Criminals in the White House (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

slvemike4u -> Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 11:58:34 AM)

Frank Rich in the Sunday Times writes an intriguing article in which he tout's a new book by Jane Meyers detailing the White House's precipitite slide into the murky waters of torture and the Iraq War.Detailing the tone of the Justice Dept.in which at least two dissenting officials actually feared for their phsyical safety,as a result they established a personal "code" talk for fear of being wiretapped....the full story makes for interesting reading...for myself the book will be a must read
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin



Thadius -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 2:36:40 PM)

At least they listed it as an opinion piece... unlike the story about McCain having an affair.

It made for an interesting read, but the slant was more than obvious.



cloudboy -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 3:46:51 PM)


>So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”<

I found that to be pretty eye-popping.

Its a mistake, tho, to attribute the US's ugly side to Bush-Cheney. That ugly side of the-ends-justifies-the-means: torture, lies, disinformation, nation-meddling, cover-ups, and fascist-type tactics has been well in place since the end of WWII.

What we see now is not an aberration, its just a continuation of past policies.



Alumbrado -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 3:53:26 PM)

Lawrence Wilkerson giving legal advice to attorneys?  That's rich.



bipolarber -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 3:54:25 PM)

Yes, Thadius.. any truth revealed, which does not fit with your preconceived notions, is therefore "slanted reporting." Right. Got that.




DomAviator -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 3:56:09 PM)

Yes the torure was indeed started by a criminal in the Whitehouse. A real low life dirtbag who was impeached, cheated on his wife, and who even lost his law license. That criminal as WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON He officially sanctioned it with PDD 39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm Bush just continued an EXISTING CLINTON POLICY.

But go ahead, blame Bush even though Clinton started it in 1995 LOL



Thadius -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 4:56:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Yes, Thadius.. any truth revealed, which does not fit with your preconceived notions, is therefore "slanted reporting." Right. Got that.




The "article" is an op-ed piece, therefore it is OPINION based, not reporting.  Try opening your narrow eyes to the fact that there are always 3 sides to every story, his, hers and the truth.  If you choose to get all of your "truths revealed" from opinion pieces and blogs it is no wonder that you only see the "evils" of one side, and not of both.

Unless you are suggesting that things like this should be taken as fact too?  http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036 




DomAviator -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 5:07:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Unless you are suggesting that things like this should be taken as fact too?  http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036 




That should be taken as fact.  I have seen that before and feel it is something that should be run every 15 minutes on all television networks! It should be shown every morning in the public schools! It should be playing on a continous loop on every TV in every bar in America....



Thadius -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 5:26:25 PM)

While it has some facts in it, there is an aparent slant to it as well.  That is the point I was trying to make. [;)]



Termyn8or -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 7:17:45 PM)

Wow, all this.

Of course they are criminals, how else do you think they get there ?

You don't get rich by being nice and you certainly do not get rich by being fair.

Let's disect DA, I will try to be kind. Let's says he rakes in a hundred large a year. To do that he has to keep up with all his training and shit like that. Let's even say he only works twenty hours a week, and the rest is training, retraining, recertification, shit like that. And now let's say he deserved his money.

Now take it to 2X that, two hundred grand a year, OK this other guy works twice as long, and studies twice as long. So he is DA X 2. Where is he at ? Nowhere. Two hundred big ones a year will not get you elected dog catcher.

So let's consider someone else. Bill Gates, yes THAT Bill Gates. Everything he sells he stole. Oh yes, between his minions from India and a few other places it has been refined,  but it is common knowledge that he stole the whole GUI/mouse idea. It is also common knowledge that he paid a mere pittance for DOS, which is the core of all windows OSes, but XP seems to be more like NT. Their kernel more resembles Unix, which is open source. The scalable windows and print queue came for a program called Desqview, put out by a company call Quarterdeck at least ten years before Win 95 came out.

How much does Billy boy make ? Let's say he makes the money of a thousand people, but does he do a thousand day's work every day ?

T



DomKen -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 9:05:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

Yes the torure was indeed started by a criminal in the Whitehouse. A real low life dirtbag who was impeached, cheated on his wife, and who even lost his law license. That criminal as WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON He officially sanctioned it with PDD 39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm Bush just continued an EXISTING CLINTON POLICY.

But go ahead, blame Bush even though Clinton started it in 1995 LOL

That document does not explicitly or implicitly allow torture. The term interrogation isn't even ever used.

I guess this is another case of a right winger posting something hoping no one else will bother reading it.



DomAviator -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 9:13:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

Yes the torure was indeed started by a criminal in the Whitehouse. A real low life dirtbag who was impeached, cheated on his wife, and who even lost his law license. That criminal as WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON He officially sanctioned it with PDD 39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm Bush just continued an EXISTING CLINTON POLICY.

But go ahead, blame Bush even though Clinton started it in 1995 LOL

That document does not explicitly or implicitly allow torture. The term interrogation isn't even ever used.

I guess this is another case of a right winger posting something hoping no one else will bother reading it.


That document authorizes and initiates the practice of "Extraordinary Rendition" - the kidnapping of individuals by the CIA, with or without the cooperation of the nation where the subject is located. They are then flown to "black sites" and into the custody of the intelligence services of countries such as Egypt, etc...

It doesnt allow torture? What do you think the person snatched off the street and going to the black site drugged in a sack is going to get in Egypt - a tour of the Pyramids and a Nile Cruise??? Why do they go to a black site or a foreign intelligence service??? For spa treatments Ken????

Face it - Clinton stated it. Bush continued it.  



Dominatist -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 9:33:15 PM)

Nope



slvemike4u -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 9:51:54 PM)

Been away too long.Thadius I am well aware it was an op-ed piece,the purpose of which is to present a point of view and to invite the reader to think...I myself  love reading them for that fact alone,they provoke thought.There is news contained within but it is presented thru the writers own perspective in this case one I myself subscribe too,so it was easy for me.But I am curious ,do You not believe that certain mmbers of this administration might have left themselves open to some chages in front of a world court?



TheHeretic -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 10:31:48 PM)

        I don't see a direct line, DA, unless you have a copy without all the blackouts.  Certainly a foundation for Bush to build on, and a clear statement that the host country's opinion doesn't matter, but I don't see Bill's signature under what you are claiming is there.  Of course, Clinton wasn't around when the stakes got ratcheted a whole lot higher.



MisterBeast -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 10:41:39 PM)

*yawns* I am so not caring any more, I am so sick of hearing people bitch about this. Time for people to get a new hobby. 



DomKen -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 10:55:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

Yes the torure was indeed started by a criminal in the Whitehouse. A real low life dirtbag who was impeached, cheated on his wife, and who even lost his law license. That criminal as WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON He officially sanctioned it with PDD 39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm Bush just continued an EXISTING CLINTON POLICY.

But go ahead, blame Bush even though Clinton started it in 1995 LOL

That document does not explicitly or implicitly allow torture. The term interrogation isn't even ever used.

I guess this is another case of a right winger posting something hoping no one else will bother reading it.


That document authorizes and initiates the practice of "Extraordinary Rendition" - the kidnapping of individuals by the CIA, with or without the cooperation of the nation where the subject is located. They are then flown to "black sites" and into the custody of the intelligence services of countries such as Egypt, etc...

It doesnt allow torture? What do you think the person snatched off the street and going to the black site drugged in a sack is going to get in Egypt - a tour of the Pyramids and a Nile Cruise??? Why do they go to a black site or a foreign intelligence service??? For spa treatments Ken????

Face it - Clinton stated it. Bush continued it.  

Rendition is a practice I find objectionable but it isn't US agents torturing people which I find much more objectionable.

Bush ignored multiple Senate ratified treaties making torture illegal. Until he actually officially removes the US from those treaties he's a criminal in violation of the law fo the land. The people who follow those absolutely unquestionably illegal orders are bringing shame to all of us who served this nation faithfully and honorably.

You can bleat all you want but you've already made statements meaning you don't honor the oath you swore which pretty much makes any further claims of yours irrelevant.



Vendaval -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 10:58:59 PM)

That is interesting, most likely all involved with have executive pardons issued near the end of the term.  But they could face war crime charges from other countries, aye?  I have to research this subject more.



slvemike4u -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 11:03:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisterBeast

*yawns* I am so not caring any more, I am so sick of hearing people bitch about this. Time for people to get a new hobby. 
So we should get a new hobby,replace being informed and caring with what ?...stock car racing?



Thadius -> RE: Criminals in the White House (7/13/2008 11:16:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Been away too long.Thadius I am well aware it was an op-ed piece,the purpose of which is to present a point of view and to invite the reader to think...I myself  love reading them for that fact alone,they provoke thought.There is news contained within but it is presented thru the writers own perspective in this case one I myself subscribe too,so it was easy for me.But I am curious ,do You not believe that certain mmbers of this administration might have left themselves open to some chages in front of a world court?


Evening,

Actually I enjoy reading the various op-ed pieces as well.  Like I said in my original post it was an interesting read.  My post was directed at the Bipolar response, suggesting that it was more of a news article, and thus everything in it should be considered fact.

I think there are always openings for somebody to bring charges (in a world court) against our elected officials, I even agree that some might have more grounds than others.  However, I do not believe that the world court should dictate policy for any sovereign nation.  If there is a violation of a treaty, perhaps some mediation, but even then, is it not up to each country to effect or suffer the consequences of their policies?  That being said, if there is proof of "war crimes" being committed and other illegal activity I am all for the folks accused having a fair trial.

Let's just put it this way.  If the alleged human rights abuses were offending other nations, wouldn't we have already seen at least some sort of resolution in the U.N.?  I would dare say that it would take us making Iran into a glass factory, before any mumbling about a resolution started.  Even with the weakening dollar and other financial issues, I can't think of anybody that would want to see sanctions against us, or anybody that could survive long if they were.

I will save the rest of my comments until you have a chance to respond.

I wish you well,
Thadius



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02