KrustyKidd

And why the US gets less oil from Iraq now than Saddam sold to them as well, the bulk of oil companies operating in Iraq are non American with most of the oil going to Aisia and Europe. Oh, and what oil the US does get from Iraq they pay for at world prices. Prices they could just pay anybody else. Other than most of the world believing Saddam had WMDs as well, I for one cannot fathom why about the rest. Can you? It was about oil or it was not Waldo? You're all over the map on this one. Actually the reasons for the Iraq invasion are fairly strategic with liberation only being incidental and oil being the mechanism by which the Iraqi people could fund their new economy. However, Bush certainly was the greatest liberator the world has ever known wouldn't you agree? I mean, can you name another that has achieved freedom for more?

A link to any of a thousand publications that say that Rockefeller and Pelosi headed their respective Intelligence Committees and were in attendance of the Enhanced Interrogation briefings. Then they briefed their houses and approved further funding? If you don't know that already then a link won't fix your problem. Read today's paper and then get some background on how the Congress and Senate Intelligence Committees work with classified information when it comes to funding. Oh, almost forgot. No sanctioned Enhanced Interrogations took place after 2003 so Bush didn't lie. Goodnight.

Your information is wrong Waldo. Today's newspapers explain why and shows how both Pelosi and Rockefeller are seating bullets. Furthermore, how many enhanced interrogations occurred after 2003? You know, the time where Bush supposedly lied. If you can do your research as well as come up to speed on current events you might still catch up enough to be worth having a discussion with yet.

I could but, both he and Pelosi were heads (deputy in his case) of both the Senate and congressional Intelligence Committee and, were in on this from the start (2002) Here, he is only attempting to cover his own ass. If you decide to catch up on current events sometime you can inform yourself as it is in the news south of the border. In this way, you will actually have information you can discuss this issue with rather than flounder in the dark like you are presently doing. This is one of the steps I was referring to earlier in my last post. Actually I prefer Krusty Kidd or, just plain Krusty thank you. Now, can you answer the question I posed to you earlier asking you how many enhanced interrogations took place after 2003? This would be the other step that you are lagging behind on.

Google Islamic Jewish persecution and Koran/Jews. Officially, they're sub human and that's well before the Palestinian Issue.

Why?

The memo need not be viewed as anything other than bird cage fodder by Bush as, he may or may not decide to act on it as he already had made a decision based on what he considered to be correct opinion and, made a directive to cover this issue. Yes it can invalidate it's own opinions. and, opinions are all they are. When Congress and the Intelligence Committee continues to approve of the directive, that trumps anything Bradlbury advises. And at that time, how many government sanctioned enhanced interrogations were taking place? And, how many have taken place since? No they're not. Unless of course, Pelosi and Rockerfeller are going down with them as well as a lot of Democrat congress members who all, by virtue of their knowledge of this, and their continued approval and funding of it go down with them. Well, he didn't. Maybe Bush, the greatest liberator the world has ever known, was too busy bestowing the gift of freedom to millions and, was having his decision validated by the continued approval via continued funding by the now speaker of the house and the Democratic run bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. In an case, at the time Bush made that statement, how many government sanctioned enhanced interrogations were taking place? And, how many have taken place since? Get back to me once you've done a bit of homework and find the two steps you seem to have lost Waldo.

Yep. The purpose of Plan Dalet was to secure Israeli territory in Palestine and cleanse it of any hostiles. I'd like to see the quote in context as well. Duh I have and most actions by these groups were insurgent and sabotage actions against the British military occupiers with only sporadic actions against Palestinians. Duh Make up your mind which is the actual quote. Initially you said Let us know when you get your so called facts in order and provide a link which carries the entire command so we can see it in context please.

No. If you recall, I have a mild curiosity as to why you waste bandwidth with idiotic snippits which have little to do with supporting your poor argument. Furthermore, I have no reason to wonder if you laugh when you post or, tear your hair out and frankly, don't really care. Your 'same fact' argument is weak against the reality that the US government was advised by legal counsel and, had an executive directive that classified the action as interrogation, not torture. To you, and many others, that may be a fact however, in the US, at that time, under those conditions, it was not classified as torture.

Indeed. And so to him, it was interrogation, not torture.

Bush never said that the sole purpose of the legal Iraq invasion was to bring democracy. Furthermore, after bringing democracy as a byproduct of the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi people tried Saddam hence, it was their justice Saddam received.

The talking about closing Gitmo was just that. When he went to act with just talk, congress said 'no tickee, no laundry.' No plan = no action with pie in the sky as the strategic result.

As recognizing that he freed more people than any other person in history while still not personally liking the man I would rate that as astute. But Waldo, you missed it! Bradly is not President of the USA and thus cannot rescind Presidential Directives made on information from prior years be they based on faulty or accurate facts. Hence, the same directive covers it until Obama overturned it. Same answer from before; I took that to mean that you deal in serious discussion as well as wished to be taken seriously and so, overlooked the stupidity of what you were saying and addressed it as if you were serious and on the level. Canadien, I notice that you seem to take this whole affair somewhat personally in that you like to provide little snips of personal hubris here and there (as addressed above for the second time) as well attempt to obfuscate the issue by imagining what my opinions are on what constitutes torture (which I have not provided). To make this simpler, this is not about what I, or you, personally believe torture is but rather what Bush believe, or, more accurately - believed it is or was. A lie is a deliberate and deceitful utterance designed to portray a falsehood as truth. To Bush, he was given moral and legal assurances that it was not torture hence, if he said that it was torture, he would be lying as it would to him, be a false and misleading statement according to the information he had at the time from legal counsel.

Good for them. At the time, it was considered by Bush to be a qualified and legal opinion which he based his directive on. So to him, the actions he gave authorization to use were, for all intents and purposes, legal and not torture. Waldo lol. You get so excited it makes my day when you post.

Talking with no plan = pie in the sky.

I watched him him close enough to see him lose funding to close Gitmo down because he didn't have a plan. Empty words of hope and change didn't get him past a Democratic run House.

Indeed. The man the freed fifty million people from the clutches of tyranny. More than any other figure in history. Hail Bush the Freer! Monuments to his greatness will be built as legends of his democratic deeds will grow and be sung in the halls of Liberty with a holiday forever enshrined for mankind of all religions and creeds. This day will be known as 'Bushmas.'

I'm not. I argue that the President did not lie when he uttered those words and provided the reason and legality. Never once have I given an opinion of what I believe torture is. (Like few here have had to deal with some of the women I know.) I doubt that in the real world it would have much bearing. However, the President of the US may issue directives that can define the policy of the US and, in this case, has. Hence, according to the advice given and his directive, he did not lie. The US did not, at the time, prescribe to your personal definitions. I did, but, when you had written these words Canadien I took that to mean that you deal in serious discussion as well as wished to be taken seriously and so, overlooked the stupidity of what you were saying and addressed it as if you were serious and on the level.

When the US uses your personal definition and parameters then you get to decide if it is torture or not. Since they didn't use yours but rather their legal definition, you're out of luck. Terror suspect would nto be privy to classified information and, more than likely would not be briefed on the limits to how far the interrogation was allowed to go in order to keep him off balance and more pliable. Me and Canadien were discussing the legalities of it as he contends that Bush lied when he said the US did not torture. Ethicly, it is foul however, in this case, we are discussing legalities and definitions used by the US government. Thanks. Now, to continue .... the President can issue directives and, on the advice of legal counsel allowed harsh interrogation techniques to legally occur without being classified as torture. Here is some of the advice given; Byebee Memo conclusion

Right or wrong morally does not matter at this point as it was considered by the Bush Administration as interrogation and legal. Hence. Canadian is simply mistaken when he once again, assumes in that Bush lied when he said that the US does not torture.

Ok. And, seems they had lots of lawful sanctions to work with.

Stupid is believing that the President of the USA should be follow and be loyal to other countries policies rather than his own which is what you are basing your entire argument on. More bandwidth wasting hubris. The parameters which Bush worked under defined this as legal interrogation techniques. Bush and the US government does not operate under your rules, the Red Crosses, Spain's, Canada's or anybody else s other than theirs. No matter how you slice it, how terrible you felt it was, under the definitions along with the scenarios, safety precautions and trained personnel used by the US government at that time, was not torture nor was it illegal.

And of course, he listened to the legal experts rather than give you a call. Oh, and if he was lying to himself, he would have to believe it to be true, which would make it an unintentional mistake rather than a lie as he would be mistakenly uttering what he thought to be true rather than deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

I don't need to declare anything other than that Bush, when president of the US was working under US laws and definitions of the time rather than your personal views or, laws of other countries. Hence, he did not lie.

I want to see the photos of the bodies coming out of Dover and then, the memos which tell us what intelligence was gained from waterboarding Kalid Shiek Mohammed.