OP-ED COLUMNIST Restoring Our Honor By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: May 6, 2004

e are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world. I have never known a time in my life when America and its president were more hated around the world than today. I was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale of the sitcom "Friends" right now. They're the only friends we have, and even they're leaving. This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster for us all. That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — today, not tomorrow or next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for interrogation, a policy that ran amok. Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have been fired by shareholders months ago. I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under Saddam — without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I want my country to behave better — not only because it is America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the credibility of our ideas. We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas — ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can. What we could do — and this was the only legitimate rationale for this war — was try to help Iraqis create a progressive context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war of ideas could be fought out. But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are going to successfully partner with Iraqis. Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections — and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in. Let's not lose sight of something — as bad as things look in Iraq, it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority, particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of interests, however clouded, can still salvage something decent from this war — if the Bush team can finally screw up the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change course. Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must insist on it, because America's role in the world is too precious — to America and to the rest of the world — to be squandered like this.    source...

Message:
You need to get your facts straight, you are twisting things to meet your needs.

Here is what Tenet said about Bush's statement in the SOTU speech:

Tenet admits error in approving Bush speech

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A line in President Bush's State of the Union address alleging that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa should never have been included in the speech, CIA Director George Tenet said Friday.

In a statement released Friday evening, Tenet said that the CIA had seen and approved the speech before it was delivered, and he took responsibility for the mistake.

"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said.

The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."

Source

Now that I have proven you are wrong, are you going to apologize to me?

Name:

Why do s lie so much?

In response to:
"We must stop thinking of the country and start thinking about what is best for ourselves." GEORGE W. BUSH

This is obviously a parody to demonstrate that your accusation against Hillary's statement is too darned stupid for words.

Message:
Let me get this straight, a Democrat is lying to "prove" criticism of Hillary is "too darn stupid for words"

Why do Democrats lie so much?

(don't bother arguing with me, this Democrat is admitting they are lying)

Name:

Hmm

Message:
liberal

Name:

Hmm

Message:
democrat

Name:

Abuse

Message:

Name:	Muhammad Istar of Najah
To:	my brother Muslims
Re:	I apologise for the english, no translater on site

In response to:
You are worried that if captured much harm will be done to you and you will suffer until you talk, then they will probably kill you. Do not worry. I saw a grenade hidden in underwear used to kill three Americans. The granadier is in Abu Ghrabar alive, well, and prays daily to Allah!

Message:
The enemy americans are crazy. They did not beat the killer of their countrymen, they thought a woman with a dog leash could humiliate him far more than beating him to almost die. He eats all the apporved Muslim diet and the worse that happened to him was the woman sat on him! He said she was not ugly and he secretly pretended to suffer when he had paid for such mistreatment by harlots when he had money and opportunity to be so tortured. He pretended she had sex with him after the sitting and the leash. He still thinks about it when he needs a woman, which is very frequently, he says. He calls the woman,"the naughty one" and speaks often of his "suffering".

Name:	Again and Again and Again
To:	Fact Finders

Message:
That CNN article has been "revised" in page 295 of Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack."

"But less than four months earlier, Tenet and the CIA has excised the sentence from the president's speech in Cincinnati because the assertion could not be confirmed and was thought to be shaky. Tenet has not reviewed the State of the Union speech, and Hadley had forgoten the earlier CIA warning."

When the CNN article came out many in political circles believed that Tenet was the fall guy for somebody. According to Bob Woodward Tenet did not review the State of the Union speech.

I am standing by for apologies for being called a "liar" and "twisting the facts"

Name:

Democrats in Free-Fall

Message:
(NY Daily News)

Globe-trotting Lauren Hutton came home from a recent trip to Tanzania with a suitcase full of macabre souvenirs.

"They were selling watches in carts, with pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden on them," the venerable supermodel told us. "For $1.50."

And did she buy one?

"Are you kidding?" said Hutton, who last night was the guest of honor at a benefit here for the African Rainforest Conservancy. "I bought every one they had" (as mementos for friends and family).

Terrorists' bombs rocked the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in August 1998.

Asked if she felt the watch vendors were anti-American, Hutton, a critic of the Bush administration, said: "I've been feeling pretty un-American myself, lately. But then I didn't approve of the Roman Empire either when it went stomping around the world."

Name:	The Fact Finder
To:	Again (with the nonsense)

In response to:
That CNN article has been "revised" in page 295 of Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack."

Message:
Yeah right. Don't believe what Tenet said, beleive what you are saying.

So you are claiming Woodward "revised" history.

Yeah. Right.

But less than four months earlier, Tenet and the CIA has excised the sentence from the president's speech in Cincinnati because the assertion could not be confirmed and was thought to be shaky. Tenet has not reviewed the State of the Union speech, and Hadley had forgoten the earlier CIA warning."

If that is from Woodward' book, Woodward was wrong.

When the CNN article came out many in political circles believed that Tenet was the fall guy for somebody. According to Bob Woodward Tenet did not review the State of the Union speech.

If want you say is true, and you have not provided any supporting evidence, either Bob Woodward or Tenet is lying. Being that Tenet was the one that actually made the statement, Woodward would be the one lying (the CNN articles proves your claim is false). I don't beleive Woodward is lying, I think you are lying in that Woodward never tried to rewrite or "revise" history as you are claiming.

I have proven you are lying, it is you that needs to apologize. Tenet said "The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," and "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."

You are wrong.

Let us not forget the theme of this thread. You are trying to claim Bush lied. Tenet's statement disproves your allegation. Not much more to say about this.

Name:	Master Courtney Pete Stark
To:	Seargent on phone, member VFW
Re:	The Politician now know as MUD

In response to:
(Paraphrased) Since somebody put you up to this as you are not smart enough to even spell half of the words in you letter to me about my no vote on the military. What make you think you're such a *** damned hero? I'll call back later.

Message:
Heard on a major radio show carried by hundreds of stations, giving his constituent a piece of his mind which was obviously already fragmented.

Name:	nonplussed
To:	Master Stark, your Highness

In response to:
Me thinks you are truly a genuine Richard Head! Your mother must surely be proud! Why not get a copy of what you said to your voter and play it for her on Mother's Day. Then she can but marvel at your style, grace, and aplomb. A Richard Head is named for an elitist of fine bearing, a gentleman scholar for which the world has little use and ,indeed, small regard!

Message:
Richard Head: A true liberal high thinker, well capable of discerning what is best for the poi poi over which he has been elected, a person of high breading and impecable taste one who knows his way around and has his way with "the little people" especially in houses and lots.

Name:

The Fact Finders

In response to:
"But then I didn't approve of the Roman Empire either when it went stomping around the world." -Lauren Hutton

Message:
I knew Lauren Hutton was old, but I did not think that old.

Name:	Individual
Re:	We can't afford republican presidents

Message:
Over the past 20 plus years, republicans needed to run huge deficits in order to get good growth numbers. The deficits run by democrats were tame by comparison. Below are the deficit numbers needed to get 1% growth in GDP for the last 4 presidents:

Reagan = Average of $88.66 billion per year over 8 years

/Bush's Father = Average of $171.01 billion per year over 4 years

Clinton = Average of $37.20 billion per year over 8 years;

Dubya = Average of $147.43 billion over 2 years

Clinton was a real miracle. The republicans don't know the formula for getting good economic growth without huge deficits. Until they find out, we can't afford republicans.

Name:	The American People
To:	SPINdividual
Re:	Posting Crap

In response to:
Over the past 20 plus years, republicans needed to run huge deficits in order to get good growth numbers.

Message:
Will you please stop repeating this STUPID LIE.

There is no direct connection between budget deficits and economic growth.

You have been asked numerous times to support this absurd statement and each and every time you fail to provide any supporting evidence.

It was also pointed out that Clinton/Gore had what they called surpluses yet they drove the economy into recession, this alone disproves your premise unless you are going to claim deficits cause economic growth and surpluses cause recessions.

Please stop posting this discredited crap.

Name:	PWT
To:	individual

Message:
How does an increased deficit afftect you negatively?

Name:	Individual
To:	Democrats

Message:
Stop trying to assign blame for 9-11. Just simply state the facts: Under Bush, terrorist were able to launch their largest, successful attack against the U.S. in history.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
How does an increased deficit afftect you negatively?

Message:
How does it affect you negatively?

Name:

Geneva Convention

Message:

What Does the Geneva Convention Actually Say about Prisoners of War?

• "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
  
  
• "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor."
  
  
• "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

--Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949)
* * * * * *


Where Did This Geneva Convention
Come From?

Conventions concerning warfare and prisoners of war are as old as war itself. But today's Geneva Conventions are the direct descendents of the first Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864. And that convention, on fair treatment for wounded soldiers, was the brainchild of Swiss humanitarian Jean Henri Dunant.

In 1859, Dunant found himself in northern Italy, in pursuit of an audience with the French Emperor Napoleon III. He was trying to secure water rights in Algeria that only the emperor could grant. But Napoleon III was in the field with his armies, fighting the Austrians. Determined to get an audience anyway, Dunant made his way to the emperor's headquarters, near the Italian town of Solferino.

He arrived just in time to witness one of 19th-century Europe's bloodiest battles. Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I led an army of 120,000 against a combined French and Italian force of roughly equal size. The armies clashed almost by accident. The French expected to fight only the rear-guard Austrian units, while the Austrians expected only to face the French avaunt garde. Instead, nearly 30,000 men were killed or wounded.

Dunant witnessed the effects of the battle firsthand and was moved by the plight of the wounded soldiers, many of whom were left on the field to die. So he began to organize emergency care for them, soliciting help from local civilians.

Three years later, Dunant published A Memory of Solferino (1862), a little book that would change the world. In it, he described the battle and the efforts to care for the wounded that followed. He also proposed that volunteers in every nation should organize relief societies to provide care for those wounded in war, and that warring nations should recognize and respect the neutrality of these volunteers.

The next year, the Geneva Society for Public Welfare called for an international conference based on Dunant's proposals, and the International Committee for the Relief of the Wounded was born (soon to become the International Committee of the Red Cross). Thanks to Dunant's investments of time and money, the conference drew delegates from 16 nations, who laid the groundwork for another conference in 1864. The result was an international treaty commonly called the first Geneva Convention.

Second, third, and fourth Geneva Conventions followed, culminating in the conventions of 1949. More than 150 nations signed on, agreeing to observe specific protections for wounded, shipwrecked, and imprisoned soldiers and still other protections for civilians.

After 1864, Dunant disappeared from public view and was reduced to poverty. In 1892, illness led him to a Swiss hospice, where he would live another 18 years. The world "rediscovered" him in 1895, and lavished prizes and awards upon him, including the first Nobel Prize for Peace. He paid some of the prize money to people who had cared for him over the years, and gave the rest to charity.

Steve Sampson

Want to learn more?
Read the four Geneva Conventions of 1949

Name:

Individual

In response to:
You have been asked numerous times to support this absurd statement and each and every time you fail to provide any supporting evidence.

Message:
You right wing extremists deal so much in speculation that you can't understand what a fact is anymore. What I reported is the facts. It is not cause-effect speculation. The value judgment that "we can't afford republican presidents" is based on the facts.

I really wonder whether these right wing extremists know the difference between (1) factual claims; (2) opinion/value claims; and (3)conceptual/definition claims? I really don't think they do-- which is sad.

Name:	PWT
To:	individual

In response to:
Clinton was a real miracle. The republicans don't know the formula for getting good economic growth without huge deficits. Until they find out, we can't afford republicans

Message:
To answer the question put to me directly: an increased deficit does not affect me negatively at all.

Here is the Clinton formula for increased economic growth without deficits: cut taxes on the wealthy.

Name:	Again and Again and Again
To:	The Fact Finder

In response to:

Message:
You calling me a liar because I did not provide you with evidence. I provided you with the name of the book and the page I found that exact quote on.

Now go look up the source I provided and get back to me with an apology

Name:

Off for the Weekend

Message: