The President is up against several GOP heavyweights within his own party, including his own personal Secretary of State, Colin Powell, over the terrorism bill. Who stands to suffer more from the rift -- Bush or Powell? And will the terror bill survive intact, or will the President compromise with McCain, Powell, and others?
2006-09-16 05:55:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That is, FORMER Secretary of State, Colin Powell. :p
2006-09-16 05:56:41 · update #1
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/colin_powell_op.html
2006-09-16 05:57:45 · update #2
poor people all over the world have the most to suffer
Powell should run for President, he would win
and his reluctance tells me that he is probably the best person for the job
(no one who really wants to be president should be)
Bush needs this terrorism bill to protect HIMSELF, thats why he won't back down, can't back down
he is in trouble legally for what he has been doing and if he doesn't get the law changed he will eventually pay for it, and he knows it
2006-09-16 05:59:02 · answer #1 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush will suffer....I wish Colin Powell would run for president. At the same time though trying to use the Geneva convention to dictate how we treat terrorists is playing into their hands. They are not soldiers they are terrorists and cowards hiding behind their own people. We can't and shouldn't change the Geneva convention but on the other hand we don't need the terrorists. I think a new set of rules need to be made for those acting as terrorists which allows any nation to treat them as they treat others and then public beheadings in the US would be the answer for the terrorists. Hold the tribunals and quickly. The soldiers or others captured by the terrorists are not afforded any quarter dictated by the Geneva Convention why should they get any.
2006-09-16 13:19:17 · answer #2 · answered by chuck 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This hurts the war against terror. We are not fighting a traditional war in any sense. To try and interpret the Geneva Convention and apply it to terrorists is a dangerous game. The terrorists thrive off of this kind of controversy and will exploit any small advantage we give them. To say that we will loose face in the international community or that our troops will be treated poorly would be a valid argument if we were fighting a traditional enemy. The Islamo-fascists have consistently shown us no quarter, why should we give them any?
2006-09-16 13:02:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush is trying to save his own ***, he should be tried and convected of these war crimes instead he is trying to pass a law to excuse himself and in the meantime we become them or worse because we should know better, just because your enemy tortures and cuts off you head does not mean that you should. When we become them we also become as bad as them and we then should suffer any consequence.
2006-09-16 13:08:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Damages Bush....Raises my opinion of Powell
2006-09-16 12:57:44 · answer #5 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
McCain will suffer because I will oppose him in the primaries as will scores of like minded conservatives.
2006-09-16 13:03:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋