President Bush spoke out about the woman raped in the Middle East who was the victim but sentenced to jail and lashings. The King of Egypt then pardoned her.
A woman from America was raped by empoyees of Hallibruton and can't get anyone to do anything. Because they are contracting in Iraq the law doesn't apply to these rapists for some reason. Why isn't President Bush coming to her aid like he did the woman in the Middle East?
This woman from the United States and was doing work in Iraq, was raped by several Halliburton employees and no one cares.
Not one word of help or condemnation from President Bush!
Why didn't he call attention to the rape case of the American woman? Because he didn't want to draw more negative attention to his Contracting company and his war machine?
2007-12-18 07:35:14 · 12 answers · asked by scottanthonydavis 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Typical con hypocricy.......
2007-12-18 07:43:40 · answer #1 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It's politics and foreign relations. Intervening in a case that seems to be a human rights violation, such as imprisoning a woman who was raped, is sending a message that our country doesn't approve of these practices. It's the same reason American has put pressure on China with regard to Tibet and Taiwan and Russia over the Balkin states. The case of the American woman is sad, but it's not really the President's place to get involved in individual cases. For that matter, it's not really the place of the federal government to intervene in individual cases*. This is one of the reasons many people were upset about the President and Congress even discussing the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago. *This does not apply to the federal government creating laws that apply to specific issues. Although this is usually left to the states. The only time the federal government should get involved in an individual case is the Supreme Court (and lower appellate courts). However, the purpose of the courts involvement is not to hear the individual case, but rather to test the constitutionality of a law.
2016-05-24 22:25:13 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The defense of women raped in the Middle East is for foreign diplomacy and he ignores the US woman because there is no diplomacy. Raped women must be defended wherever they maybe.
2007-12-18 09:49:37 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I loathe him. Didn't you hear? They mysteriously lost the rape kit that was put in the care of the guards at Haliburton. Must've been temps I guess.
2007-12-18 07:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by Cesaria Barbarossa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Haliburton and its' employees do as they please without consequence because Bush signed a bill excusing them from any form of prosecution in America or abroad.
2007-12-18 08:15:30 · answer #5 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It's called, take one for the team!
PS, posting 3 times, is like spitting 3 times on cons face!!
2007-12-18 07:55:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Human rights for the Saudi the other woman has to make her case. You pass judgement with out a trial so you hang the Duke Boys with out a trial
2007-12-18 08:25:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
because Bush thinks a good thing that these contractors can act outside of the jurisdiction of any and all Iraqi and US law. he wouldn't want to advertise how they have abused this situation, now would he?
2007-12-18 07:39:23 · answer #8 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Halliburton didn't rape this woman, some of it's employees did. How do you reach the conclusion that the company was responsible based solely on the fact the alleged criminals worked for them?
2007-12-18 07:48:50 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff F 3 · 1⤊ 7⤋
Oooh.
Ouch.
Eeep!
Damn, that smarts!
2007-12-18 07:55:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
like you said the one raped at haliburton was american, so she must have given her consent.
2007-12-18 07:42:14 · answer #11 · answered by ati-atihan 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋