Re: THIS LADY HAS A POINT
 

All right, I've laid off this for awhile, but you got me.
First, I have read that President Bush lied. Just when was this? Remembering, of course, that it is not a "lie" if you bellieve you are telling the truth. Also, I read that President Bush is "dumb". I see no evidence of this either. He has an Ivy league MBA. I know from experience that they do not give them away to dumb people.

Re: THIS LADY HAS A POINT
 

You're right they don't give them away. George Bush blew the myth out of the water that an Ivy League degree was special. He lives by the rules that the only things important in this world are how much money you have and who you know. If you have enough money and connections you can buy an education and even the highest office in the land. All his life George has been telling people do you know who I am?, the rules don't apply to me and don't mess with me or you'll regret it. He appointed cronies with no experience or qualifications to important, responsible positions. Now some of his supporters on this board are saying experience matters? Where were they the last 8 years?
When has Bush told the truth?
We will withdraw from Iraq if the Iraq government asks us to, Iraqi's Oppose Withdrawal Timetable, Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks, The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power, Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the number of troops in Iraq is not a decision I make. This is a decision that's made by the military commanders. [Retired] Gen. [Tommy R.] Franks, Gen. [John P.] Abizaid, Gen. [George W.] Casey [Jr.] have decided what those numbers are, And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops. President Bush (11/04/04), FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system."
I could go on and on.

Re: THIS LADY HAS A POINT
 

To all of those out there who think torture is a good idea (I hope this is not some new club you folks are trying to get started, count me out!) read this;

The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." The general was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement. Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation. The new report, he writes, "tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors."The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted --both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend. In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . . "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
This is just a general speaking, what does he know.

Re: THIS LADY HAS A POINT
 

It is understandable that folks can find themselves horrified that Americans could inflict torture upon anyone. After all, we're all supposed to be holier-than-thou and follow the "say Uncle" concept of ending a fight.

To despise torture is easy from one's armchair. It's very easy to understand it being applied by over-stressed young people who have witnessed friends blown apart, knowing full well that such horror is forthcoming and those "individuals" know who is behind it, probably when it will happen next, may have participated in the horror, and know where the traps and IEDs are.

General Taguba's report was highly detailed in its description of all of the factors - morale, training, stress, vagueness of orders, command failures, etc. - leading to the Abu Ghraib situation. It's worth reading the entire report to get a better understanding of what those young people at the far end of the feed chain experienced.

Warfare is not a clean and neat event. It's the most brutal experience there is, and the Marquis of Queensbury Rules do not apply. At the armchair and ivory tower level, warfare is more observed than experienced, and in most circumstances becomes an intricate chess match or numbers game. For those in lofty status, quoting UN rules and Codes of Conduct is very easy, and makes the whole warfare experience "simplified." However, for the grunt having to be in the muck and mire, stressed, seeing body parts flying in different directions, it just isn't that cut-and-dried. It takes a LOT of training and discipline to keep a force in control, and when you just don't have the training to match the situation, "stuff" happens and it just ain't pretty.

Crimes are crimes, and those who commit them find themselves prosecuted if the evidence is there to indicate a conviction will occur. However, political prosecutions because "we just know..." is an abuse of the justice system, and also a crime.

Do the ones who qualify as "rich and/or famous" normally have "less justice" meted out on them? Well, that's been the way it has been as long as I've followed the legal system. From OJ to Brittany to Ted Kennedy to a list ad infinitum, that's the way it has been.

Re: THIS LADY HAS A POINT
 

Stevez: Well said, there can not be a clean war.
Regarding the Powerful, Rich, Famous and Politicians. We are all equal under the law; however some are "more equal" than others.