Who Do You Trust - the Generals or Rush and the D1ck?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
May 27, 2009 12:35am CST
Here is what the chief of U.S. Central Command General David Patraeus said on Radio Free Europe on Sunday:
"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines. With respect to Guantanamo I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice--I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary--again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/26/gen-patraeus-close-gitmo-end-torture/
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on Face the Nation on Sunday and it seems he also disagrees with the D1ck Cheney and Limbaugh about Gitmo. You can read the transcript of his interview here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_052409.pdf
The D1ck had said he'd take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell; I'd assume he'd also take Rush over General Patraeus.
What do you think?
Annie
8 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
27 May 09
It seems to me that Sectary of State Clinton said it would take a large stretch of imagination to believe what he said. Remember General BETRAIUS? If you read the Geneva Conventions (all four of them) and the UN Resolutions on the subject you will see that we did nothing wrong in the way we treated the Illegal Enemy Combatants. We have seen the memos outlining what was done but what is the Administration hiding by not releasing the memos that tell us how many times were the enhanced integrations used and what were the results. Don't we have a right to know?
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
28 May 09
That is very interesting but how come the other memos were released? An Executive Order did not stop President Obama from releasing the other memos. All he has to do is rescind the Executive Order. What is he afraid the memos will show - that the methods worked.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 May 09
I guess you'll have to ask George W. Bush if we have the right to know because it was his executive order from 2003 keeping the memos Cheney has requested from being released.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-cia-denying-cheneys-request-for-torture-intel/
Do you REALLY think for one second he didn't know that from the moment he publicly stated he'd requested them to be declassified?
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
29 May 09
"As you are aware, a request for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended, which was signed and executed by the President on March 25, 2003. Under section 3.5.(a)(3) of that Executive Order, a document is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review if that document contains information that is the subject of pending litigation. This provision ensures that the Mandatory Declassification Review process is not used to disrupt simultaneous litigation proceedings that are already pending. In researching the information in question, we have discovered that it is currently the subject of pending FOIA litigation (Bloche v. Department of Defense, Amnesty International v. Central Intelligence Agency). Therefore, the requested document, which contains this information, is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review."
I think that the argument that "if it worked it was OK" is an immoral one. It really shouldn't matter if the torture worked, it's still torture and should be beneath us.
Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 May 09
What does it matter to you? You and your ilk already called Gen. Patraeus a liar, even before he spoke.
He has a right to his opinion, whether it agrees with Rush or Cheney. You thought he was "Betray Us" until he said something you could throw up in some faces.
The fact remains, only a handful of people were ever waterboarded (unlike how the incompetent press and losers like Pelosi and Reid made it out). The waterboading was APPROVED of using the normal checks and balances of our Federal Government, and even if the detention center at GITMO is closed, all those who call for it closing will still demand the detainees get put in yet another prison with little or no rights to a trial.
In short, very little of what the left whined about since the detainees were first taken will change in the least... and the left really doesn't want it to.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 May 09
When have I ever called Patraeus a liar? I have NOT!
I brought this up because I find it interesting that the two men the GOP had always claimed to have the utmost respect for are now out of favor with the "party heads" Cheney and Limbaugh, neither of whom ever had the ba11s to serve in the military. About the "handful of people" who were ever waterboarded, since when is something not wrong if it was only used a few times?
Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 May 09
When it wasn't wrong in the first place.
Do you realize how many US servicemembers have been waterboarded?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 May 09
Btw, I do have a lot of respect for Colin Powell, but if it wasn't for his wishy washiness back in 1991, none of this would be in question today.
We were ready, willing and able to go through Baghdad back in 1991. Gen. Schwarzkopt was set and ready to tell Hussein that if he didn't surrender, we would roll through his palaces and take him out entirely...
Gen. Powell stopped all that in favor of a Ceasefire Agreement. Nothing good has ever come from a ceasefire agreement. They only prolong the blood and horror of war.
He has accomplished a lot, and I'm sure he will accomplish more great things before he's done. But he will be forever shamed by his lack of honor in 1991.
1 person likes this
@Bluepatch (2476)
• Trinidad And Tobago
27 May 09
I really don't understand what the big delay is in stopping the abuses. All it takes is the orders. Why doesn't somebody just make them ? There is this ongoing mess of debates over the abuses when all it takes is the right orders to the right people. And if they have indeed stopped just fire or arrest those you have evidence against. Its kind of simple. Why the debate ?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
29 May 09
We've reportedly stopped it quite some time ago but now it seems everyone involved has a different story about it. I'm afraid there will be no arrests because those responsible were too powerful to be held accountable. I'm very sorry to say that but I'm afraid it's true! The "grunts" from abu-Graib were far enough down on the totem pole to take the fall for those abuses and that's probably the only ones we'll ever see punished.
Annie
@jerzgirl (9233)
• United States
28 May 09
Have you ever read Animal Farm? Remember the pigs who ended up taking over and how their rhetoric was so antithetical to the realities the other animals could see as well as the original positions held by the pigs? It started out nice - everyone equal, but eventually they came to believe that "some are more equal than others". The power and the plushness thereof were too seductive. They continued to spew their version of truth because they eventually came to believe it themselves. I believe we are living out many of the details of that book. Although it was about a different time and place in history, there are those who obviously didn't learn from history and are doomed to try their best to repeat it, all the while believing it's a brand new idea. Hogwash!! Only the technology has changed. The crap is still crap - it just kills more and faster.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 May 09
ummmmmm lets see.. my choices are
the generals who will follow the line of the commander in chief so as to not hurt their careers. The followed bush when did the whole gitmo water torturing thing without speaking out or batting an eye. Now that Obama wants to close it they are with him. They basically follow whoever is commander in chief at the time and whatever his policy is on it.
Rush who is a shock jock entertainer. Not a politican or an authority on anything in my opinion. His stance is easy to explain....if Obama is for it he is against it and if Obama is against it he is for it. Where is the rational thought in that?
Then there is Cheney. Probly one of hte most untrustworthy politicans I have ever seen in my life. Few politicans actually give me the creeps and he is one of them.
I respect Colin Powell. But once again we run into agenda issues.
Do I get another choice? I do not see a good one here. How about None of the above.
or how about one that does have alliance issues (unbiased).
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 May 09
well after the way cheney and bush hung him out to dry about Iraq and then asked him to resign for having the aduity to disagree with them...ya I would say he has an agenda.
I don't blame him.
1 person likes this
@ufmobilehz (36)
• China
27 May 09
In fact,I didn't trust them anybody,the war of Iraq is illegal,all facts have provide this now,some people have been lying always,the war of Iraq is a disaster?
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
28 May 09
If you understand history and the first Iraq War which was approved by the UN you would know that the first war stopped with a Cease Fire and any violation of the Cease Fire would allow the other side to resume the war. Iraq had at least 17 violations and the US was justified in resuming the war against them. The intelligence that they acted on was the same intelligence that the other government around the world had, Even his generals thought he had WMDs.
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
27 May 09
I wouldn't believe anything that the D1ck says and certainly wouldn't trust his judgement, he lies just to cover up his blunders. As far as the other "blabber mouth" goes, he is just a wind bag, full of "you know what".... Amen to that! They sacrificed Collin Powell, fed him full of lies, and made him the "sacrificial lamb" at the United Nations and no republican can deny that fact!
1 person likes this
@elmiko (6630)
• United States
27 May 09
Limbaugh to me doesn't have much credibility as he doesn't have all the knowledge of being in office. Also Limbaugh is a pain killer addict. He could been high making comments on his radio show for who knows how long. I do like some things that Limbaugh says and don't hate him like others might. Cheney was a very active Vice President and had a lot of influence. I've heard at times it seemed like he was president although not officially. Colin Powell did his job in politics very well and don't know of anybody more honest than him and didn't spin things which I wish all politicians did. We need more politicians like Colin Powell. I trust the Generals as well.
1 person likes this
