Bush bashes Tory leader!

[Whaleboy]

The problem that the US and many of its hawish supporters have is the "with us or against us" "don't **** with us" attitude. It's not going to win you friends, it's not going to win you wars, though it may win you elections.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I can't believe anyone thinks a few guards thought this stuff up and used it on their own. They even brought their own whips and ladies underwear

Ned - that report comes from a man who was quite upfront about his bias even if he didn't mean to expose it. Concluding that the policy went higher, maybe even Rumsfeld, would have caused severe damage to the President and the war on terror according to Schlesinger. So, would this guy do that or would he fudge the truth to avoid this severe damage?

Schlesinger did say that MI was involved in abuses. He did say that an MI colonel and an Army Brigadier General also bear responsibility. But when it gets to the Rumsfeld level, the guidelines were to abide by the Geneva Convention.

To the extent that people want to say that George Bush was in some way responsible for the zoo we found in that prison when it was Bush who demanded prosecutions when he first heard about the abuses is a

BIG LIE.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Exactly. If instead of criticising certain US government decisions (and I stress this has nothing to do with US politics) on the International level, if every country whose Government and/or people were not hoping to convince Bush and co. of their being wrong and instead just wanted to pour scorn on them, the US would have a lot more 'enemies' than it does now. NZ would be one, yet there we are, contributing to the counter-terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Just not military operations in Iraq.

We disagree on many things, but we still support the US in all matters we find beneficial, correct, multilateral and justified- because we are friends and allies. In fact, if the US Admin didn't take such things as our country being anti-nuclear as a major personal snub for some reason, we'd be as close as the US and Oz are.

Friends provide "feedback" in private. Blair obviously does that with Bush, to good effect in most cases.

But, real *******s publicly bash Bush and the US. These are no friends and do not qualify as leaders of "friendly" nations.

Howard and any Tory leader who have said negative things about Blair and/or Bush on Iraq in public have to go. These people can never be "partners" with America.

[Ramo]

If this were anyone but the Bush admin, I'd think that this were a clever plan to get the Tories (who are actually more supportive of the war despite their leaderships) more power. Alas, this is no doubt idiotic posturing.

[Berzerker]

Whaleboy -

Which has... what exactly to do with Iraq? Am I missing something? How would you define ****ing with you? Am I ****ing with you by expressing a contrary opinion and refuting the logic behind the WoT? Should I thus be "shut up" accordingly or have such passive measures taken against me, measures nonetheless?

Without Iraq the message would lack substance. What did Khaddafi tell an Italian reporter following Iraq? He knew the US was serious now and ****ing with us would be inadvisable. And I don't need to explain to you what ****ing with us means, you know what it means.

And you don't think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture with which you profess to deal? Prevent the procurment and eliminate SPECIFIC individuals, fine, that's why you have the intelligence agencies. The military is a tactical agent, the elimination or forceful modification of other nation states, large monolithic organisations (unlike cell-structures that are modular and best dealt with by covert means) and the defense of your nation from the aforementioned threats. Aircraft carriers can do nothing against suicide bombers.

It wasn't some intel agency that invaded Afghanistan. These groups need a state to provide a safe haven... The message is: don't give them that safe haven.

If you "eliminate" people on an arbitrary basis in terrorist organisations, three more pop up to join them, and you succeed only in further alienating the Islamic world, thus perpetuating and escalating the conflict.

Then 3 more will die. We've been alienating Muslims for decades and 9/11 was a result, but we can't go back in time so we're stuck with the current situation. Would you have ordered the invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11? If so, would you have sent in the army or an intel agency? If not, how was the CIA going to deal with Al Qaeda protected by the Taliban?

Quite an irrational reaction for a world leader. Sure in his private life he can listen to whom he wants, but in a public role refusal to hear (or in this case meet... a more abstract message he has sent, namely that he in person is not welcome, not merely his opinions) is tantamount to a sanction upon the basis of expressed opinion.

Most everyone sanctions people for angering us with offensive opinions, some refuse to listen, some even kill.
The difference between the two is the former does not violate free speech and the latter does,,,

I do not believe the USA to be at war.

And that's where you part company with Bush and his supporters, they do.

As for denying his ear, Howard seems like a strange choice. A refusal to see representatives of the peace movement, I can understand, but it seems that Bush is denying Howard the opportunity to visit as a punitive measure to in retaliation for Howards attack on Blair, on Iraq, which on two levels is irrelevant to the WoT... in other words a punitive act of political convenience or the typical Bush measure of scare tactics and manipulation by intimidation (see the article I linked to earlier in this thread).

You can dispute the choice or whatever else you want, that has nothing to do with free speech.

That does not address my point. My point was in regards to Bush the president, not Bush the man. Latterly I don't give a **** about. He has introduced a punitive measure (symbolic since he is already aware of Howards views thus this becomes a measure of cordiality) against Howard for his expressing of his opinion.

It doesn't violate free speech to tell someone you're angry with their presence is no longer welcome. Free speech does not guarantee an audience...

You raise a point publically, I answer those points publically.

You removed the point from it's context. Kuci and I weren't debating the efficacy of Bush's position, just whether or not there is some libertarian principle being violated by Bush.

If you just want Kuci to answer, then PM or email him.

I didn't say only Kuci could answer, I asked you to observe what I said within the context of what Kuci and I were discussing. If you had made that observation you wouldn't "rationally" used a comment about libertarian principles as a defense of Bush.

His actions by consequence or utility do not violate any libertarian principle, however by intent do violate the notion of potential free speech. That is only relevant for Bush the man, not Bush the president, whereupon his actions are unacceptable in my view.

Refusing to listen to rock and roll violates the free speech of rock and roll artists? C'mon...

Ned -

Schlesinger did say that MI was involved in abuses. He did say that an MI colonel and an Army Brigadier General also bear responsibility. But when it gets to the Rumsfeld level, the guidelines were to abide by the Geneva Convention.

When you see people high up in the administration trying to justify torture followed by the employment of torture in the field, it isn't unreasonable to think a connection exists. What happened to the chain of command? Some colonel decided to torture people on his own in direct contradiction of orders from higher ups? Let's see if this colonel and general get court martialed... If they do, maybe we'll see they were just following orders too.

To the extent that people want to say that George Bush was in some way responsible for the zoo we found in that prison when it was Bush who demanded prosecutions when he first heard about the abuses is a

BIG LIE.

That gives Bush more credit than alot of people are willing to give, I seriously doubt if he's making such policies or even knows what is going on beyond the bigger picture. But all I see are prosecutions of little people and that's so damn typical of the military. Smear the little people, cover the behinds of the brass.

[debeest]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I might support a Conservative party, but I'm not a moron.

Now that's sig materials!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Ned


Friends provide "feedback" in private. Blair obviously does that with Bush, to good effect in most cases.

But, real *******s publicly bash Bush and the US. These are no friends and do not qualify as leaders of "friendly" nations.

Howard and any Tory leader who have said negative things about Blair and/or Bush on Iraq in public have to go. These people can never be "partners" with America.

So what level is considered 'bashing'? Simply disagreeing and expressing regret at decisions made by the US Admin? That doesn't sound lie bashing to me, yet many countries (like mine) have suffered a cooling of relations because all we do is dare to disagree with the great and omnipotent current US Admin and their knowledge of what is best for everyone everywhere.

It sounds horribly like you are saying that those who disagree and say so are enemies. I hope this is not what you mean, as it ignores all those countries that disagree on Iraq, have vocally expressed their opinions yet who are supporting the US-led war on terror. Allies support you in just causes, but do not follow you blindly. NO government should not any undue influence on the opinions of overseas governments or especially non-governing politicians. That includes the US. To refuse cooperation is sheer foolishness, especially with someone who could lead the greatest (and in many matters the ONLY) ally you have.

[Ned]

Mr. W, you leap from "disagree" to "enemies" in a flash. The problem, of course, is public disparagement and denigration. I emphasize the words "public." I further emphasize the other two words that can be reduced to "bashing."

Bashing is what Democrats do. Pure politics with no goodwill intended.

[Ned]

Besides, Mr.W, these same people (Howard) publicly endorsed Blair's position on Iraq prior to the war, based on the information at hand. Now they, like certain of our Democrats, seek to "rewrite" history for purely "political" reasons. People who do this are not worthy of leadership.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ned Bashing is what Democrats do. Pure politics with no goodwill intended.

Republicans do it just as much.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Besides, Mr.W, these same people (Howard) publicly endorsed Blair's position on Iraq prior to the war, based on the information at hand. Now they, like certain of our Democrats, seek to "rewrite" history for purely "political" reasons. People who do this are not worthy of leadership.

Howard's gambit backfired miserably - he looked like an idiot. Great political move by him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah the Nedaverse... I wonder if he even knows what Howard said? Ned, to educate you, Howard said if he knew then what he knows now, he'd vote a different way. He said that if he knew there were no WMD then he wouldn't have supported the war. I don't see how that is rewriting anything... but you may... who knows what you see.

[Ned]

Imran, are you purposely trying to be an a--hole?

[Ned]

Also, Imran, until you can communicate with in a less juvenile fashion, please put me on your ignore list. Please, stop replying to anything I say.

[Dauphin]

I was trying to think of something to say to that, but all I got was: