Is the White House changing its story on explosive charges in the Trade towers on 9/11? It's really starting to sound like it. In his speech defending torture, look at the 8th paragraph of his speech. Here's the quote in full from the White House website .
President Bush said, "For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." Read that line again!!!
Click here for the audio.
{It may not seem like much, but this is pre-meditated. This isn't one of Bush's slips where he accidentally says we attacked the Twin Towers or that we never stop looking for ways to kill our own people. This is something that was inserted by his speech writer for a particular purpose, edited and parsed numerous times before Mr. Bush performed this speech. Until now, the official story was that diesel burning and weakened structures caused 3 steel and concrete buildings to weaken and footprint collapse into themselves (at or above the speed of gravity). Note: The first time (correction: first 3 times) in history such an event has occurred...and the last time such an event occurred. I wonder what Popular Mechanics has to say about this speech.}
Other notable quotes from the speech:
THE PRESIDENT: "This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward." (Similar to it depends on what the definition of the word is, is. Except in this case, the result is not a president defending a blowjob, but asking the American people to agree that torture is an acceptable and desired practice! I never thought I would see days where an American President would, not only defend torture, but demand it is a necessity to defend democracy and decency. I guess I missed that sermon in church.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. 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, Terry. (Check the statistics and tell me which government is responsible for more innocent women and children dying.)
...Now, the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people, and they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.
... Now, this idea that somehow we've got to live under international treaties, you know -- and that's fine, we do, but oftentimes the United States passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty. And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, then it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that. I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear standards for our law enforcement intelligence officers, and give them the tools necessary to protect us within the law. (Please note it's a not far-fetched idea that we live under international treaties like the Geneva Convention. I didn't go to Yale, but I have a pretty good understanding of what an outrage upon human dignity is. What concerns me is that he and his followers (our leaders) do not. My guess is that he does not want to accept article 3 of the Geneva convention because he and his officers could be tried for war crimes.)
No comments:
Post a Comment