Saying One Thing and Doing Another

Before you believe another Bush lie, look at his actions.

Bush said earlier this month that Americans "do not torture." However, Steven Hadley clearly told reporters that there are situations in which the promise not to torture might not apply. Also, do not forget that Bush has threatened to veto the bill passed by a 90-9 vote of the Senate which would outlaw torture.

Again, the actions by the Bush administration, along with their hair-splitting, tell America, much more than what they say, that they regard the rule of law irrelevant.

Article is here.

And yet another example of the desperate. Americans don't torture. Of course, there's always exceptions. Move on.

GySgt said:

And yet another example of the desperate. Americans don't torture. Of course, there's always exceptions. Move on.

Click to expand...

I think(if I interpret the intent correctly) the OP was trying to understand why a bill that condemns torture, would be under the Veto knife of someone who has stated he is against it. This is the inconsistency I note in Mr. Bush's behavior.

Moving On Now.......

GySgt said:

And yet another example of the desperate. Americans don't torture. Of course, there's always exceptions. Move on.

Click to expand...

Just like Bush, first you say that we dont torture, then say that there are always exceptions. If there are exceptions, then we do torture. If you support torture, you should not lie and say you dont. Ethics 101 here, but for the ethically challenged, such as the President, this can be a rather difficult concept to grasp. Also, if the President really condemns torture, then why threaten to veto a bill that contains the language condemning the exact thing he condemns in word?

danarhea said:

Just like Bush, first you say that we dont torture, then say that there are always exceptions. If there are exceptions, then we do torture. If you support torture, you should not lie and say you dont. Ethics 101 here, but for the ethically challenged, such as the President, this can be a rather difficult concept to grasp.

Click to expand...

Shooting someone in the head is against the law...but there are exceptions to that, too(self defense)...

As to the bill itself, one must not use the "Blanket statement" of the bill when there may be problems with the wording or its implications....

If I were to tell you that the Senate just passed a bill that would eliminate the National Debt AND give everyone in the country a 10% tax cut, most would be ecstatic....

But if it was done by chopping up 5 year olds and selling their parts on the medical black market, I'm guessing you'd have second thoughts about it, huh?

So just saying "Toture Bill" means nothing....is there anything in that bill that shouldn't be?...Does the President approve of most of the bill but is vehemently against one small paragraph?...Was there anything tacked on at the end of it that the President disagrees with?....These are more important than just saying "President says no to torture bill=bad"....

cnredd said:

So just saying "Toture Bill" means nothing....is there anything in that bill that shouldn't be?...Does the President approve of most of the bill but is vehemently against one small paragraph?...Was there anything tacked on at the end of it that the President disagrees with?....These are more important than just saying "President says no to torture bill=bad"....

Click to expand...

If that were the case, then why didn't Scott McClellan just say so, instead of dodging the question of whether Cheney was seeking an exemption to the bill for the CIA?

Why didn't the President just say so? Since he obviously knows by now the accusations that his administration favors torture, surely he also knows that the veto threat and Cheney's request for an exemption are points his critics will make, but he's just too stupid to address them I guess........or he's a freaking LIAR.

danarhea said:

Just like Bush, first you say that we dont torture, then say that there are always exceptions. If there are exceptions, then we do torture. If you support torture, you should not lie and say you dont. Ethics 101 here, but for the ethically challenged, such as the President, this can be a rather difficult concept to grasp. Also, if the President really condemns torture, then why threaten to veto a bill that contains the language condemning the exact thing he condemns in word?

Click to expand...

How many statements are absolute?

1)Cartoons are for kids.
2)Sex is for adults.
3)Family cars are for Families.
4)Boy Scouts don't lie

How absolute are those statements?

1)The Simpsons caters to adults and has an overwhelming amount of adult messages.
2)There is a huge percentage of teenagers under 18 who bump uglies.
3)There are plenty of people without families that own family cars.
4)All people lie.

What a filthy two faced monster a person must be who would say such henious and flagrant lies.
Move on.

GySgt said:

How many statements are absolute?

Click to expand...

How about:

"Pedophilia is wrong."

?

Binary_Digit said:

If that were the case, then why didn't Scott McClellan just say so, instead of dodging the question of whether Cheney was seeking an exemption to the bill for the CIA?

Why didn't the President just say so? Since he obviously knows by now the accusations that his administration favors torture, surely he also knows that the veto threat and Cheney's request for an exemption are points his critics will make, but he's just too stupid to address them I guess........or he's a freaking LIAR.

Click to expand...

Many things that occur and have ALWAYS occurred are not for public attention.

Regardless, to sign a stupid bill against torture implies that it does occur and that we are wrong for something. It is an insult.

PS...I'll be over to your house later on...I want you to sign a statement that you will not rape. I'll make sure and make it public knowledge that you are doing the right thing by signing it.:roll:

Binary_Digit said:

How about:

"Pedophilia is wrong."

?

Click to expand...

There's plenty, but hardly the point.

GySgt said:

How many statements are absolute?

1)Cartoons are for kids.
2)Sex is for adults.
3)Family cars are for Families.
4)Boy Scouts don't lie

How absolute are those statements?

1)The Simpsons caters to adults and has an overwhelming amount of adult messages.
2)There is a huge percentage of teenagers under 18 who bump uglies.
3)There are plenty of people without families that own family cars.
4)All people lie.

What a filthy two faced monster a person must be who would say such henious and flagrant lies.
Move on.

Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with absolutism or relativism. It has everything to do with Bush attempting to have the best of both worlds of absolutism and relativism. At the same time, he says that we do not torture, but we also torture under some circumstances. If we torture under some circumstances, then we DO torture.

If bush condones torture under some circumstances, he should come out and say it, and not tell everyone we do not torture. It is even worse than Clinton trying to define what the meaning of the word "is" is.

GySgt said:

Many things that occur and have ALWAYS occurred are not for public attention.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when people in the United States government are breaking national and international law, that most certainly deserves public attention!

GySgt said:

Regardless, to sign a stupid bill against torture implies that it does occur and that we are wrong for something.

Click to expand...

What?!? I think a neuron got criss-crossed there, refusing to sign that bill is what implies that torture occurs!

GySgt said:

PS...I'll be over to your house later on...I want you to sign a statement that you will not rape. I'll make sure and make it public knowledge that you are doing the right thing by signing it.:roll:

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but i'll gladly sign any statement saying I will not rape. Or torture. Feel free to make that public knowledge too! :2razz:

GySgt said:

There's plenty, but hardly the point.

Click to expand...

It refutes your point doesn't it? Didn't you try to argue that "we do not torture" is not an absolute statement, by implying there are no absolute statements?

"How many statements are absolute?

1)Cartoons are for kids.
2)Sex is for adults.
3)Family cars are for Families.
4)Boy Scouts don't lie
"

Maybe I misinterpreted, but that's the impression I got. What was your point here anyway?

danarhea said:

Has nothing to do with absolutism or relativism. It has everything to do with Bush attempting to have the best of both worlds of absolutism and relativism. At the same time, he says that we do not torture, but we also torture under some circumstances. If we torture under some circumstances, then we DO torture.

If bush condones torture under some circumstances, he should come out and say it, and not tell everyone we do not torture. It is even worse than Clinton trying to define what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Click to expand...

The man has made a statement. The same statement that every single President before him has held as American principle. Regardless of this statement and the large ignorance of the American public, your freedoms and security comes at a price sometimes.

I'll say this again, because I think it deserves repeating. Since Bush obviously knows by now the accusations that his administration favors torture, surely he also knows that his threat to veto and Dick Cheney's request for an exemption are points his critics will make, but I guess he's just too stupid to address them........or he's a freaking LIAR.

And Gunny, if you can show me evidence that torture protects my "freedoms and security" I'll have you a T-bone steak ready when you get here. :2razz:

GySgt said:

The man has made a statement. The same statement that every single President before him has held as American principle. Regardless of this statement and the large ignorance of the American public, your freedoms and security comes at a price sometimes.

Click to expand...

OK. Time to pin you down on one position or the other. Is the price you are referring to the acceptance of torture? Just come out and say if you believe that it is OK to torture under some circumstances. Attempting to say both undermines your position in a big way. If you belive that it is OK to torture under some circumstances, then just come out and say it, and defend why. But dont tell me that we do not torture and we do torture, and that both statements are not mutually exclusive of each other.

If you really believe that we should torture under some circumstances, just say so. Just asking for a little honesty here. OK?

Binary_Digit said:

I'm sorry, but when people in the United States government are breaking national and international law, that most certainly deserves public attention!

Click to expand...

Nope.

Binary_Digit said:

Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but i'll gladly sign any statement saying I will not rape. Or torture. Feel free to make that public knowledge too! :2razz:

Click to expand...

I wouldn't sign it. I don't need to "agree" not to rape. It's insulting.

Binary_Digit said:

It refutes your point doesn't it? Didn't you try to argue that "we do not torture" is not an absolute statement, by implying there are no absolute statements?

"How many statements are absolute?

1)Cartoons are for kids.
2)Sex is for adults.
3)Family cars are for Families.
4)Boy Scouts don't lie
"

Maybe I misinterpreted, but that's the impression I got. What was your point here anyway?

Click to expand...

"No absolute statements?" I said this? Hmmm. Your need to argue for the sake of arguing is sophmoric. I believe my question was "How many statements are absolute." You see, this would "imply" that not every statement is absolute. Try to keep with the conversation and not get side tracked in petty argument.

Binary_Digit said:

I'll say this again, because I think it deserves repeating. Since Bush obviously knows by now the accusations that his administration favors torture, surely he also knows that his threat to veto and Dick Cheney's request for an exemption are points his critics will make, but I guess he's just too stupid to address them........or he's a freaking LIAR.

And Gunny, if you can show me evidence that torture protects my "freedoms and security" I'll have you a T-bone steak ready when you get here. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Live your fantasies. Your freedoms and securities are protected by kid gloves. They are protected by gentle interrogators who follow up their polite discussions with blow jobs.:doh

danarhea said:

OK. Time to pin you down on one position or the other. Is the price you are referring to the acceptance of torture? Just come out and say if you believe that it is OK to torture under some circumstances. Attempting to say both undermines your position in a big way. If you belive that it is OK to torture under some circumstances, then just come out and say it, and defend why. But dont tell me that we do not torture and we do torture, and that both statements are not mutually exclusive of each other.

If you really believe that we should torture under some circumstances, just say so. Just asking for a little honesty here. OK?

Click to expand...

Pin me down?
I'm hiding?
Are you outing me to some great victory by having me say something new?

I'll simply say again...

It is perfectly acceptable to interrogate (what you call torture) to a point. There are two seperate engagements to interrogation....

1) In the field: After an IED explosion, where all involved were minorly wounded and unconscience, the rear of the convoy (or front depending on the location of the IED) dismount their vehicles and get on line. They immediately begin walking through the area behind the blast zone to look for the clacker (individual/s with a remote). Upon finding an individual with a backpack, which contained another IED, he was taken outside and interrogated. He refused to give up another IED location until we commenced to slam him up against the wall and threaten his life. We then took him to his site where an unexploded IED was found and had EOD (Explosive Ordanince Disposal) walk him towards that unexploded IED. The prisoner began to sing and we located two other unexploded IED's from his interrogation. After the decision was made that he had no more information we needed or that anything from this point on we couldn't trust, he was released to the MP's and taken away.

This was Fallujah (first time) and there is no way to tell how many Marines or Iraqi civillians were saved because those IEDs did not go off as intended and the manner in which he was "interrogated".

2) During custody: We have interrogation techniques that are used that some would call torture. There is a certain point, where these techniques cease to work, because after a while, we cannot trust the information. This is why interrogation is left to the proffessionals and "crossing the line" is not acceptable.

Now...feel free to replace the word "interrogation" with "torture" as you see fit.

GySgt said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. It's a moral issue whether or not the government should be allowed to break its own law, my morals say they should not.

GySgt said:

I wouldn't sign it. I don't need to "agree" not to rape. It's insulting.

Click to expand...

The difference being, you have not been caught raping someone in the past. The U.S. has been caught torturing people, and even though a few people were busted, there have been numerous other claims and our official position is ambiguous. Being insulted is NOT an excuse to dodge an accusation based on reasonable suspicion, as follows:

Fact 1: Bush has asserted that terrorist detainees are not protected under U.S. anti-torture laws because they aren't on U.S. soil.

Fact 2: Bush has threatened to veto Senator McCain's bill that would bring all U.S. forces in line with American and and international anti-torture laws.

Fact 3: When McCain's bill passed the House 90-9, Dick Cheney pushed Congress to let the CIA to be exempt from it.

If you can refute any of these facts, I'll throw in a 12-pack of Bud Light.

GySgt said:

"No absolute statements?" I said this? Hmmm. Your need to argue for the sake of arguing is sophmoric.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you said that. I said, "Maybe I misinterpreted, but that's the impression I got." Then I asked you to clarify.

GySgt said:

I believe my question was "How many statements are absolute." You see, this would "imply" that not every statement is absolute. Try to keep with the conversation and not get side tracked in petty argument.

Click to expand...

And I believe my question was, "What was your point here anyway?" If you don't answer it, I'll still be confused about what you're saying. :2razz:

Ok wait, your point was that the statement "we do not torture" is not absolute? Maybe that's why I didn't get it at first, I really didn't think you'd say something that ridiculous. Ok fine, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is not an absolute statement either! Criminy, Bush has just lied to you and you're letting him get away with it.

Binary_Digit said:

I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. It's a moral issue whether or not the government should be allowed to break its own law, my morals say they should not.


The difference being, you have not been caught raping someone in the past. The U.S. has been caught torturing people, and even though a few people were busted, there have been numerous other claims and our official position is ambiguous. Being insulted is NOT an excuse to dodge an accusation based on reasonable suspicion, as follows:

Fact 1: Bush has asserted that terrorist detainees are not protected under U.S. anti-torture laws because they aren't on U.S. soil.

Fact 2: Bush has threatened to veto Senator McCain's bill that would bring all U.S. forces in line with American and and international anti-torture laws.

Fact 3: When McCain's bill passed the House 90-9, Dick Cheney pushed Congress to let the CIA to be exempt from it.

If you can refute any of these facts, I'll throw in a 12-pack of Bud Light.


I didn't say you said that. I said, "Maybe I misinterpreted, but that's the impression I got." Then I asked you to clarify.


And I believe my question was, "What was your point here anyway?" If you don't answer it, I'll still be confused about what you're saying. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Alright......

GySgt said:

Alright......

Click to expand...

He stated the argument much better than I did, and BTW, I appreciate your service to our country. We may be on opposite sides of this issue, but I owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you.

danarhea said:

Just like Bush, first you say that we dont torture, then say that there are always exceptions. If there are exceptions, then we do torture. If you support torture, you should not lie and say you dont. Ethics 101 here, but for the ethically challenged, such as the President, this can be a rather difficult concept to grasp. Also, if the President really condemns torture, then why threaten to veto a bill that contains the language condemning the exact thing he condemns in word?

Click to expand...

Well are you saying that you support a policy for the United States that says that under no circumstances can torture ever be used. Never ever without exception? Even the so-called torture at Abu Ghraib? Even if it means saving New York City and everyone living there?