone responsible for the tragedy that is Iraq.

Absolutely right. I think a major vice in politics today is the idea of electability. Many politicians supported the Iraq war initially, on whatever evidence was provided, because they did not want to appear weak on security which would have been against the public mood, as that would spoil chances of them/their party/their party canddidates in the elections in the near future. Who will bell the cat by telling people that their thought processes are irrational?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up