[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
Does it damn well matter?
These acts were perpetrated while he was Commander-in-Chief. If he refuses to take responsibility for what is done under his watch, he is scum, pure and simple.
Where does the buck stop, if not the President? A general overseeing? A lieutenant? A captain? I blame those who committed acts of torture, but I also blame the atmosphere and environment. Even decent people will follow orders./QUOTE]
OK. I work for Bobcat Corp. If someone in a satellite factory doesn’t make a weld right, and the skid-steer fails under normal working conditions severly injuring or killing the worker, is the CEO responsible? I know that legally he’ll answer to the lawsuit, but he can’t possibly be held responsible for every action (weld) performed by the rest of the company.
Think of it that way and you may understand why I won’t hold a President responsible for individual acts. If I did, I’d have to hold Clinton acountable for blowing up a janitor in an aspirin factory in the Sudan.
Forgot that part in my previous post. Good call. Could it be that bush-hatred (copyright, trademark, all rights reserved) is so fervent that anything negative is taken as fact? And I thought the Dems had a good case when they complained of hyperbolic anti-Clinton complaints. :rolleyes:
That’s how it works in the civilian world, not in the military. As Commander in Chief, I hold him responsible for the successes and failures of our military. It is incumbent upon him to put people in the proper places to do what they must. If he decided to hire cheap contractors and turn an officially blind eye to torture – or if he hired people who did that – he is accountable for their actions.
Bush is absolutely evil. His war has killed tens of thousands, his environmental policies will kill tens of thousands, and his steadfast opposition to delivering condoms and sex education to the third world will kill tens of thousands more. His financial policies have bankrupted the treasury, and will result in death and starvation for tens of thousands more if (when?) the dollar collapses.
He claims to be a deeply religious man, a Christian, yet nothing he does affirms goodness or decency. His lies and treachery know no bounds. If you support him, you’re a moron. An evil moron.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Diogenes, we have a winner! If we complain about this stuff, we’re not SUPPORTING THE TROOPS!
I support the troops. I support the troops so much I hate that they’re in an environment where they are getting hurt and killed, and where some of them are doing things that make the entire military and my country look bad (not to mention all the torturing itself).
Not me. I think he’s too stupid to be evil. I think the men behind him are evil though.
In this thread? Where? Is this the “deflect the attention” part?
Are you so anxious to shift blame from the President that you’ll call anything said against him lies?
Good God, I hope this isn’t true. I might bake the man a cake if it isn’t. But when you look at the pictures of what actually DID happen, it’s not so hard to conceive of worse. After all, have YOU seen proof of Hussein’s torture chambers? Their survivors could be lying, after all.
Nagging thoughts. One, all that previous talk about there being “something worse” which hadn’t been revealed yet. (Rummy, yes?) Something actually worse than the Abu Ghraib stuff.
Second, Seymour Hersh. Very lefty reporter, true, but one who guards his credibility with zealous care. If Mr. Hersh tells you an ant is going to haul a bale of hay into your living room, you better move the coffee table.
Lastly, the silence from the Bushiviks. If this story were provably false, they would be falling all over themselves in the rush to refute it and shove it right up Mr. Hersh’s butt. They would be all over the airwaves, pissing and moaning about how badly they have been slandered.
But they aren’t. And I don’t think its because they are in shock about the whole Martha Stewart thing.
This would be humorous if it weren’t so stupid. I’ll jump around you post as I see fit. I’m an evil moron? What are you, 12 years old? The best you can come up with is name-calling? I guess I’m put in my place. :wally Don’t help the liberals on this board, you’re only hurting them.
His war killed tens of thousands? Check the votes in the Senate on use of force. I’m pretty sure you’ll be surprised as your statement has nothing to do with what actually happened in D.C.
Environmental policies will kill tens of thousands? Again, the enviros do not need your help. Now, can you provide a valid cite? Oh, is it just conjecture? Doesn’t count here, sorry.
With the financial policies, he still has Allan Greespan in charge of the Treasury. Remember him? He was the one greatly credited with the economic growth under Clinton. Greenspan is still there. Or do you expect world economies to never fluctuate? Either way, Greenspan is there.
Any chance you can show us all how the Treasury is bankrupt? Better yet, show us all how tens of thousands are going to starve because of it. While you’re at it, come up with at least a conspiracy theorist’s website that shows the US Dollar becoming worthless while the rest the of world keeps their currency at current value.
As far as condoms, I assume you’re referring to AIDS help.
I think we all support the troops. That wasn’t the point. And if you thought it was, you need to read my posts a little more carefully. The point was, Bush didn’t do anything to the prisoners. While he was authorized by the Senate to send troops, the few troops involved in these disgusting acts were acting on their own. Do you honestly think Bush called Lynndie and said, “Hey, Why not strip him and take pictures?”
Again, there are over 100k soldiers in Iraq alone. If anyone thinks Bush knows what each and everyone are doing, you have a little to learn. Where is the anger towards the commanding officers? That’s where the fury should be directed. Pause your hatred to for Bush a moment and you might see this.
I think Diogenes was using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate a point - that is, at what point will those who steadfastly support Bush begin to see a pattern of mendacity and/or incompetence? If not a pattern of mendacity/incomptence, at what point will people be willing to hold Bush (as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) to some level of responsibility (or at the very least accountability) for what’s happening in Iraq?
Or someone else affilated with the military, such as CIA/civilian intelligence interogators. But think about what you just wrote - if true, why would somebody actually go to the trouble of videotaping the rape of children? I agree that war can be ugly, and truly horrific things can take place. I’ve no doubt that similar things have been done either by Americans or with tacit approval and knowledge by Americans. But we will never truly know for certain, because they didn’t take photographs or videotape.
Sheer nonsense - the majority of these types of threads in no way indict the majority of those serving in our Armed Forces, especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a vetern, I strongly disagree with your claim that criticizing the President equates to indicting those who serve in the Armed Forces. It’s like saying that to critize Kay, Skilling, and the other executives at Enron for its collapse is an indictment of the majority of its employees. Furthermore, as Commander in Chief, the President does bear some responsibilty for what happens under his command. If bad things happen under his command, it reflects poorly on his ability as a leader. And, as the saying goes in the military “preception is reality.”
What many of these threads are illustrating is, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President of the United States bears, at the very least some responsibility for the actions of those under his command. What has happened at Abu Ghraib (and other prisons in Iraq and elsewhere) wasn’t soley the acts of a “few bad apples”. Those acts represent a systematic failure of command at best, and willful disregard for American and international law (along with well established military regulations/procedures) at worst.
No, I do not think Bush is truly evil. But I think. at the very least, he is complicit in setting in motion the conditions for allowing evil to occur. Maybe I’m being too harsh; after all, I suppose one could argue that everyone at some point in their lives have done things that have allowed evil to occur. But I think being President of the US pushes the level of accountability/responsibility much higher than the rest of us. In other words, the President has much more power to affect things than the average citizen. I hate to be cheesy, but if you’ve seen Spiderman you’ll understand what’s meant by (paraphrase) “with great power comes great responsibility.”
I don’t think one man has the power to destroy the US, either. But when that man (or woman) is the President of the United States (the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth), it’s much easier for that man (or woman) to start us down a path towards which we may never recover.
An excellent rebuttal, though it wasn’t enough to change my position. Some counterpoints, if you’ll read through.
Concerning the point of service-men and -women being under wholesale indictment on these boards for political opinion in regards to Bush, you, respectfully, are wrong. I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I can pull up a bunch of threads and posts where people blame the army (usually confused with armed forces) as a whole when tying them into whatever Bush rant they have at the moment.
As Commander in Chief, he most definately has a role in how the military is used. As does the Senate. (I have to keep mentioning that since so many here forget that pesky fact)
Under the President, you have the Lead Officers of each military branch Under them are the various Generals and Admirals. Below them are Division and Squadron Leaders. And so on and so forth. The point is, there is a very strictly structured chain of command. As I’ve seen from my father (officer in Army) everyone answers to someone above them, up to the President.
The chain from corporals in an Iraqi prison up to the President of the US is so far removed it’s rediculous to hold the POTUS accountable for what a squad does. Again, the one we should be after is the commanding officer of the prison. Anyone who thinks Bush (not shrub DtC ) is home jerking off to the pictures is clouded by hatred. No, he’s not an idiot. He may actually want to be remembered as a good president. Not liked, mind you. Leaders don’t care about opinion, they want to get the job done. And the legacy is what the country is like years after they leave office. Hell, I have a visceral hatred for Clinton as a person, but he did a decent job while serving.
And just so I don’t go out on a pro-Clinton statement, let me remind you all that there are more than a few officers in all branches of the military that were commissioned under Clinton, and are leading the war in Iraq. Oh, and Afghanistan. It’s a forgotten war around here.
all i had to see it plastic.com. The site is run by a guy who is pretty much insane. He’s sane enough to keep his site up, i guess, but check out the history of the guy. he’s nuts.
Doesn’t matter. He got it from elsewhere. Seymour Hersh is writing (another) article about Abu Ghraib for The New Yorker magazine. More details will be in that article, which he’s researching now. Hersh gave a speech to the ACLU mentioning the rapes and that’s where these articles are coming from. http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2004/07/14.html (includes link to video of Seymour Hersh’s speech)
Considering that the former head of one of my client companies is currently in jail for faulty products produced under his watch, my perspective may be a bit different.
Any company employing thousands of people has to accept that even if ever person is highly trained and concienscous of the quality of their work, mistakes are still going to happen and things are going to go wrong. Anticipating this, comapnies are supposed to take measures to minimize the possibility of these accidents, minimize the danger when the accidents eventually occur, and maintain transparency and accountability with regard to inspecting for safety and ensuring that the proper rules are being followed. If all these measures are taken, and someone is killed in an accident that couldn’t be reasonably foreseen, then your statement is correct. The CEO will probably bear financial responsibility, but no, he’s not ‘responsible’ for the accident.
On the other hand, an accident may occur because safety measures were neglected, because inspectors were silenced or ignored, or because they were actively neglectful in thier duties. Known faults in the system may have been actively kept quiet because reporting them would have looked bad and fixing them would have detracted from the companies goals. Direct orders may or may not have been given, but it was made clear from the upper levels that people who go along will be rewarded, while people who ‘make trouble’ will be harrassed, kicked out, and possibly publicly disgraced. In this case, the accidents are the result of a system that deliberately ignores warnings, conceals mistakes, and instructs employees that they will be rewarded for behaving illegally. In this case, the CEO is very much responsible for the accident.
The above scenario is exactly why the former CEO of my client is behind bars right now, and I believe it to be an accurate picture of the current administration’s responsibility regarding Abu Ghraib and other atrocities.
As for being evil, I think Bush is arrogant, incompetent and self-righteous, which can be much more dangerous.
Well, I don’t think we can automatically blame the CiC for everything - even if you do the best you can, there might be one nutjob who manages to get into the army and does something terrible. But, if, for instance, it was widely understood that captured people would be held, abused, and detained without any sort of process, that decision has been made somewhere high up. I think that’s the question under consideration. For instance, if a soldier heard something about a prisoner being abused by other soldiers would he think “By godfathers! The general will be shocked that these soldiers, while so brave under fire, have mistakenly assumed all Iraqis are enemies; I must tell him immediately so he can correct this grevious mistake.” or “They’re all ragheads. It’s a shame, but to save American lives we’re expect to do everything we can. Who could I tell?”
Basically. my standard of responsibility was, “was this an unforessen even that simply happened under the CIC (or CEO)'s watch (the ‘madman general’ scenario) or was a systemic culture created in which illegal or unethical behavior was considered normal or even encouraged and rewarded?”