Bush Fights GOP

How to fight a worldwide war was a lot clearer during World War II.

 

I may disagree with many of the things this president has done, but on this issue, I fully agree with him. I guess you can just chalk me up to the "no hope" crowd.

I haven't heard anything about him trying to redefine it. He wants the Congress to set up exactly what the language means. Making a more detailed definition is not the same as redefining.

Further, I don't see how cold rooms, rock and roll, sleep deprivation, etc could be considered torture. Lives are not endangered and no physical damage is occuring.

It's funny to me that probably 90% of us on this board were "tortured" worse by our parents than these two-bit murderers will ever be in American custody. I got some pretty good whippings, but, then again, my parents were just cold-hearted torturers.

 

I think it's probably time the globalist party did a limited hang out of Bush and his corporate cronies to keep us thinking there are two parties.

 

Elections are coming. And they need to do something to distance themselves from Bush, if they want to keep their jobs.

 

"It was also a debate Mr. Bush had hoped to have this week exclusively with Democrats as he and his party’s leadership set out to draw unflattering distinctions between Republicans and Democrats on fighting terrorism for the fall elections.

Instead, Mr. Bush spent Friday in a second day of heavy debate, casting some of the most respected voices on military matters in his own party as hindering the fight against terrorism. As of late Friday there seemed to be no break in the impasse, even as White House officials worked behind the scenes to build new support in the Senate for the legislation the president wants.

Leading the efforts against him in the Senate are three key Republicans on the Armed Services Committee with their own military credentials: the chairman and a former secretary of the Navy, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia; Senator John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam; and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a military judge. And publicly taking their side is Mr. Bush’s former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell.

The dispute centers on whether to pass legislation reinterpreting a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 that bars “outrages upon personal dignity”; the Supreme Court ruled that the provision applies to terrorism suspects. Mr. Bush argued that the convention’s language was too vague and is proposing legislation to clarify the provisions. “What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?” he said at one point."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/us/16bush.html?hp&ex=1158379200&en=7d8e65f94df9f997&ei=5094&partner=homepage

He really doesn't know. And the argument that permitting torture of prisioners will put our own troops at risk makes no impression on him at all.

 

Now, ain't that the truth.

Which makes it more disgusting to me, a third worlder who all his life has been brought up and exposed to bread and circuses, Brutuses and Ceasars.

By the way, I am on Bush's side here, and I don't see how making the language clearer will put our troops' lives in more danger than they are daily.

If I ever vote, none of my vote will go to these political turncoats.

Disgusting.

Gotta go to the puke room.

 

What Bush wants is "clarification" that will clear his people of any criminal responsibility for what they have done.

Americans aren't inclined to do that for him.

 

That's the tag on the mud being thrown, and I think coming from those who are likely to run for office, is as self-serving as what they say Bush wants.

 

When even leaders of his own party are acknowledging it, it's pretty hard to deny.

 

His correct address is "President Bush" I'm sure it just an oversight on your part. We sure are quick to attack a sitting President in times of war and proclaims Jesus Christ as his God. Aren't we.

 

But Vera, during the clinton administration I refered to him as clinton, small c and never added his title. So I guess those we disrespect, we disrespect.

 

I am so sorry to see your viewpoint. I expected different.
All those accomplishments should be laid at the feet of President Reagan, whose policies were directly responsible. He (Clinton) was probably responsible for huge advances the Islamic Facists made, resulting in the WTC catastrophy. National racial would disappear quickly if the democrats would leave it alone. They are thoroughly invested in its perpetuation.
The economy under President Bush's presidency is far greater in all measurable ways than during Presidnet Clinton's debachery filled terms, but we don't here any of that do we? All those pensions that some of the big businesses are tossing are directly related to the Clinton administrations lack of oversight. He was a terrible President and the worse example this nation ever had. History will prove that out, regardless of the revisionist's efforts.

 

I can remember the republicans wringing their hands, and promising that if we passed Clinton's tax increase, we would have an immediate and severe economic turndown. Instead, the Reagan/Bush recession gave way to the longest economic expansion in US history. Of course, after it happened, they changed their tune, and said it was actually Reagan who did it 12 years before. :laugh:

Let's see... Operation Catcher's Mitt tracked Al Qaeda's financial dealings. Clinton began it. Bush shut it down.

Suspected Saudi radicals were being watched closely. Clinton ordered it. Bush ordrered it stopped. The FBI agent in charge of the program quit in protest, saying it put America in danger. Ironically, he died in 9/11.

Clinton put terrorism at the top of his priorities. An FBI agent testified before the 9/11 commission that he "almost fell out of his chair when he realized that the Bush administration didn't even have it on their list of priorities.

Did 9/11 happen because Bush dropped the ball on terrorism? We can't know for sure. But it would have been better if he hadn't dismantled our defenses.

Haven't heard anything about that in months. Sounds like an overactive imagination to me.

Greater unemployment, greater federal debt, greater number of jobs going overseas...

Your revisionist version is contradicted by the facts.

 

I will acknowledge that my family was certainly doing better, money-wise, during the latter part of Clinton's reign. But, that is as much on the part of the Republican Congress as it was on the part of Clinton.

The fact is, this country always does better, fiscally-speaking, when we have a Congress that is led by an opposing party from the President.

Clinton would have done no better than Bush if he'd have had a Democratic Congress throughout his presidency. The President always has his projects he wants pushed through. The fact is that the Congress, when opposed, blocks most of those projects. This, in turn, gives us a more balanced budget without as much pork.

Clinton was a rarity among Democrats, in that he was more conservative than most Democrats are today. That is why he was successful.

Bush, imo, is more liberal than most Republicans, which is why we have so much government spending taking place.

I agreed with his tax-cuts proposal, but we, imo, have more important things to take care of now than giving money back to people. He wants to fund programs, but he wants to give back tax money too. The problem is, he is doing both which is leaving the government with a big bill for which they have no way to pay it back. This leads to a bigger national debt.

Clinton came along at the right to time to have a successful presidency.

I don't like it, but it looks like the only way we'll get a balanced budget is to either have a Democrat as the next president or Congress be in Democratic hands, but not both, of course.

However, this could be changed if we elect true conservatives to Congress and the White House. Conservatives who actually do want to reduce spending and get a balanced budget. Of course, that won;t happen because the RNC is afraid they would be too conservative to be elected. Baloney.