Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2010, 08:37:30 AM
-
Go George! :)
Bush on waterboarding: 'Damn right'
November 5, 2010
Washington (CNN) -- Former President George W. Bush has stayed out of politics since he left the White House and, except for his own career, he largely keeps the subject at arm's length in his new memoir, "Decision Points."
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey to air on Tuesday when the book is to be released, Bush said he is "through with politics" and refused to offer an opinion on the 2012 presidential election.
"I am not a political pundit. I'm really not," Bush said. "A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process."
He also passes on commenting on President Obama, saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."
"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," Bush told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics and he doesn't need me criticizing him."
In the 481-page book Bush compliments Obama's political skills during a meeting before the 2008 election as the financial crisis was coming to a head. He also criticizes the performance of his party's nominee, John McCain, in the same meeting.
He criticizes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of his efforts to reform immigration laws in 2006.
Bush takes responsibility for giving the go-ahead for waterboarding terror suspects, which has touched off a new round of criticism of Bush and calls for his prosecution. He says that he did decide not to use two more extreme interrogation methods, but did not disclose what those were.
"CIA experts drew up a list of interrogation techniques. ... At my direction, Department of Justice and CIA lawyers conducted a careful legal review. The enhanced interrogation program complied with the Constitution and all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.
"There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm."
Though Bush confirms that he knew the use of waterboarding would one day become public, and acknowledges that it is "sensitive and controversial," he asserts that "the choice between security and values was real," and expresses firm confidence in his decision. "Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take," he writes.
Bush further declares that the new techniques proved effective, yielding information on al Qaeda's structure and operations, and leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, the logistical planner of the 9/11 attacks who was captured on the first anniversary of 9/11.
And if there were any lingering doubts or conflict about the use of waterboarding, Bush discloses that he received reassurance from an unlikely source: terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.
The former president writes, "His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfill his religious duty, and then cooperate." Bush elaborates that Zubaydah gave him a direct instruction, "'You must do this for all the brothers.'"
Intelligence gleaned from interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and other suspects led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bush writes. During a raid on Mohammed's compound, agents discovered more plans for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Prompted by the discoveries, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding on Mohammed.
Bush exposes his inner thoughts on what led him to reach this decision: "I thought about my meeting with Danny Pearl's widow, who was pregnant with his son when he was murdered. I thought about the 2,971 people stolen from their families by al Qaeda on 9/11. And I thought about my duty to protect my country from another act of terror.
'Damn right,' I said."
. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/index.html
-
I never had a problem with waterboarding.
-
I was torn, but reading his comments, I can't really argue with his thought process.
-
The more I learn about him, the more I like him. He really got a bad rap in many respects where the MSM went out of its way to portray him in a negative fashion. No doubt he fucked up plenty of times-- but what president doesn't?
He also has a lot of class for not frying Obama when most of the country would agree with him and for keeping his mouth shut about 2012.
-
The more I learn about him, the more I like him. He really got a bad rap in many respects where the MSM went out of its way to portray him in a negative fashion. No doubt he fucked up plenty of times-- but what president doesn't?
He also has a lot of class for not frying Obama when most of the country would agree with him and for keeping his mouth shut about 2012.
Agree.
-
He also passes on commenting on President Obama, saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."
________________________ ___________________
Class.
Now contrast that with the 24/7 blame Bush nonsense we got from Barry.
-
yep, i agree!
lets sink to the level of third world countries around the world and torture the piss out of people!
hell, with the patriot act many of us innocents who don't follow the party line may end up getting our balls electrocuted.
-
yep, i agree!
lets sink to the level of third world countries around the world and torture the piss out of people!
hell, with the patriot act many of us innocents who don't follow the party line may end up getting our balls electrocuted.
::) ::) ::) ::)
So, obviously 3,000 dead was not enough, how many, maybe 10k, 20k, or maybe the 200k Ramsi Yusef wanted dead in the 93 bombing?
-
::) ::) ::) ::)
So, obviously 3,000 dead was not enough, how many, maybe 10k, 20k, or maybe the 200k Ramsi Yusef wanted dead in the 93 bombing?
were giving the cia free rein to water board innocent iraqis (who haven't even been charged with a crime) because some saudis (with the help of our government) attacked us on 9/11?
sounds like some shit stalin would pull...
maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I always admired fair minded, honorable men like George Washington. Not worthless traitors like Bush.
-
were giving the cia free rein to water board innocent iraqis (who haven't even been charged with a crime) because some saudis (with the help of our government) attacked us on 9/11?
sounds like some shit stalin would pull...
maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I always admired fair minded, honorable men like George Washington. Not worthless traitors like Bush.
::)
Yeah, pouring water over someones head is the same as a bullet in teh head, got it.
-
July 22, 2010
Addicted to Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we’re in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back. And many in the news media played along, acting as if it was somehow uncouth for Democrats even to mention the Bush era and its legacy.
The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.
But they have a problem: how can they embrace President Bush’s policies, given his record? After all, Mr. Bush’s two signature initiatives were tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq; both, in the eyes of the public, were abject failures. Tax cuts never yielded the promised prosperity, but along with other policies — especially the unfunded war in Iraq — they converted a budget surplus into a persistent deficit. Meanwhile, the W.M.D. we invaded Iraq to eliminate turned out not to exist, and by 2008 a majority of the public believed not just that the invasion was a mistake but that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. What’s a Republican to do?
You know the answer. There’s now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush’s image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war.
On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I’ve been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that’s what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama’s fault. “The last year of the Bush administration,” said Mr. McConnell recently, “the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”
But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 — which wasn’t the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers — on Mr. Bush’s watch — was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse. This collapse caused the deficit to soar: By the first quarter of 2009 — with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing — federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it.
Finally, on the war: For most Americans, the whole debate about the war is old if painful news — but not for those obsessed with refurbishing the Bush image. Karl Rove now claims that his biggest mistake was letting Democrats get away with the “shameful” claim that the Bush administration hyped the case for invading Iraq. Let the whitewashing begin!
Again, Republicans aren’t trying to rescue George W. Bush’s reputation for sentimental reasons; they’re trying to clear the way for a return to Bush policies. And this carries a message for anyone hoping that the next time Republicans are in power, they’ll behave differently. If you believe that they’ve learned something — say, about fiscal prudence or the importance of effective regulation — you’re kidding yourself. You might as well face it: they’re addicted to Bush.
-
The more I learn about him, the more I like him. He really got a bad rap in many respects where the MSM went out of its way to portray him in a negative fashion. No doubt he fucked up plenty of times-- but what president doesn't?
He also has a lot of class for not frying Obama when most of the country would agree with him and for keeping his mouth shut about 2012.
thats because behind close doors,,,he has his friends ,,,fellow republicans doing that for him he is still gaining finaincally from the oil invasion,,econonmy meltdown etc,,fellas this guy is trying ti play nice after not playing so nice all those years while president he knows what he has done he is trying for redepmtion from the public for his offspring to beneift 20 years later
-
George W. Bush is not a fan of Sarah Palin and thinks that she spoiled the GOP's best laid plans in 2008 and could potentially do it again, a friend of the former president recently said.
The New York Daily News reported Friday:
"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told the Daily News.
"He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin."
Bush has addressed Palin as a relative non-factor before, characterizing her as a grossly unpolished candidate not ready for the political spotlight.
From a book released last year, former Bush staffer Matt Latimer wrote:
"'I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. I'm sure I must have.' [Bush's] eyes twinkled, then he asked, 'What is she, the governor of Guam?'"
"This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for. She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out."
While the "Republican official" reports that Bush supposedly has certain strong feelings about Palin and her presidential qualifications, the former head of state told Oprah Winfrey Thursday that he wasn't going to do any 2012 forecasting.
"A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process, I have no clue," Bush said in response to a question about Palin being "the one" for Republicans.
-
He actually makes sence here and does not sound so stupid. Maybe he should just have been himself as the president and not listening so much to his fucked up advisors
-
The SERE school, you guys can google it to see what it is, used waterboarding during training up until the mid 90's....after that, I don't know....
-
George W. Bush is not a fan of Sarah Palin and thinks that she spoiled the GOP's best laid plans in 2008 and could potentially do it again, a friend of the former president recently said.
The New York Daily News reported Friday:
"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told the Daily News.
"He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin."
Bush has addressed Palin as a relative non-factor before, characterizing her as a grossly unpolished candidate not ready for the political spotlight.
From a book released last year, former Bush staffer Matt Latimer wrote:
"'I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. I'm sure I must have.' [Bush's] eyes twinkled, then he asked, 'What is she, the governor of Guam?'"
"This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for. She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out."
While the "Republican official" reports that Bush supposedly has certain strong feelings about Palin and her presidential qualifications, the former head of state told Oprah Winfrey Thursday that he wasn't going to do any 2012 forecasting.
"A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process, I have no clue," Bush said in response to a question about Palin being "the one" for Republicans.
I agree 100% with what Bush said here. I hated Palin then and I hate her now.
-
were giving the cia free rein to water board innocent iraqis (who haven't even been charged with a crime) because some saudis (with the help of our government) attacked us on 9/11?
sounds like some shit stalin would pull...
maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I always admired fair minded, honorable men like George Washington. Not worthless traitors like Bush.
George Washington was fair minded, you're absolutely right and he killed hundreds if not thousands of men...fair minded doesn't always mean forceful action is not required.
-
George Washington was fair minded, you're absolutely right and he killed hundreds if not thousands of men...fair minded doesn't always mean forceful action is not required.
Yes he did, with good reason! He was fighting people with ideals like Bush/Cheney.
He didn't round up innocent men, and lock them up without even charging them with a crime. He also didn't torture anyone. That's the kind of shit the people he was fighting would do.
Please don't compare a great freedom loving man like George Washington to a coward, and a maniac like George W. Bush.
-
Yes he did, with good reason! He was fighting people with ideals like Bush/Cheney.
He didn't round up innocent men, and lock them up without even charging them with a crime. He also didn't torture anyone. That's the kind of shit the people he was fighting would do.
Please don't compare a great man like George Washington to a coward, and a maniac like George W. Bush.
War - "An act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will." George Washington
Washington was adamant that prisoners of war be treated humanly and that they gave no reason to complain while they were held captive. Washington also understood that in a time of war violence as a means, although not a desirable one but out of necessity in order to "Accomplish our will."
Yes, there is a line, a fine line between what should be done, what should be allowed and permitted but there is also a point when information must be obtained at all cost if our enemy is to be defeated.
Now we can argue all day on whether we should or should not have been in Iraq but the fact remains, we went, those who were on the other side opposing us became our enemy, regardless if they should have been or enemy to start with is a mute point at that point, the fact remains, they are.
-
War - "An act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will." George Washington
Washington was adamant that prisoners of war be treated humanly and that they gave no reason to complain while they were held captive. Washington also understood that in a time of war violence as a means, although not a desirable one but out of necessity in order to "Accomplish our will."
Yes, there is a line, a fine line between what should be done, what should be allowed and permitted but there is also a point when information must be obtained at all cost if our enemy is to be defeated.
Now we can argue all day on whether we should or should not have been in Iraq but the fact remains, we went, those who were on the other side opposing us became our enemy, regardless if they should have been or enemy to start with is a mute point at that point, the fact remains, they are.
Now that we're in Iraq, I want to wipe those fucker out and bring our troops home. You and I agree big time.
He was using the United States as a tool to forward a fucked up international agenda.
I don't think George Bush should be forgiven though for invading a country that did nothing to us, posed absolutely no thread to us, and had no terrorist presence under Saddam Hussein. He's a criminal, and although it will never happen, I'd love to see him and his "regime" tried for war crimes.
I don't believe for a second he was doing what he believed was right for our country. That was the last thought in his mind.
-
Now that we're in Iraq, I want to wipe those fucker out and bring our troops home. You and I agree big time.
He was using the United States as a tool to forward a fucked up international agenda.
I don't think George Bush should be forgiven though for invading a country that did nothing to us, posed absolutely no thread to us, and had no terrorist presence under Saddam Hussein. He's a criminal, and although it will never happen, I'd love to see him and his "regime" tried for war crimes.
I don't believe for a second he was doing what he believed was right for our country. That was the last thought in his mind.
I do believe he was doing what he thought was best. I don't think one could argue that Bush did not have a love for his country. That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes.
-
I do believe he was doing what he thought was best. I don't think one could argue that Bush did not have a love for his country. That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes.
I guess that's where your opinion, and my opinion kind of split...
If even had an inkling of belief that he did what he thought was in our interest I'd be in the same boat as you...
-
I guess that's where your opinion, and my opinion kind of split...
If even had an inkling of belief that he did what he thought was in our interest I'd be in the same boat as you...
When I look at Bush or Obama I see men who have made mistakes, just like every single president we've ever had or ever will have. Presidents are men, they're human beings, they will make mistakes. But there is a key difference when looking at say Bush and Obama. In Bush I see a man who love(s) America and everything it stands for, everything it's built on. In Obama I see a man who hates and despises those things and wants nothing more than a "Fundamental Transformation."
-
When I look at Bush or Obama I see men who have made mistakes, just like every single president we've ever had or ever will have. Presidents are men, they're human beings, they will make mistakes. But there is a key difference when looking at say Bush and Obama. In Bush I see a man who love(s) America and everything it stands for, everything it's built on. In Obama I see a man who hates and despises those things and wants nothing more than a "Fundamental Transformation."
Maybe I'm delusional, but in both men I see people who couldn't careless about our country, and ran for President to serve their own selfish interests.
-
Maybe I'm delusional, but in both men I see people who couldn't careless about our country, and ran for President to serve their own selfish interests.
Obama no doubt has a desire to see the America as we know it scrapped into the pit of history, he really makes no bones about it. Bush, I don't think anyone could make a case that says he wants to see the America as we know it tossed aside, did he have some other personal interest? I don't know, maybe some, probably, most would on some level but I really do believe he did what he thought was best to preserve American liberty but definitely made mistakes along the way.
I'm looking forward to Bush's interview this Tuesday night. If I'm not mistaken, this will be his firs major interview since he left office.
-
Obama no doubt has a desire to see the America as we know it scrapped into the pit of history, he really makes no bones about it. Bush, I don't think anyone could make a case that says he wants to see the America as we know it tossed aside, did he have some other personal interest? I don't know, maybe some, probably, most would on some level but I really do believe he did what he thought was best to preserve American liberty but definitely made mistakes along the way.
I'm looking forward to Bush's interview this Tuesday night. If I'm not mistaken, this will be his firs major interview since he left office.
ive never read the book of a politician before and if you told me a year ago I was contemplating reading a book by bush jr I think I would have spit in your face but Im actually considering reading this book.
-
ive never read the book of a politician before and if you told me a year ago I was contemplating reading a book by bush jr I think I would have spit in your face but Im actually considering reading this book.
I'm probably going to read this one too. It sounds like it may indeed have some substance to it.
-
Obama no doubt has a desire to see the America as we know it scrapped into the pit of history, he really makes no bones about it. Bush, I don't think anyone could make a case that says he wants to see the America as we know it tossed aside, did he have some other personal interest? I don't know, maybe some, probably, most would on some level but I really do believe he did what he thought was best to preserve American liberty but definitely made mistakes along the way.
I'm looking forward to Bush's interview this Tuesday night. If I'm not mistaken, this will be his firs major interview since he left office.
You're one of the only guys here who haven't attacked my views, and who've gone back and forth (in a friendly way) long enough to find common ground..
Thank you 8)
-
Obama no doubt has a desire to see the America as we know it scrapped into the pit of history, he really makes no bones about it. Bush, I don't think anyone could make a case that says he wants to see the America as we know it tossed aside, did he have some other personal interest? I don't know, maybe some, probably, most would on some level but I really do believe he did what he thought was best to preserve American liberty but definitely made mistakes along the way.
I'm looking forward to Bush's interview this Tuesday night. If I'm not mistaken, this will be his firs major interview since he left office.
You're a laughable right-wing douche bag. With the mess Bush left Obama, the case could easily be made that Dubya was hell bent on destroying America. He left the coutry with huge debt, two mismanaged wars, a disaster in New Orleans, and a financial meltdown of epic proportions on Wall Street. Yeah, he showed his "love of country," alright. ::)
You guys can spin your hero Bush all you want now that he's been out of office two years. But he is still the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. An unmitigated disaster. PEPFAR was about the only thing Dubya did to spare a complete blight on the Bush family name. But Dubya definitely ruined Jeb's chances to sit in the Oval Office one day.
-
You're a laughable right-wing douche bag. With the mess Bush left Obama, the case could easily be made that Dubya was hell bent on destroying America. He left the coutry with huge debt, two mismanaged wars, a disaster in New Orleans, and a financial meltdown of epic proportions on Wall Street. Yeah, he showed his "love of country," alright. ::)
You guys can spin your hero Bush all you want now that he's been out of office two years. But he is still the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. An unmitigated disaster. PEPFAR was about the only thing Dubya did to spare a complete blight on the Bush family name. But Dubya definitely ruined Jeb's chances to sit in the Oval Office one day.
-
You're a laughable right-wing douche bag. With the mess Bush left Obama, the case could easily be made that Dubya was hell bent on destroying America. He left the coutry with huge debt, two mismanaged wars, a disaster in New Orleans, and a financial meltdown of epic proportions on Wall Street. Yeah, he showed his "love of country," alright. ::)
You guys can spin your hero Bush all you want now that he's been out of office two years. But he is still the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. An unmitigated disaster. PEPFAR was about the only thing Dubya did to spare a complete blight on the Bush family name. But Dubya definitely ruined Jeb's chances to sit in the Oval Office one day.
Everything you mentioned, every last thing was caused by a weak stomached left-wing progressive corrupt congress.
Even the management of the war, a war approved by congress, it was the progressive weakness that has never allowed us to simply go in there and carpet bomb the areas we need to. Both wars could have been fought and ended swiftly if the Bush's hands had been untied.
You can point the same direction with all those others things you listed...the war one though just happens to be the one that irritates me the most. Well, that and the New Orleans one, really, that was Bush's fault...oh yeah, I forgot, he blew the levies up because he likes seeing floods.
BTW, since I see you have the ability to type, take your progressively warped mind over to the thread with your name on it and pontificate a response to blow my britches off. Stand on your on two feet or are you going to allow me to call you out, call you a fool and just stand their and take it like beaten down bitch?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=353608.0
I await brilliance and insight.
-
Everything you mentioned, every last thing was caused by a weak stomached left-wing progressive corrupt congress.
Even the management of the war, a war approved by congress, it was the progressive weakness that has never allowed us to simply go in there and carpet bomb the areas we need to. Both wars could have been fought and ended swiftly if the Bush's hands had been untied.
You can point the same direction with all those others things you listed...the war one though just happens to be the one that irritates me the most. Well, that and the New Orleans one, really, that was Bush's fault...oh yeah, I forgot, he blew the levies up because he likes seeing floods.
BTW, since I see you have the ability to type, take your progressively warped mind over to the thread with your name on it and pontificate a response to blow my britches off. Stand on your on two feet or are you going to allow me to call you out, call you a fool and just stand their and take it like beaten down bitch?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=353608.0
I await brilliance and insight.
I wouldn't blame Congress for mismanaging the war. The buck stops with Bush in that regard. He had an incompetent Defense Secretary and didn't listen to Shinseki about the size of the force needed to invade and occupy Iraq. I agreed with the decision to invade, but he really did not manage the war properly, at least initially.
-
Go George! :)
Bush on waterboarding: 'Damn right'
November 5, 2010
Washington (CNN) -- Former President George W. Bush has stayed out of politics since he left the White House and, except for his own career, he largely keeps the subject at arm's length in his new memoir, "Decision Points."
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey to air on Tuesday when the book is to be released, Bush said he is "through with politics" and refused to offer an opinion on the 2012 presidential election.
"I am not a political pundit. I'm really not," Bush said. "A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process."
He also passes on commenting on President Obama, saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."
"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," Bush told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics and he doesn't need me criticizing him."
In the 481-page book Bush compliments Obama's political skills during a meeting before the 2008 election as the financial crisis was coming to a head. He also criticizes the performance of his party's nominee, John McCain, in the same meeting.
He criticizes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of his efforts to reform immigration laws in 2006.
Bush takes responsibility for giving the go-ahead for waterboarding terror suspects, which has touched off a new round of criticism of Bush and calls for his prosecution. He says that he did decide not to use two more extreme interrogation methods, but did not disclose what those were.
"CIA experts drew up a list of interrogation techniques. ... At my direction, Department of Justice and CIA lawyers conducted a careful legal review. The enhanced interrogation program complied with the Constitution and all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.
"There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm."
Though Bush confirms that he knew the use of waterboarding would one day become public, and acknowledges that it is "sensitive and controversial," he asserts that "the choice between security and values was real," and expresses firm confidence in his decision. "Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take," he writes.
Bush further declares that the new techniques proved effective, yielding information on al Qaeda's structure and operations, and leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, the logistical planner of the 9/11 attacks who was captured on the first anniversary of 9/11.
And if there were any lingering doubts or conflict about the use of waterboarding, Bush discloses that he received reassurance from an unlikely source: terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.
The former president writes, "His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfill his religious duty, and then cooperate." Bush elaborates that Zubaydah gave him a direct instruction, "'You must do this for all the brothers.'"
Intelligence gleaned from interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and other suspects led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bush writes. During a raid on Mohammed's compound, agents discovered more plans for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Prompted by the discoveries, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding on Mohammed.
Bush exposes his inner thoughts on what led him to reach this decision: "I thought about my meeting with Danny Pearl's widow, who was pregnant with his son when he was murdered. I thought about the 2,971 people stolen from their families by al Qaeda on 9/11. And I thought about my duty to protect my country from another act of terror.
'Damn right,' I said."
. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/index.html
Torture is cool. Drown all Muslims! 8)
-
I wouldn't blame Congress for mismanaging the war. The buck stops with Bush in that regard. He had an incompetent Defense Secretary and didn't listen to Shinseki about the size of the force needed to invade and occupy Iraq. I agreed with the decision to invade, but he really did not manage the war properly, at least initially.
During the Gulf War, his dad set the perfect example of how a Pres should "run a war." Just have great generals in place and give them exactly what they ask for.
-
To me, to willingly and knowingly allow thousands or tens of thousands of fellow americans to be killed solely because you dont want to pour water of over someones' head is not only immoral, but pure evil and sadistic.
-
To me, to willingly and knowingly allow thousands or tens of thousands of fellow americans to be killed solely because you dont want to pour water of over someones' head is not only immoral, but pure evil and sadistic.
Completely agree......if these bunch of pansies were around for WWII, we would be speaking German right now.....or Japanese.....
-
Everything you mentioned, every last thing was caused by a weak stomached left-wing progressive corrupt congress.
Nope. Rumsfeld was far worse than Congress ever was.
-
The fact remains, blame lies within congress more than anyone else...the president does not have the "War Power" so many people seem to think he has. Commander & Chief of the military, of course but it's more of a symbolic title than anything else.
Lets remember how all of this started, congress passed House Joint Resolution 114 in 2002, that's how this started, congress is who declared war, it was their resolution that said Iraq had WMD's, that they posed a threat to the U.S. it was congress that said Iraq was harboring terrorist and that AlQaida was in Iraq, it was congress that decided it was up to the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions.
Congress is to blame for more of the debacle, including super stars such as Lord Obama.
If their is major criticism against the war for the lack of WMD's found, blame congress, they're the ones who started the screaming.
The president is merely one part, one arm if you will of the government, congress holds far more power as an entity than the white house...at least its supposed to, the current white house seems to be gobbling up power like a roided out pac-man.
-
I wouldn't blame Congress for mismanaging the war. The buck stops with Bush in that regard. He had an incompetent Defense Secretary and didn't listen to Shinseki about the size of the force needed to invade and occupy Iraq. I agreed with the decision to invade, but he really did not manage the war properly, at least initially.
Wow, after all this time, you still do, damn...that's impressive.
-
The fact remains, blame lies within congress more than anyone else...the president does not have the "War Power" so many people seem to think he has. Commander & Chief of the military, of course but it's more of a symbolic title than anything else.
Lets remember how all of this started, congress passed House Joint Resolution 114 in 2002, that's how this started, congress is who declared war, it was their resolution that said Iraq had WMD's, that they posed a threat to the U.S. it was congress that said Iraq was harboring terrorist and that AlQaida was in Iraq, it was congress that decided it was up to the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions.
Congress is to blame for more of the debacle, including super stars such as Lord Obama.
If their is major criticism against the war for the lack of WMD's found, blame congress, they're the ones who started the screaming.
The president is merely one part, one arm if you will of the government, congress holds far more power as an entity than the white house...at least its supposed to, the current white house seems to be gobbling up power like a roided out pac-man.
Arnold I think we're talking about two different things. I agree Congress is equally responsible with the president for the decision to invade and enforce UN resolutions. Where I don't think Congress has responsibility is with strategy. That's the CIC's job. Congress didn't decide the size of the force, etc. Bush did (or least endorsed Rumsfeld's decision).
-
During the Gulf War, his dad set the perfect example of how a Pres should "run a war." Just have great generals in place and give them exactly what they ask for.
True.
-
Wow, after all this time, you still do, damn...that's impressive.
I do and it has been beaten to death on the board.
-
Bush writes of anger, resolve after Sept. 11 attacks
By the CNN Wire Staff
November 7, 2010
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/11/06/bush.book/t1larg.jpg)
Bush with bullhorn and New York firefighter Bob Beckwith. The 9/11 attacks made his presidency's purpose clear, he writes.
(CNN) -- The terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, gave his administration a clear goal and him the resolve to find out who was responsible and "kick their ass," former President George W. Bush writes in his new book.
In "Decision Points," Bush describes his reaction when his then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice informed him of the crash of a third airplane into the Pentagon.
"I sat back in my seat and absorbed her words. My thoughts clarified: The first plane could have been an accident. The second was definitely an attack. The third was a declaration of war," the former president writes in his 481-page book, which goes on sale Tuesday.
"My blood was boiling. We were going to find out who did this, and kick their ass," Bush writes.
"In a single morning, the purpose of my presidency had grown clear: to protect our people and defend our freedom that had come under attack."
CNN on Friday obtained a copy of the book, being released by Crown Publishers.
In the book, Bush also recounts the government response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
He calls the response "not only flawed" but "unacceptable," and describes his own failures in this way: "As the leader of the federal government, I should have recognized the deficiencies sooner and intervened faster. I prided myself on my ability to make crisp and effective decisions. Yet in the days after Katrina, that didn't happen. The problem was not that I made the wrong decisions. It was that I took too long to decide."
Bush writes he also failed to "adequately communicate my concern for the victims of Katrina" -- a problem he calls one of "perception, not reality."
"Yet many of our citizens, particularly in the African-American community, came away convinced their president didn't care about them."
The former president recently told NBC's Matt Laurer that the "worst moment" of his administration was when rapper Kanye West declared during a Katrina celebrity telethon that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." West this week expressed a sympathetic view of Bush's reaction to the comment.
Bush writes the Katrina had a lasting legacy on his second term.
[The Katrina response] eroded citizens' trust in their government. It exacerbated divisions in our society and politics. And it cast a cloud over my second term.
"Just as Katrina was more than a hurricane, its impact was more than physical destruction. It eroded citizens' trust in their government. It exacerbated divisions in our society and politics. And it cast a cloud over my second term."
In "Decision Points," Bush also details how he came to utter those infamous words "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" about Michael Brown, the FEMA chief who was leading the government's response to Katrina in the days immediately following the storm.
Bush writes that he was in Mobile, Alabama, meeting with the Alabama and Mississippi governors and asked them if they were getting adequate federal support. "'That Mike Brown is doing a heck of a job,' Bob said," referring to Alabama governor Bob Riley. "I knew Mike was under pressure and I wanted to boost his morale," Bush writes, so he repeated Riley's words a few minutes later when he spoke to the press.
"I never imagined those words of encouragement would become an infamous entry in the political lexicon. As complaints about Mike Brown's performance mounted, especially in New Orleans, critics turned my words of encouragement into a club to bludgeon me."
The former FEMA head, who resigned two weeks after the compliment, told CNN in August that he winced when Bush uttered the line.
"I knew the minute he said that, the media and everybody else would see a disconnect between what he was saying and what I was witnessing on the ground," Brown said. "That's the president's style. His attitude and demeanor is always one of being a cheerleader and trying to encourage people to keep moving. It was just the wrong time and the wrong place."
Bush in recent years has talked about his past problems with alcohol abuse and his 1986 decision to give up drinking completely.
Just days before the 2000 presidential election, news broke that Bush had been arrested for driving under the influence in Maine in 1976. In his memoir, Bush writes, "Not disclosing the DUI on my terms may have been the single costliest political mistake I ever made."
He says he had decided against doing so because he didn't want to undermine his admonitions to his daughters about drinking and driving.
After the news came out -- so close to election day, Bush writes, he went to bed that night on the campaign trail thinking, "I may have just cost myself the presidency."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/06/bush.book/index.html?hpt=T2
-
Your headling illustrates what we're all thinking here, beach...
it's not very professional of bush to completely ignore detailed warnings of 911 use that kind of foul language.
-
Your headling illustrates what we're all thinking here, beach...
it's not very professional of bush to completely ignore detailed warnings of 911 use that kind of foul language.
WTH dude. Ron gave you guys and gals your own GODDAMN BOARD!!
-
WTH dude. Ron gave you guys your own GODDAMN BOARD!!
"you guys"?
Sexist post reported.
-
"you guys"?
Sexist post reported.
Thanks narc 240. Post corrected.