[RenegadeRick]

So last Friday I was watching Bush's speech and I watched him say this live:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Now, recently you've also --

THE PRESIDENT: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

Q Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is?

THE PRESIDENT: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

So imagine my surprise when I read this article today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=alnt.JSsSjao&refer=asia
U.S. Will Hunt Bin Laden in Pakistan If Necessary, Bush Says
By Ed Johnson and Bill Varner

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. forces hunting Osama bin Laden and other terrorists in Afghanistan will cross into Pakistan if necessary, U.S. President George W. Bush said, as the leaders of the two neighboring countries traded blame over the insurgency.

"We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice,'' Bush said in an interview with Cable News Network yesterday. When asked if he would order U.S. troops into Pakistan to capture or kill bin Laden, if intelligence indicated he was hiding there, Bush responded: "Absolutely.''

The article continues on to quote Musharraf:

Musharraf, who has faced opposition from Islamist groups for supporting the U.S.-led war on terrorism, said his government would oppose any U.S. action in Pakistan.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all,'' he told reporters in New York. "We will do it ourselves.''

Ok, so not only is Bush saying that he will do what he previously said was a bad idea that would not work, his justification was at least partly based on the idea that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and we would need to be invited. It seems pretty clear from Musharraf's statement that we are NOT invited. But Bush will do this anyway? WTF?

I thought the adminstration was saying that:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Was the 9-11 mastermind these days anyhow: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/60II/main524947.shtml, so why go violating the Paki's precious sovereignty?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Why is this surprising? Name one pol that doesn't first lick his finger and hold it to the wind before taking out his prick to piss, even if the alternative is squishy wingtips.

 

[JohnE]

Well, he has done such a great job leading Iraq into democracy, freedom and such, that he can do whatever he wants.
Well done, spoiled rich kid!

Iraq torture may be worse
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 23 minutes ago

GENEVA - Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.

Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."

Nowak added, "That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine."

Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."

"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Nowak told reporters at the U.N.'s European headquarters.

"It's not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias," he said.

A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.

Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq" such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.

Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq and said such a mission would be unfeasible as long as the security situation there remains perilous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan, and other sources.

"You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks," he said. "Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible."

According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.

It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Iraq was a sovereign nation too at one point.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Why is this surprising? Name one pol that doesn't first lick his finger and hold it to the wind before taking out his prick to piss, even if the alternative is squishy wingtips.

But see, Bush isn't one of THOSE politicians. How do I know? Well, he said so himself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060621-6.html
I don't govern by polls, you know. I just do what I think is right.

and again

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html
THE PRESIDENT: Polls? You know, if a President tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a President who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people.

and again

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
THE PRESIDENT: David, my job is to confront big challenges and lead. And I fully understand everybody is not going to agree with my decisions. But the President's job is to do what he thinks is right, and that's what I'm going to continue to do.
...
So I'm just going to keep doing my job. Maybe you can keep focusing on all these focus groups and polls, and all that business. My job is to lead, keep telling the American people what I believe, work to bring people together to achieve a common objective, stand on principle, and that's the way I'm going to lead.

Certainly you aren't suggesting he was lying when he said those things. Maybe he was simply expressing an "alternative" truth.

 

[SofaKingBanned]

are you suggesting that Bush is a bad leader? Cuz you're a little late

As for flip-flopping, it was stupid to accuse Kerry of that and it's not productive to call Bush that either.

Situations change and it's not flip-flopping if new info leads to a different decision.

 

[macko]

Did anyone watch Hugo Chavez speak to the UN yesterday?

I thought he brought an interesting point when mentioning the fact that there was a man who blew up a Cuban plane killing over 70 people who was found guilty and imprisoned in Venezuela. He escaped and is now living in the US who, although has not granted him asylum is not prosecuting him or deporting him to a country that would prosecute him.

That's kind of like ... um ... harboring a terrorist?

Not quite flip-flopping, but most definately hypocritical.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

are you suggesting that Bush is a bad leader? Cuz you're a little late

As for flip-flopping, it was stupid to accuse Kerry of that and it's not productive to call Bush that either.

Situations change and it's not flip-flopping if new info leads to a different decision.

That would apply more to Kerry's "flip-flop" than Bush's latest one. But remember, Bush is the decider. I mean, c'mon, you've got to get at least a little bit of a chuckly out of the brazen hypocrisy.

 

[RenegadeRick]

are you suggesting that Bush is a bad leader? Cuz you're a little late

As for flip-flopping, it was stupid to accuse Kerry of that and it's not productive to call Bush that either.

I agree on both counts. As I recall, that the best the republicans could come up with against Kerry was the flip-flopping. Thought it might be interesting to point out some of the same from their exalted leader. Maybe it's true, but productive? Not a chance.

Situations change and it's not flip-flopping if new info leads to a different decision.

What new info are you referring to? Bush said he wouldn't come if we weren't invited, and we still are not invited. What changed?

 

[llkoolkeg]

But see, Bush isn't one of THOSE politicians. How do I know? Well, he said so himself:

and again

and again

Certainly you aren't suggesting he was lying when he said those things. Maybe he was simply expressing an "alternative" truth.

You preach to the choir, Rick. I hold all politicians in near-equal contempt. My vote has sadly always been focused on choosing the lesser of evils.

 

[ohio]

You preach to the choir, Rick. I hold all politicians in near-equal contempt.

Hmmm. I definitely have a spectrum of contempt, myself.

 

[RenegadeRick]

You preach to the choir, Rick. I hold all politicians in near-equal contempt. My vote has sadly always been focused on choosing the lesser of evils.

It seems that choosing the lesser of evils is still choosing evil.

Can't we do better?

 

[llkoolkeg]

It seems that choosing the lesser of evils is still choosing evil.

Can't we do better?

Most qualified, honest men would not take the job if given them, and those who might be convinced would never be elected. Politics is a filthy, soulless, Machiavellian trade.