DUBYA DEMANDS TORTURE; EVEN REPUBLICANS AREN'T BUYING IT

Just as it seem Dubya's loose coalition couldn't have shrunk any further, Bush seems to face internal turmoil even amongst his Republican ranks.

Not surprising, since Bush's inept policies, once again, has once again be brought to the limelight, though this time round, it seems, dirty linen has been hung out to dry, in the shape of a Republican revolt led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Excerpts from yahoo:


BUSH FIGHTS GOP REVOLT OVER TERROR VOTE

President Bush fought back Friday against a Republican revolt in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation and rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.

Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which set international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

Tough interrogations have been instrumental in preventing attacks against the United States, Bush said. "Time's running out" for the legislation, he warned, with Congress set to adjourn in a few weeks.

What Bush demands of the Senate is this:

1. Legal authority to torture prisoners, i.e Muslims from Afghanistan, Middle East, hell, as long as he or she is a Muslim, the poor sod will be tortured regardless of his race, but not the religion (After all, in Bush's eyes, terror is associated with Islam. Naw, there just ain't Christian terrorists around...........)

2. Legal protection against US military personnel responsible for torturing POWs, or, as mentioned above, anyone who is remotely Islamic.

The words "harsh interrogation of terrors suspects" are mild words, which simply amounts to torturing anyone at will.

So, that's it, folks. The Bush Administration wants to kiss the Geneva Conventions goodbye.

The article further enthuses:

To the administration's dismay, Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."

Seven weeks before the November elections, the dispute left Republicans fighting among themselves — rather than with Democrats — about national security issues that have been a winning theme for the GOP in past elections.......

"When conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "These military men are telling the president that in the war on terror you need to be both strong and smart, and it is about time he heeded their admonitions."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., added, "Instead of picking fights with Colin Powell, John McCain and other military experts, President Bush should change course, do what the American people expect, and finally give them the real security they deserve."

Now, these men protesting against the inept Bush Administration are not just hansy-pansies, but men who have served with distinction with the US armed forces:

1. Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

2. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.

3. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge.

4. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When Republicans of such calibre protest against their own leadership, it speaks volumes of how Bush has screwed up America, both militarily and diplomatically.

The concerns raised by these Republicans are genuine: Any attempt to "re-interpret" the Geneva Convention, or circumvent it, would lead to the loss of moral high ground on the international arena, although Bush seems to disagree:

Bush took vehement exception when asked about Powell's assertion that the world might doubt the moral basis of the fight against terror if lawmakers went along with the administration's proposal to come up with a U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Convention's ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just — I simply can't accept that."

Again, typical Bushism. What he is saying is (Correct me if I am wrong, I am not good with Dubya speak), no matter the laws passed by the Bush Administration to allow torture, or "harsh interrogation", they are still streets ahead compared to "extremists". And he thinks that, any comparison with terrorists is "unacceptable". Bush's insistence to cling on the moral high ground, while playing the devil's advocate, smells of hypocrisy.

He continues:

Growing animated, he said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Bush said the Geneva Convention's ban was "very vague" and required clarification. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity?' That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

He said that unless Congress acts, the CIA will end its program of tough interrogation methods that the administration says has prevented attacks.

"So Congress has got a decision to make," Bush said. "You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

The war-mongering president, it seems, is clamouring for more torture. As if torture tactics really works. So far, none of the so-called "terror suspects" have been indicted for acts of terrorism.

With regards to Osama, Bush once boasted: "We will get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive!".

Five years down the road, the trail of the bogeyman of terror has gone cold. So, what is Bush's excuse for his failures to live up to his Texas-accent-driven rhetoric?

On another anti-terror matter, with Osama bin Laden still at large five years after the 9/11 attacks, Bush said he could not send thousands of troops into Pakistan to search without an invitation from the government. "Pakistan's a sovereign nation," Bush said.

Since when has Bush been so respectful towards "sovereign nations"? When he attacked Iraq, did he ever consider the sovereignty of that nation? I think not.

The real truth: The Osama trail has bitten the dust. All the resources that could have been used to seek out the terror head have been squandered in Iraq, something which really should be unacceptable, considering that the main objective of America's military forays was to hit the nail into the terror's head.

If there is any consolation this time round, it is that even his fellow Republicans are getting sick and tired of his war mongering tactics. Lives are needless lost, resources are drained, simply to finance and maintain two separate occupations-cum-civil war.

It may not be prudent, but I will say this again: Short of the assassination of Bush, impeaching the inept, destructive white house chimp may be the next best way to get America out of this political and military quagmire. It has become almost painful to see this moron run the everyday affairs of America, which has become a freakshow for the rest of the world.