Hee hee hee…
Aside from perhaps Jimmy Carter, I don’t think there’s a President in our history who would not have agreed to the torture of certain people if he believed it was necessary to defend this country. That most certainly includes John Kennedy. In fact, it wasn’t until 1976 that President Gerald Ford—“responding to the scandal that resulted when the press revealed CIA involvement in several assassinations—issued Executive Order 11905. This order prohibited what it called “political assassination” and essentially reaffirmed an often-overlooked ban that Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms had adopted for the CIA four years earlier.” (Bruce Berkowitz) (emphasis mine)
We can have a healthy debate about the morality of assassination and torture, but know that George W. Bush was hardly the first President to use dubious methods to, in his mind, fulfill his duties as commander-in-chief and protect his country. The sad truth is that sometimes leaders have to make crappy calls from equally crappy choices. That’s the nature of the job and that’s why I wouldn’t want to walk in his shoes for one minute. FTR, I don’t believe George W. Bush is any more or less evil than the other Presidents who did what they thought was best. Misguided? I’ll give that to you. But evil? No.
Compare that to Ted Kennedy. What possible excuse could he have for leaving that woman in a submerged car all night after he drove it off the bridge? What possible excuse could he have for walking past houses and not pounding on those doors to ask for help? What possible excuse could he have for going to his hotel room and waiting to call the police until the next day?
I tell you what, I can think of a lot of excuses: perhaps he was drunk and didn’t want to stigma of a manslaughter charge; perhaps he was hoping that he could convince someone else to pretend that they were driving so it wouldn’t tarnish his run for President; perhaps he had raped her and didn’t want her alive to testify. We’ll never know what his reasons were. But I can tell you with 100% assurety that I can’t think of a single reason that has to do with national security. The only person Senator Kennedy was out to protect that night was Senator Kennedy. That is difference and it is profound.
Squink, I don’t know where you stole that soapbox from (I’m guessing the Super WalMart wants it back), but could you please post something that has relevance to the OP?
I already have Monkey. Quit whining cause you don’t like it.
And I stopped automatically believing in “national security” as a reasonable explanation for vile conduct when I sat in the National Archives and listened to part of the Nixon Oval Office tapes that he had tried to suppress for reasons of “national security.”
Prisoners are held without being charged, much less convicted, and without access to attorneys. They attempt mass suicides. Prisoners are held in Iraq and are not charged or tried or convicted. Some are tortured. Who knows how many? Some of them die. Some disappear into other countries that allow extreme torture.
All of these people have families. They may or may not have done something wrong. They may be innocent. Can you imagine if that were your husband or your son or your father? What if soldiers just came into your house in the middle of the night and took him? Do you think that Iraqi families suffer any less that white New England families?
What if you were the only American being protected by this torture? Would you ask the President not to do it anymore? Would you say, “Not in my name, Mr. President”? This is a serious question, respectfully submitted to you.
Did you see how Rumsfeld tried to grab himself a little piece of America’s high values today by claiming he tried to resign over abu Ghraib (twice!), and the president wouldn’t let him?
I bet those putative letters of resignation ended up “in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I give up, this thread is hopeless. Notice how ralph124c hasn’t responded to the comments in his thread?
It’s cause you highjacked it.
Later.
Well if having interrogators at Guantanamo smear fake menstrual blood on prisoner’s faces helps you sleep at night, I can’t say much for the values of you or your fellow countrymen.
Really? I thought it was because he had nothing whatsoever to support his claim.
Yeah, let’s make sure we apply that standard to others, like all those ‘I-dodged-Viet-Nam-and-yet-bitch-about-other-people’s-service’ chickenhawks. Then there’s all those family-values Republicans trying to impeach a president over lying about blowjob but applauding lying over a war.
My favorite is all these combat-avoiding chickenhawks saying women don’t belong in battle. Well, hey, why don’t you try talking to a woman and combat vet and then shut the fuck up? (To the chickenhawks.)
Oh, well- when you put it that way, beating that dead horse over and over again suddenly becomes completely valid.
Maybe he figured Mary Jo Kopechne was a Potential Terrorist. How do any of us know whether or not she might have joined a terrorist group if she hadn’t died? Sure there was no evidence of this; but can you prove Kennedy didn’t think it was true at the time? We’ve now established the precedent that it’s not necessary for a person or group to actually take any criminal action to be judged dangerous; they just have to be theoretically capable of performing a criminal action in the future. And Ted Kennedy was re-elected, so he was judged by the voters and should no longer be held accountable.
Absolutely. Note that we can now disregard anything Bush says for being a drunk, a drug addict, a chicken-hawk deserter and a war criminal. Works for me.
In fact, his reelection proves that he had a mandate to go on drowning potential terrorists.
In our imaginations, we are all heroes who would take the higher moral ground. In reality, for every Schindler or Rusesabagina, there are a thousand people who fall far short of that ideal. Falling short of the ideal does not make one evil, but rather it makes us human.
Harry Truman made the decision to commit the most horrifically violent act the United States has ever committed against another nation when he gave the green light to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of innocent people, including women and children who had no grudge against us, died and would continue to die as a result of the radiation poisoning. Yet I don’t believe Truman was an evil man. Do you?
You want a little cheese with that baloney?
Other than the “making war against us” part, of course.
Woosh.
You could have just typed “Blaggle orgle goop.” That would have made just as much sense.
Here, let me try something:
Why are you bothering us, then? Go play with it!
Re: Chappaquiddick and waterboarding
I’ve come to the conclusion that the leaders in our government should avoid water at all costs. How long will it be until we take a stand against dihydrogen oxide?
PunditLisa, your argument is basically “The ends justify the means,” and “Everyone else does it, so it must be okay.” The latter is juvenile. The former is psychotic.