1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Bush vetoes anti torture bill

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by PLC1, Mar 9, 2008.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Bush, who didn't veto any bill in the first six years of his presidency, has just approved his legacy as the pro torture president.

    http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-08-voa10.cfm

    Torture is the most valuable tools we have in the war on terror?

    Is there one, even one lone, example of torture having prevented a terrorist attack? If so, I suppose the "liberal" media is not willing to share it with the country.

    Here all this time, I thought credit was the most valuable tool. The war has thus far been financed on the collective MasterCard after all.
     
  2. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    He didn't say that. I love it when people read into what I say, and I'm sure you do to. I wish people would stop doing things they don't like done to themselves.
     
  3. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    He said, ""The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror."

    Those are his words, as he vetoed a bill to outlaw waterboarding.

    My bad. He really didn't mean that. What he meant was _____________
    You fill in the blank.
     
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    what else would you read this ass? But his support to torture tactics?
    And to anyone who wants to cry its not torture, I would like to see how making it so someone cant breath, making them think they are drowning, and making them fear for there life...does not = that...And I hope you know our use makes it a fine example to others as to what they can do with our POW's

    There is a reason we dont use this as well outside of that we try to claim to not be as barbaric and savage as those we fight due to our high morals. It simply is not effective, Top people in the CIA have said so, the Military bans it and sites thevery reason.

    I hope when Bush Dies, when he gets to the gates...they waterboard him and send him to hell.
     
  5. icono1

    icono1 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Bluegrass St.
    People will say anything that an interrogator wants to hear when they are being severely tortured.
    That is why the extreme torturing of a person does not work to well if the interrogators are trying to extract specific and or pertinent information about a given situation or for general information.
     
  6. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Icono you hit it on the head pretty well. I think it pretty shameful that the President despite overwhelming opposition to those methods among the public and a clear mandate from the legislative body to end this practice is another nail in the coffin of his Presidential legacy. We will need to clear some space below Nixon to make room for George W. Bush.
     
  7. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Exactly right.

    McCain said it was torture, this evening on 60 minutes.

    Personally, I find McCain a lot more credible on this issue than I do Bush, don't you?

    You know, first hand experience and all that?
     
  8. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    I find McCain more Credible on any issue, but thats just me.
     
  9. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Today the house failed to override the presidents veto. So I guess it is not important enough to enough representatives for them to be concerned.
     
  10. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    I guess not. :( Maybe partisanship is more important than statesmanship.
     
  11. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is an important issue, and it's too bad that it is trivialized by only being used in the politics of the day, instead of being the subject of a serious debate on ethics.
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With due respect...

    If you want to debate what he meant, fine. If you want to debate what he said, he said "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror.", just like you stated.

    You claimed he said torture was the most valuable tool. Is that what he said? No. If you disagree with him vetoing it, fine. But I truly hate it when people insert their own personal agenda into a discussion. No one likes their words twisted. It's amazing to see people twist words, who if their own words were twisted, would scream about it.

    It's also a fact that many bills sent to congress with names and titles that do not reflect what is really in the bill. McCain Feingold was a direct assault on 'freedom of speech', yet it was named Campaign Finance reform, what a joke.

    Now if Bush comes out publicly in favor of torture, then bring that quote here, and I won't have a problem. I just prefer there being some truth in debating. Tell us what happened, and we'll make up our own mind. Not you tell us what you assume he meant, so we can make judgments based on your assumptions. We all know you hate Bush, and many do. Which is why I see so many twisted phrases and assumptions based on false pretense. I am not even a fan of Bush myself, but I still won't nail him for something you think he said but didn't.

    Now if you want to debate torture, or specifically waterboarding, great, start a thread on that. You'll be surprised by the number of people in favor of it. I'm still undecided.

    All I'm asking is that you give the same respect to spoken statements that you would want for your own statements.
     
  13. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    What else could he have possibly meant when vetoing a bill to ban waterboarding? His statement was clear, the meaning was clear. There is no need for interpretation.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But you did just that. You interpreted his statement. Are you sure you know exactly what is in that bill? I do not. You say it banned water boarding, but could it have banned other things as well?

    Bills are named in ways to get approval. Sometimes those names are completely inaccurate to what is in the bill.

    I forget exactly when this happened, but there was a military spending bill that got veto'd too. But it wasn't because it was spending on military. It was because of millions of dollars of other things earmarked onto the bill. There was also a budget bill that add millions in taxes that was veto'd a while back too, but it wasn't because 'economic stimulus', which is what the bill was called.

    What I'm saying is that I want to know exactly why he veto'd it. Now if what you said is the reason, great. But either way, I don't like people reading into statements, what is not there.
     
  15. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,943
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Well, I think he told us why he vetoed the bill, but, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was something else in the bill, a prohibition of a new weapon, or defunding the war, or outlawing body armor, or something else besides waterboarding that he was referring to by the statement of having lost the greatest weapon in the war on terror.

    I remember the veto you cited, and yes, that was done because it included a timetable for withdrawal as well as funding. It was a transparant attempt by the Democrats in Congress to make it appear that Bush had vetoed a funding bill for the war. That one was pure unadulterated partisan politics of the worst kind. This one? Well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was something else besides waterboarding in the bill.

    But I seriously doubt it. It seems very clear what he vetoed and why.
     
Loading...

Share This Page