Iran: “We Need to Hit Them, and We Ought to Hit Them as Soon as Possible”
At a time when the Bush administration are making it clear that they have no plans to attack Iran...Tony Snow: "No," he said. "We are not planning to go across the border [into Iran]. But the president also is not going to rule out any alternatives. But for those who think we are beating the war drums, no [no plans to invade Iran]."
Indeed, the President himself, the Liar in Chief, who is adamant that the US does not engage in torture, went on to Arab television to state...
"I have said that if they suspend their nuclear program, we will be at the table," Mr Bush said in a transcript of the interview released by the White House. "But they have so far refused to do that."I have said this until I am blue in the face. Bush continues to insist that Ahmadinejad stops doing what he is allowed to do under international law - enriching uranium for domestic purposes - before he will allow any talks to take place.
What Iran is doing IS LEGAL. Bush should talk to them without these ridiculous preconditions. Indeed, many of us suspect that the preconditions are in place precisely to prevent the Iranians being able to agree to talks.
Indeed even Andrew Sullivan, a man who - in his own words- thought that the idea that the Bush regime was engaging in torture was "a no-brainer" and that "this stuff was being invented by the far left or was part of Al-Qaeda propaganda" has now come to accept what all but the 32%-"Bush do or die" no brainer supporters have accepted, that the current incumbent of the White House is a man who has facilitated torture.
Sullivan now says:
Bush says he doesn't want to invade Iran. This is the man who would have us believe that he didn't want to invade Iraq. And this is the man who says America does not engage in torture.From almost the beginning of the war, it is now indisputable, the Bush administration made a strong and formative decision: in the absence of good intelligence on the Islamist terror threat after 9/11, it would do what no American administration had done before. It would torture detainees to get information.
This decision was and is illegal, and violates America’s treaty obligations, the military code of justice, the United Nations convention against torture, and US law.
Against that background, we have retired Colonel Jack Jacobs going on to CNN and promising that any attack on Iran would be precise. So be assured, if they do attack Iran, and there are NO PLANS to do so, any attack will "be precise".
If they really have NO PLANS to attack Iran, why are these lunatics still making the case for an attack? Indeed, "reassuring" us that an attack would be "precise"?
We found ourselves here before the Iraq war. There's simply no excuse if they are allowed to do this shit a second time...
They used to argue that they needed to hit Iran because of it's suspected nuclear sites. Listen to Jack Jacobs, the argument is changing BIG TIME.
Hat tip to The Largest Minority.
6 comments:
Lots of hysterics on this subject. As if the loony left want Bush to be planning to attack Iran. Any assertion to the contrary just won't support their rantings and ravings.
As for drawing up contingency plans to attack Iran (not the same thing as planning to actually attack Iran), I would hope so. That's what the Pentagon does. They draw up contingency plans for every conceivable contingency you can imagine, and probably many you cannot. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure we have military contingency plans involving countless scenarios dealing with countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Greenland for all I know.
When I was in the military we exercised assuming these countries, or countries like them, were our threats and practiced accordingly. That doesn't mean we were going to invade the USSR for example, but it was our job to be prepared for military conflict with them none-the-less.
Tell me Jason, as you often say that no proof would be enough for me to believe that Iran are behind attacks on US troops; do you still contend, as you have consistently done on here, that there is still not enough proof that the US is engaging in torture? I've been dying to find out your opinion on this since the recent revelations.
I doubt we could agree on every point regarding what constitutes or does not constitute torture, so it's a loaded question. Your question also indicates the present tense - "is engaging" - which I do not believe there exists proof of any ongoing, widespread and systemic program of what you would probably consider the harshest interrogation methods.
I doubt we could agree on every point regarding what constitutes or does not constitute torture, so it's a loaded question.
I knew a Bush apologist like yourself would answer along those lines. The truth is that you and I don't have to agree with any definition of torture as that has already been agreed internationally as even The Washington Post, a paper that has enabled Bush's worst behaviour in the past, has already conceded.
From the Post's editorial:
"PRESIDENT BUSH said Friday, as he has many times before, that "this government does not torture people." But presidential declarations can't change the facts. The record shows that Mr. Bush and a compliant Justice Department have repeatedly authorized the CIA to use interrogation methods that the rest of the world -- and every U.S. administration before this one -- have regarded as torture: techniques such as simulated drowning, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and prolonged standing.
This is the final proof that "an independent" like yourself, who accuses others of being so biased that no proof will ever be enough for them, is actually guilty of the very crime that you lay at other people's door.
I've already linked on this blog to the New York Times's editorial on the subject.
But Jason, the "Independent", stands alone; still willing to cut Bush some slack and argue that, despite the fact that the Bush regime have passed secret legislation enabling torture, legislation which they have sneakily hidden from Congress, it might not actually be torture.
No proof would ever be enough for you, Jason. And your argument that you would require further proof before you would believe this kind of activity is still ongoing is simply pathetic. And shameful. I have long argued that people like yourself, through your wilful ignorance of what was blatantly taking place, were enablers.
I stand by that assessment. You are an enabler. You turn a blind eye and pretend there is room for doubt when all others have conceded what is taking place. I'd say you should be ashamed, but I honestly don't think you are capable of such emotion.
You asked my opinion and I gave it, stating that "I do not believe there exists proof of any ongoing, widespread and systemic program of what you would probably consider the harshest interrogation methods". If you believe that I am not correct, then show me where the proof exists that the US is presently engaging in what you consider torture. It's that simple. Instead, you engage in hysterical rantings and personal attacks.
The truth is that you and I don't have to agree with any definition of torture as that has already been agreed internationally
Then I would appreciate it if you could educate me and point me to the internationally agreed upon definition that you are speaking of. I wasn't aware that just generally making the prisoner uncomfortable was considered torture, for instance. Is speaking in a harsh tone also considered torture? So please, point me to this internationally agreed upon definition so that I might be better informed. I also might add, despite your inferences, I have nowhere in this blog stated whether or not I believe that the US has or has not at some point committed acts that I would consider torture.
as even The Washington Post, a paper that has enabled Bush's worst behaviour in the past
You don't know your US papers very well. The Washington Post is quite well known as being a left-leaning journal. The Washington Times on the other hand is well known as being more right-leaning.
If you believe that I am not correct, then show me where the proof exists that the US is presently engaging in what you consider torture.
Jason, it's in this thread. Gonzales "and a compliant Justice Department have repeatedly authorized the CIA to use interrogation methods that the rest of the world -- and every U.S. administration before this one -- have regarded as torture: techniques such as simulated drowning, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and prolonged standing."
Perino stated that the US was not torturing under "it's own" definition of the Geneva Conventions. When reminded that any need for clarification should be sought through an international court she said, "Which we won't be doing."
Why would the US authorise interrogation methods that the entire world - and every US administration before this one - agree is torture, and then refuse to accept any international definition of torture, if they did not intend to torture and simply not call it torture?
I wasn't aware that just generally making the prisoner uncomfortable was considered torture
What planet are you on, Jason? Where is your mind if you consider simulated drowning and induced hypothermia simply "making the prisoner uncomfortable?"
The truth is that you and I don't have to agree with any definition of torture as that has already been agreed internationally
Then I would appreciate it if you could educate me and point me to the internationally agreed upon definition that you are speaking of.
The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary international law, meaning that nations do not have to sign up to it as they do under International Treaty law. It is regarded as a norm, not open for interpretation.
As even The Washington Post, a paper that has enabled Bush's worst behaviour in the past
You don't know your US papers very well. The Washington Post is quite well known as being a left-leaning journal.
I said that the Post has "enabled Bush's worst behaviour in the past" meaning that it had largely been supportive of the Iraq war and the Bush regime.
"In "Buying the War" on PBS, Bill Moyers noted 27 editorials supporting the President's ambitions to invade Iraq. National security correspondent Walter Pincus reported that he had been ordered to cease his reports that were critical of Republican administrations."
Post a Comment