Robatoy wrote:
On May 21, 5:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


On the one hand, I stand
with you insofar as I believe Bush was well within his legal right to
do what he did. I also believe that doing so saved lives,

How?

notwithstanding the constant drone of "You can make anyone confess
anything under "torture."

If you torture people to get them to give you the excuse for the
illegal war you wage, torture becomes useful.

If, in fact, there had been no benefit to
doing so, why on earth would Bush have continued to tolerate something
that cost him so much political capital, and arguably cost his party
reelection?

Because he was arrogant enough to think it would not harm him and his
cronies.
He also didn't just 'tolerate' it, he bloody well initiated it. He
instructed his henchmen to torture a confession out of his detainees
so he could justify his war(s).
Either he initiated it, or he didn't have the balls to stand up to
Cheney and his death squad.

If you or any of the other people with Bush Derangement Syndrome could
actually prove this (as opposed to using proof by repeated assertion)
I'd be at the front of the line with you demanding a war crimes trial.
However, this seems very unlikely and just more foaming by people who
didn't like W for a whole lot of reasons. I didn't much care for
better than half of his policies but I've never bought the "Bush
(or Cheney) is evil incarnate" argument - it's silly.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/