"Waterboarding is a simulated drowning technique that the Obama administration considers torture."
So did the US government when prosecuting Japanese war criminals for torturing US soldiers with this same method used by both the Khmer Rouge and Bush.
It is defined as torture by the UN and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions which we are bound to by our own Constitution.
It's shocking that the media is still trying to spin this as a liberal/conservative issue. Suggesting that waterboarding is only defined as torture by liberals when experts in our own military and intelligence service have condemned the practice.
So the fact that he continues to propagate wars he didn't start makes him right when civilians are killed? What is a necessary war? What can the Commander-in-Chief do if wishes for drones to cease operations? I believe he simply orders a cessation - correct? It is clear you are biased and trying to make the current president right for his actions.
You who lay the deaths of Iraqi civilians at America's feet, have played right into the enemy's hands. The Baath party, and foreign trained militia were trained and sent to Iraq to slaughter civilians and allies, while you disgusting enemies, on our own soil, were the enemy's mouth pieces, spouting their vile propaganda to anyone who would listen. You called Americans torturers, for waterboarding, while the barbaric jihadists beheaded, tortured to death and slaughtered everyone they could. You were and still are working with and for the enemy, to discredit and bring shame to America. Take credit for yourself, for empowering the murderous al qaeda to murder the helpless and unsuspecting, by being their voice to the world. You have blood on YOUR hands.
If GWB is guilty of torture then so are most Americans. I consider the following as torture:
1. Druggie/Alcoholic "parents". Children are tortured.
2. Fast-food fattened Americans. Self-torture and this is propagated to the children.
3. People who force-feed children religion and then do not enlighten the children about other religions. This is mental torture.
4. "Parents" who use TVs or computers as baby-sitters. This is bad-example torture and psychological torture.
5. "Parents" who refuse to or are clueless about educating and teaching their children basic skills and responsibilities at home; leaving the resulting mess to the lesser and lesser empowered education system. This is teacher torture. Sometimes the result is death fo faculty member(s) and fellow students.
6. "Parents" teaching their children that people of a different color are - different. This is societal torture.
7. "Parents" rewarding their children without earning the reward. This is deferred torture that will result in a maladjusted adult.
I could go on...
GWB ordering waterboarding pales in comparison to the torture wrought by Americans.
I must admit that I am bothered by this effort to belittle the meaning of torture.
"Societal Torture" caused by poor parenting is not the same as strapping someone down and filling his lungs with water causing him to nearly drown.
I am proud of the ideals for which America stands--our rights, our freedoms, and our system of justice.
I never thought that I would be arguing that it is unAmerican to torture. I thought that was obvious, and was part of the same ideals that made all other Americans proud. I'm upset that a US President is now crowing about how he approved the use of torture.
Many of the things going on in America are un-American. That would explain some of the contributors to America's decline as a significant global player. Like it or not, GWB was only expressing his opinion against a backdrop of countless Americans engaged in active or passive torture; a microcosm of what happens globally. Does that make all other torture right? Of course not.
wdrussell1, the hatred in your post speaks greatly of your character. Let us all also work to ensure you are charged with nothing more than an automatic dishwasher as well.
It is hard not to have intense feelings about a former President that gloats about torturing, knowing that the current President will do nothing to bring the truth to light and bring war criminals to justice.
by josephp5 June 3, 2010 1:12 PM EDT "It is hard not to have intense feelings about a former President that gloats about torturing, knowing that the current President will do nothing to bring the truth to light and bring war criminals to justice." ... while the current president continues to propagate war and civilian deaths mount under his watch. I believe the current president is too busy with war and killing to go about and fact-finding missions.
As for stopping further attacks---there is no reason to assume that it is a result of Bush ordering waterboarding. And of course, the "stopped further attacks" means only in the US---we simply made it easier for Al Qaeda by invading Iraq---they now can attack us there.
And of course, the most hypocritical thing is: Had there been another US terrorist attack under Bush, does anyone think he would be saying, "I guess waterboarding didn't work to prevent another attack?" Of course not! Bush would be crowing about how the new attack indicates how dangerous the world now is, and how vital is his (and Cheney's) "leadership" for facing this dangerous world.
So in other words, it is fortunate that another attack didn't occur (on US soil at least) but it means nothing in regards to Bush's support for waterboarding.
P.S. Republican Talking Point Rebuttal: If the surge worked, why are we still taking casualties in Iraq? Why are we even still in Iraq?
P.P.S. Obama is not much better than Bush in this regard. We are still in Iraq; Guantanamo is still open; we still haven't taken basic steps to put the detainees on trial. We voted for Hope and Change, but got Bush Lite.
Attention all here who bash Bush for killing civilians...
What is the civilian-dead count under Obama now in both Afghanistan and Pakistan? By my own standards - more than one is too many. How many will die on his watch before you bash Obama? Are there US Presidents going back over our 230-year-plus history you would like to bash for the civilians killed on their watch during armed conflict? How do you solve what you bash, whine, and complain about? Do you want to go on Jerry Springer with GWB and duke it out with him? Will your whining, complaining, and bashing actually solve any of the world's many problems? Or are you too obese and filled with hatred to even lift a finger?
Raptor, I guess I am missing your point only. So your point is that two wrngs make a right? "Obama is fighting the war Bush abandoned." Obama has or had a choice. He CHOSE to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He CHOSE to not accelerate withdrawal from Iraq. He CHOSE to keep troops in South Korea. He CHOSE to keep troops in Europe. He CHOSE to send more troops to the border with Mexico.
Bush did not have a clue as to how to properly run a large nation. He did not take defensive action aginist AQL despite being informen by the CIA that OBL intended to strike using airplanes. He then decided that the Constitution was only a piece of paper that he could disreguard any time the mood struck him. He had loads of fun playing GI Joe, but he almost brought the whole nation down doing it.
imnho, and you know how to run a large nation? Did you forget Clinton's failed attempts at OBL? Did you forget that the attacks on 9/11 almost brought the whole nation to its knees? What would you have done for a response to the attacks of 9/11? Nothing and therefore enable more attacks?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
So did the US government when prosecuting Japanese war criminals for torturing US soldiers with this same method used by both the Khmer Rouge and Bush.
It is defined as torture by the UN and it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions which we are bound to by our own Constitution.
It's shocking that the media is still trying to spin this as a liberal/conservative issue. Suggesting that waterboarding is only defined as torture by liberals when experts in our own military and intelligence service have condemned the practice.
Thats right, fellow Americans are far more evil than Osama Bin Liden.
Priceless far left wacko...........
Who has a higher "innocent civilian" body count?
Osama bin Laden: approx 3,000
George Bush: MINIMUM 100,000 civilian casualties, by the most conservative of estimates.
You can call Bush a fellow American if you like, but so was Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Ted Bundy, and Jeffery Dahmer.
1. Druggie/Alcoholic "parents". Children are tortured.
2. Fast-food fattened Americans. Self-torture and this is propagated to the children.
3. People who force-feed children religion and then do not enlighten the children about other religions. This is mental torture.
4. "Parents" who use TVs or computers as baby-sitters. This is bad-example torture and psychological torture.
5. "Parents" who refuse to or are clueless about educating and teaching their children basic skills and responsibilities at home; leaving the resulting mess to the lesser and lesser empowered education system. This is teacher torture. Sometimes the result is death fo faculty member(s) and fellow students.
6. "Parents" teaching their children that people of a different color are - different. This is societal torture.
7. "Parents" rewarding their children without earning the reward. This is deferred torture that will result in a maladjusted adult.
I could go on...
GWB ordering waterboarding pales in comparison to the torture wrought by Americans.
"Societal Torture" caused by poor parenting is not the same as strapping someone down and filling his lungs with water causing him to nearly drown.
I am proud of the ideals for which America stands--our rights, our freedoms, and our system of justice.
I never thought that I would be arguing that it is unAmerican to torture. I thought that was obvious, and was part of the same ideals that made all other Americans proud. I'm upset that a US President is now crowing about how he approved the use of torture.
Those in Gitmo were singing freely UNTIL they were waterboarded, at which point they shut right down.
Stating that he was willing to waterboard them again, just proves that he didn't care whether he got the intelligence or not.
"It is hard not to have intense feelings about a former President that gloats about torturing, knowing that the current President will do nothing to bring the truth to light and bring war criminals to justice." ... while the current president continues to propagate war and civilian deaths mount under his watch. I believe the current president is too busy with war and killing to go about and fact-finding missions.
And of course, the most hypocritical thing is: Had there been another US terrorist attack under Bush, does anyone think he would be saying, "I guess waterboarding didn't work to prevent another attack?" Of course not! Bush would be crowing about how the new attack indicates how dangerous the world now is, and how vital is his (and Cheney's) "leadership" for facing this dangerous world.
So in other words, it is fortunate that another attack didn't occur (on US soil at least) but it means nothing in regards to Bush's support for waterboarding.
P.S. Republican Talking Point Rebuttal: If the surge worked, why are we still taking casualties in Iraq? Why are we even still in Iraq?
P.P.S. Obama is not much better than Bush in this regard. We are still in Iraq; Guantanamo is still open; we still haven't taken basic steps to put the detainees on trial. We voted for Hope and Change, but got Bush Lite.
I believe the current president is too busy with war and war-related killings to go about any fact-finding missions.
What is the civilian-dead count under Obama now in both Afghanistan and Pakistan? By my own standards - more than one is too many. How many will die on his watch before you bash Obama? Are there US Presidents going back over our 230-year-plus history you would like to bash for the civilians killed on their watch during armed conflict? How do you solve what you bash, whine, and complain about? Do you want to go on Jerry Springer with GWB and duke it out with him? Will your whining, complaining, and bashing actually solve any of the world's many problems? Or are you too obese and filled with hatred to even lift a finger?
He had ZERO regard for the law or human decency the first time around, so why would he change now?