They weren’t looking into it, they were “looking into it” and apparently shining Bush on and keeping him in the dark. Rummy admitted that he never even looked at the pictures before this story broke so he couldn’t have been looking very hard.
It seems that an awful lot of people who would know are telling Sy Hersh that it’s true. Are they all lying?
And if the DefSec is approving torture that’s a problem for the whole administration. If it’s true, and the president doesn’t fire him, then it’s fair to say the prez condones it, is it not?
“looking into it” is what you SAY you are doing when you are caught with your hand on your dick and the remote control in the other…
you aren’t looking into anything, ya’ feel me?
The remarks by Powell are important because gthey cut off the deniability that Rumsfeld had provided (not for nothing, he got the pentagon visit, etc in return). explicitely DENYING informing W about any of this shit.
The special access program, which is not denied vis-a-vis 100 afghan war related subjects, is only controversial insofar as its application to iraq.
ie, they have admittedly condoned torture of al quaeda related subjects, theonly issue now is what slopped over to Graibgate.
The administration shut out Colin Powell, while feeding him BS for him to recite, and this is what they get: a mess for Colin to clean up like a janitor. But the janitor isn’t smiling. He isn’t smiling.
Then (if true) Rummy was certainly at fault for deleriction of duty. Doesn’t by any means mean ‘the Administration condoned torture’ though. Its also yet to be proven conclusively either. So far all I’ve seen is hints it MIGHT be true…not proof it IS true.
Can you name any of these sources? Last I read (admittedly it was at the beginning of the week so things may have changed) by Hersh, he hadn’t named any of his sources at all. So, how do I know how many there are, or whether they are lieing or not? How do YOU know? How do we even know there ARE multiple sources, or that they are reliable?
All we have (afaik) is Hersh’s story. If there is more data on this, then I’m unaware of it…bring it out like I asked you before. I’m willing to keep an open mind and read through it. But don’t TELL me that ‘Bush’s Administration condoned torture’ based on this uncorroborated ‘evidence’. Its too outrageous of an accusation for that. I need a bit stronger evidence to be convinced that ANY US administration would ‘condone torture’.
And if its true, I promise you a scathing XT special with extra vitriol aimed at Rummy. So far, I’ve not seen conclusive proof. You take Hersh’s word for it…I want more. Maybe when he starts releasing his sources and we get independant confirmation (perhaps this has already happened and I missed it?).
When did this thread get transfered to the pit? Let me walk YOU though this…slowly. If you want to blather on with your partisan crap, thats your affair. Talking slowly or fast is going to make no difference…you simply sound like one of those stereotypical American morons speaking slowing in English so some furriner will understand them. If you have REAL evidence, then present it…otherwise you can take your ‘walk you through this, slowly’ and shove it up your… :eek:
Or, conversely it could simply mean they were looking into it. Fancy that. Of course, its all in how you interperet things I suppose. Perhaps they really DIDN’T look into it…perhaps Rummy or others really DID ‘condone torture’. Then again, perhaps not. I don’t know, because no solid evidence has yet been presented.
Am I talking slow enough for you to get this through your partisan skull? P R E S E N T M E W I T H S O M E S O L I D E V I D E N C E. Hows that? Don’t show me a story with protected sources by Hersh…show me some independant verification by some cite that doesn’t have Bush Is The Anti-Christ on its banner. Can you do that? Fine, do it then. If not…well, I already give my opinion on what you should do.
You’re talking legality, I’m talking morality. You must be a lawyer.
Oh, I know. And it’s a damn shame, too. To reiterate a favorite quote of mine, from a favorite author of mine,
Other people may have suspected Saddam of having WMDs (despite the repeated analysis of the inspectors who said he didn’t), but Bush was the only one who inflated a minor possibility into an imminent threat, one that required a military response.
No, he and his followers simply think that you are stupid enough to believe him. The fact that you still insist he wasn’t lying shows how well you’ve bought into the con job.
It’s rather simple – Either Bush is gullible enough to believe WMDs exist when there weren’t any (your hypothesis), or he’s arrogant enough to believe he could snowball the American public with a load of shit to justify the war (my hypothesis). And frankly, neither option is particularly flattering to the guy.
Of course it would. Facts is facts, truth is truth. And the truth remains that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, while the Administration kept insisting he did.