“You’re doing a great job, Brownie.”
I’m sure that Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, Lewis Libby, etc., would like to have a discussion with you on what happens when people make President Bush look bad. Rumsfeld still has the job because he’s better at taking the heat than the others.
…vast majority of the truly fanatic Bush-haters, who do not concern themselves with evidence and prefer accusation.
Regards,
Shodan
And here we have confirmation of my theory - confirmation bias. Really man, I know this thread is only about belief and public opinion, but you’re stretching it. You’re injecting personal experience into a situation where it may or may not apply. And you have no way of knowing.
Why’d you omit the other question? The one explicit in the thread title? I think that’s the one that’s more important. And also the one that is more properly being addressed by the people in this thread. After all, the question in the title is a pretty good GD topic. The one you quote, ain’t.
No, hang on a second, there: let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we did get independent verification. Wouldn’t it still leave us with nothing concrete? Bush knows what he’s doing: he doesn’t give an order, he just asks a couple of questions in the course of the same discussion – and then, well, someone displays initiative. And all we have is that guy’s interpretation.
To quote your later post, “You’re injecting personal experience into a situation where it may or may not apply. And you have no way of knowing.” Damn straight, and let me add to what Voyager said: I once had a boss who owned an apartment building and wanted me to review the applicants for an open spot. She spoke with peculiar emphasis while making clear that she didn’t want anyone disruptive, like assorted black tenants she’d had trouble with in the past – and while repeatedly mentioning how much better things were with the current white tenants. Either I understood what she was implying, or I inferred something she wasn’t – but the point was, she hadn’t said anything explicit.
I mean, look, Beer, what’s your interpretation of that scene in Spies Like Us?
Chevy Chase: “Uh, will you hold my wallet for me while I take the test, please? There’s a thousand dollars in there. Or maybe there isn’t. Know what I mean?”
Frank Oz: *“Are you saying I can take this money if I help you pass the test?” *
Chevy Chase: “What do you think?”
You mean the effort to find a way to whitewash it, before the release made that impossible? Sure reminds me of the Army’s initial whitewash of the My Lai murders, an effort led by a certain Maj. Colin Powell btw, before publicity made *that * impossible too.
Airman: So some officers will never be promoted again? Boo frickin’ hoo. Tell that to the guys who got shocked and waterboarded, or the families of the dead ones.
You have an alternative, non-torture meaning of “harsh methods” to propose to us, I trust? :dubious:
Congratulations, it worked. Not that there was any doubt.
Well put, Dick Tracy. I said much the same thing in my very first post in this thread. Except that I don’t believe Bush went anywhere near this thing; he’s got people around him to do the shit work - in this instance people like Cheney and/or Rumsfeld. And then Gonzalez to do the honeydipping with his little memo.
Don’t confuse my concerns with the quality of the evidence for a denial of the thesis. They are two entirely separate things.
Man, if you’re going to snark, at least try to cite yourself correctly.
That didn’t have anything to do with my responses in this thread, and it was a pathetic cheap shot.
You think it didn’t have anything to do with your discussion of an officer’s responsibilities when given an unlawful direct order, or not to act unlawfully in the absence of such a direct order? Really?
Pick which one they should be court-martialed for, and “none” is not an option. Just don’t stop there; go up the chain until you find the source of such authorization, if you pick the unlawful-order route.
No, it didn’t. Your appeal to emotion was irrelevant. I never once addressed the victims of the torture, you don’t have any idea what I think about that (although you should by now). I was responding specifically to the assertions that no officers are paying any sort of penalty. They are. Perhaps not the one that they may have earned, but they’re paying nonetheless.
Sorry. Second post. 
It would seem that Airman actually addressed that issue in the part of his post you did not quote:
I see no evidence that he condones the situation. He made a specific point that hearsay evidence was not going to accomplish your goal of a judicial conviction. Failing the paper trail evidence, he noted that every officer tainted by this rumors of complicity have already lost their careers. It may not be enough, but it is what is available under a rule of law.
No, I mean the investigation. If you some evidence for your hypothesis, let’s see it.
“My” goal? There is no benefit, and certainly no need for you to personalize your comments on this matter, is there?
If you’ll read what I actually posted, that is the point I initially questioned - the implication, possibly incorrectly inferred, that that IS enough. The irony of US personnel having the protection of the rule of law that this administration denies to those in its custody should also be apparent.
John, obviously there would not be public evidence of that, and certainly not enough to convince an inveterate gadfly. But use your common sense, for one; your knowledge of how this administration has conducted similar “investigations”, for another; and the duration of the time actually required for an “investigator” to go visit and ask questions compared to the time actually required for a scandal to blow over, and the time this “investigation” had actually taken, for another. Be reasonable.
Your outrage is expressed with great candor, but I have trouble imagining them actually pulling pud to atrocities (unless hypothetical hot Laura-on-Lynne lesbian action would fit your definition of an “atrocity” :p).
I can, however, imagine them viewing the Abu Ghraib tapes and pics with a mixture of revulsion and righteous resolve that God’s will is being done, and that America must stay her course. Which is just as chilling, in a way.
Are you calling me a “gadfly”? I don’t know any other way to parse that statement. But it’s not “obvious” to me that there would be no public evidence. What’s “obviouis” is that you’re trying to dance around the fact that you’re just talking out of your ass.
I was responding to the factually incorrect statement from BobLibDem. If you have other facts that contrdict mine, let’s see them. Your opinion isn’t worth shit.
I don’t consider it “reasonable” that our military is so corrupt that it would brush under the rug the attrocities committed at Abu Ghraib. Again, if you have evidence that such was happening, let’s see it. Further, the timeline frrom my earlier cite rebutts your ill-informed opinion:
So, the process of prosecuting military personnel was well underway before the full story broke on 60 Minutes in April, but note that the military itself issued a press release in January.
Facts, Elvis, facts. Remember that we’re in GD, not IMHO.
Reasonable people may argue about the thoroughness and effectiveness of those investigations. I stated earlier that I was suspicious that no officers were invloved, and found that hard to believe. However, the military most clearly was investingating the abuses and intended to prosecute those directly involved with or without the media spotlight on them.
You forget that we do know that Bush chewed out Tenet for a similar infraction. Forget about me - do you really think high level leaders are satisfied with subordinates who need explicit instructions? If the information in the site is true, then there is good reason to believe that Bush effectively authorized any means necessary to get the information.
I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that there are worse atrocities in history for which explicit orders from the top have never been found. This doesn’t eliminate the culpability of those at the top for them.
Powell was already off the sled. Libby had been indicted - he was already half in the wolves’ mouths. Switching cabinet secretaries at 4 years is not throwing to the wolves. Not toeing the party line does get you kicked out.
Taking the heat is not a reason for someone to keep his job when he screws up. Loyalty to Rummy over loyalty to the armed services or the country is more like it.
As Edwin Edwards said, to get fired in this Administration you need to do the political equivalent of being caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.
And we’re off …
You don’t know it to be factually incorrect.
Did you forget *who * committed them?