Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[PLC1]

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

President Bush has vetoed legislation that would have limited CIA interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns has the story.

President Bush says terrorists are still plotting to attack America so this is no time for Congress to abandon interrogation techniques that he says have kept the nation safe. "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror - the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks," he said.

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.

 

[Andy]

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?

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

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.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

 

[icono1]

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.

 

[Bunz]

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.

 

[PLC1]

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...

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?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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?

I find McCain more Credible on any issue, but thats just me.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

I guess not. Maybe partisanship is more important than statesmanship.

 

[Libsmasher]

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.

 

[Andy]

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.

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

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.

 

[Andy]

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.

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

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.