Posted on 06/08/2005 2:33:33 PM PDT by Brian Mosely
WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Wednesday left open the possibility that the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be shut down following mounting criticism from former President Carter and others.
"We're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America," Bush said when asked in an interview with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto if he would close the detention center.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, said he did not know of anyone in the administration who was considering closing Guantanamo. He defended the military's operation of the camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Carefull. Your taking a report from AP at face value, when we know there is little truth to anything they say.
I'm more willing to believe what Rumsfeld is saying, and that is there is no one he knows in the administration who has mentioned such a thing.
I find it hard to believe that Bush would be so foolish.
Well, it IS the Associated Press we are talking about here....
How many people do you think are going to read the full article and realize the headline is BS?
Now, how many people are going to take the headline as full truth, and start launching it across all of their lefty blogs?
There you go. Perception. Not yours, not mine, but everyone's. He needs to be very careful with how he says things, and his advisors need to tell him that. The media is LOOKING for holes like this to exploit. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Keep in mind that this so-called reporter for the AP is Jennifer Loven, whose husband was deputy assistant to Pres. Clinton during the Clinton administration.
Ms. Loven is not an unbiased reporter and is notorious for twisting Bush's words to suit her liberal agenda.
DON'T DO IT DUBYA, DON'T DO IT!
Right. The media is interested in salvaging some sort of legacy for Carter, who still has none to speak of, beyond that phony Nobel Peace Prize he won for cozying up to North Korean Communists by lining their pockets with American dollars and oil and natural gas and nuke technology.
Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, I have a money saving idea. How about we simply change the name of the place to "Camp Happiness and Peace"? Perhaps "Camp T Kennedy", or "Camp Kerry the Nam hero"...........I know, "Camp liberal", yep, any of those would work just fine. LOL
"Bush blows with the wind."
Yeah, right. Is that why he's taken so many steps lately to secure the Mexican border, just to satisfy the polls?
Oh wait - he's done nothing lately to secure the borders...
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007959.php
Jennifer Loven, the AP reporter who wrote the absurd "President Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq" story dissected below, has a history of writing hit pieces on behalf of the Democratic National Committee. Such as this July 2003 outrage, a "news story" titled "White House can't make the questions go away". Here is how Ms. Loven begins her "news story" on the famous "sixteen words" controversy:
The White House defense of President Bush's now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa has evolved over the last two weeks: blame others, stonewall, bury questions in irrelevant information and, above all, hope it will go away.So far, none has worked.
Now, that's not a bad beginning for a DNC press release. But for a wire service news report, it's ridiculous. Ms. Loven continues:
The flap started on July 6, when an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa last year to investigate the uranium claim contended that the Bush administration ignored his findings. In a New York Times op-ed article, Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, said it was highly doubtful that any transaction took place.
We know now, because of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that Joe Wilson lied about what happened in Niger. Wilson was assigned to the Niger investigation at the urging of his wife, Valerie Plame. The Committee's report says that Wilson went to Niger and was told by that country's former Prime Minister that Iraq had, indeed, tried to buy yellowcake uranium there. Note the Wilson lie that Loven repeats in her AP article: "it was highly doubtful that any transaction took place." Right. But, of course, that wasn't what Bush said in his State of the Union address. He said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." And Wilson's report to the CIA confirmed that Saddam had "sought," but not obtained, uranium in Africa, specifically Niger.
Such nuance, needless to say, is completely beyond Ms. Loven. Her interest is in slandering Republicans, period. She continues:
That changed with Wilson's statements. Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail demanded an investigation into whether Bush purposedly exaggerated intelligence.With its press staff unable to quell the controversy, the White House brought in Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rice, the president himself and even, later, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
But, after two weeks, a White House usually adept at controlling stories by dismissing questions and waiting them out has had no luck.
The key questions -- asked over and over -- were not changing:
-Who knew what when -- especially the president?
-Why was it so important to include the statement in the speech?
-Who was responsible for putting it in?
-Why has the president refused to take responsibility for uttering it?
Only the White House's explanations shifted -- often contradicting itself in the process.
Ms. Loven's animus against the Bush administration helps to explain why a complete non-story, Bush's sixteen words, which, as we have argued, were almost certainly true, turned into a mini-"scandal" that ended only when Joe Wilson was exposed as a liar.
But the facts don't matter to Ms. Loven and the Associated Press. What matters, to them, is electing a Democrat as President.
Now consider the source of the article - Washington Post via Associated Press
IMHO, it's disinformation from the enemy!
You must be stuck in the previous administration.
A lot of FReepers never miss a chance to attack the President even if they have to use some bias media story to do it.
Oh please.
The should close the current detention center....and move it to the "cliff" overlooking the water. Chuncks of it used to break off all the time. A nice long drop to the coral below with the 'cuda and sharks.
UWS
One Big Betrayal
6-5-2005 Hal Lindsey
The Israelis are reeling from the body blow delivered them by President Bush following his meeting with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. In one pronouncement, Bush totally scuttled all the hard-fought, blood-bought gains Israel has made in the three wars forced upon her.
All peace negotiations and concessions by Israel in the pursuit of peace with the Muslim Nations and Palestinians since 1949 have been rendered null and void.
President Bush's astonishing and unexpected statement reversed long standing American policy. In his joint statement with Abbas, he declared that any final status changes in the peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians must be mutually agreed to on the basis of the 1949 armistice lines.
To my horror, this statement is the greatest betrayal of Israel committed by any American president in history.
It nearly knocked me out of my chair when I considered the implications of Bush's statement. After considering them, I waited for a clarification. I thought, "Surely this president could not have meant what he said. It has to be a mistake."
I am still waiting, slack-jawed, for a retraction that evidently isn't forthcoming.
Imposing the condition of mutual agreement and setting the benchmark at the 1949 armistice lines starts the whole process at the beginning. This in effect gives all of the advantages to the Muslims without even sitting down at the bargaining table. Palestinians hold every casual word made by an American president that is to their advantage as the "Law of the Medes and Persians which changeth not."
It is a dead certainty that the Palestinian side isn't going to agree to a united Jerusalem with Israel. East Jerusalem was in Arab hands in 1949. A return to the 1949 armistice lines puts it in Arab hands again.
The Western Wall was in Arab hands in 1949. So was the Temple Mount. Making the 1949 armistice lines the basis for mutual agreement means Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians until they agree to give up their claim to the Dome of the Rock or until Israel agrees to give up its claim to the Temple Mount and all of Biblical Jerusalem.
Neither will happen. What is Bush thinking?
Based on this new equation, there is nothing left for Israel to negotiate. Victory: Palestinians. Method: Terrorism. Is it possible that President Bush didn't consider the implications?
President Bush gave his support to all key Palestinian demands without Abbas having to do a single thing to get it.
After resetting the negotiations to the 1949 lines, Bush added salt to the cuts:
"A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."
Connecting the West Bank and Gaza effectively cuts Israel in half, making Israel a "state of scattered territories" instead. Such a border arrangement renders Israel totally indefensible. Could the president have misspoken? How could he do such a thing? Especially since it is not Israel that threatens to destroy Palestine, but the Palestinians who – along with the Muslim world – vow to destroy Israel.
Everything about the Israeli-Arab conflict is unique, just as the Hebrew prophets said it would be. When it comes to Israel, the world becomes irrational.
For example, it is the only instance in modern history in which ethnic cleansing is a precondition to peaceful negotiations.
Israeli Foreign Service official and writer Yossi Ben-Aharond noted,
"Every time an Arab or Palestinian leader arrives in the United States, his emphasis is on criticism of Israel – Israel's conquest, their arrests, demolition of houses, et al. But when an Israeli leader arrives, what does he have to say? "We offer our hand in peace, the Palestinians are suffering, we have done so much for them, we ask the administration to provide them with aid, etc. – and he barely says anything about the PA's violations, the terrorism, the incitement, etc."
Only hours after President Bush gave Abbas the green light to claim most of Israel as Palestinian territory, Abbas was warning that if PA demands were not met, "despair and loss of hope will come back and a return to the old ideas" – of "armed resistance."
The message, "Terrorism pays, negotiation doesn't" was delivered personally to the Palestinians and the rest of the Islamic world by George W. Bush. President Bush did all of this when he uttered those three little words, "1949 Armistice Lines." It might be time for Israel to start looking around for a new peace broker. This one appears to have taken on a new client.
But there is an even graver consequence for the USA. I have believed for decades that God has protected America despite our growing sin. He has done so because the USA has been a base for world evangelism and we have supported Israel's right to exist in the land God promised them. This betrayal, if followed through, will effectively remove God's protective shield. May God help us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.