English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now the bush fully admids to secret prisons abroad for holding key suspects in the war on terror, and using "alternative" interrogation. His denial is offically a lie, why does the president get away with lying to the public and is never held accountable?

2006-09-06 19:29:52 · 15 answers · asked by Chad 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

15 answers

Chad, we've all been asking that. The entire Administration need to be held to account!

2006-09-06 19:34:22 · answer #1 · answered by pickle head 6 · 1 1

It's simple. We didn't need to know about the government using any means necessary to interrogate these people. These aren't your normal run-of-the-mill criminals.
It doesn't bother me any. I know that the CIA has secret operations all over the world. We're not SUPPOSED to know about those.
"Admitting" it was more of a courtesy than anything, and it's obviously a courtesy that most of us don't deserve.
The president doesn't HAVE to tell us what the CIA is doing.

Let me put it another way:
Let's suppose you're a government agent, and you've just caught someone who knows where a nuclear weapon is. This weapon was stolen from another country, and a group of people plant to detonate it inside a highly populated city, like Los Angeles, New York City, Paris, London, or Moscow.
This guy has been interrogated for hours, and nothing is working. Time is running short; the bomb is supposed to be detonated within a couple hours. Would you shoot the guy in the leg to make him tell?
Whatever interrogation methods these criminals have been subjected to is not HALF as severe as what they were going to subject the rest of the world to.
In this case, the ends do justify the means.
Does this mean I like it? No. I'm not too sure that if I was in the President's position I would be able to do what needs to be done.

When you're dealing with criminals such as these, sometimes you HAVE to resort to "alternative" means, in order to save lives. Weigh the discomfort of a few, against the death of thousands. Which would YOU choose?
Time is a rare commodity when it comes to cases such as these. These are NOT normal criminals, or typical circumstances.

2006-09-07 02:43:31 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0 1

let's impeach the president for lying
and leading our country into war
abusing all the power that we gave him
and shipping all our money out the door
he's the man who hired all the criminals
the white house shadows who hide behind closed doors
and bend the facts to fit with their new stories
of why we have to send our men to war

let's impeach the president for spying
on citizens inside their own homes
breaking every law in the country
by tapping our computers and telephones
what if al qaeda blew up the levees
would New Orleans have been safer that way
sheltered by our government's protection
or was someone just not home that day?

let's impeach the president
for hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
dividing our country into colors
and still leaving black people neglected
thank god he's racking down on steroids
since he sold his old baseball team
there's lot of people looking at big trouble
but of course the president is clean

thank god

2006-09-08 10:30:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

George Bush has never been accountable for anything he's ever done in his life so he feels no qualms about lying through his teeth and he excells at it. Practice, practice, practice. And as long as he has the Attorney General in his hip pocket, he feels invulnerable to the consequences of breaking the law. The media is getting bolder and bolder in reporting the truth and the number of people that are fooled "all the time" is decreasing. That's why Rove came up with the idea to paint the media as a tool of bin Laden. This, I think, is going to backfire on them, and maybe they won't get by with it, this time. But I certainly share your concern.

Good question.

2006-09-07 03:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by phoxee2003 3 · 1 0

Lying? People are worried about lying?

He's admitted to committing war crimes (18 USC 2441), confirmed by the US Supreme Court. He's officially stated that he doesn't recognize the authority of federal courts to review executive actions, or to interpret laws in a manner contrary to executive interpretation. He's said that his action are not subject to the limitations of Congress, no matter how explicit the law is.

And people are worried about him lying?!

2006-09-07 02:40:10 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

Politicians and liar are just like conjoined twins. Have you ever known a Politician to tell the truth? When you see the President telling lies, just remember he is attached to them because he is a Politician.

2006-09-07 02:40:56 · answer #6 · answered by cuz it is 1 · 1 1

First let me say to farkas419 or whatever your name is, my heart aches for you. I shutter to think what your life may be like.

The President lies because he can. Period!! Plain and simple, and because we the American people are too busy with our SUV's, white picket fences, and soccer games to give a rats ***. It's really disgusting isn't it. But there it is. You asked.

Oh and one more thing.... to Wunderkind........ No one died when Clinton lied!!!

2006-09-07 02:49:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Americans pretends to care, but we don't. If we cared about Bush lying so much, we would all have done something about it a long time ago.

2006-09-07 02:36:13 · answer #8 · answered by dewdropinn 3 · 1 1

Because he is the President.

2006-09-07 02:33:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

what makes you think that Bush is the only president that presented the American people with big lies? Clinton lied many times other than his sexual behavior. Even Reagan lied. I believe that the only president who did not lie was Harry Truman but I wouldn't swear to it.

2006-09-07 02:34:47 · answer #10 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers