In the www.nytimes.com
today, (Jan. 29) front page article about Bush reconsidering the POW / Geneva Rules, etc. after finally listening to the Joint Chiefs, Powell, International thinking heads...the article states how the current policy is setting a dangerous precedent for our own men in future clashes. Check it out...very informative and straight to the point. I don't know how to cut and paste the site here. Use the archives to go back to Jan. 29th. Maybe cooler heads will prevail...I see lots of teenage boys in our family whom I would hate to see held captive anywhere after this Guantanamo debacle.
Jan 29, '02
In the above article, exactly what purpose does the statement that "Powell was out of the country when he said what he said?" Does it mean if he had been IN the country, we would have clamped our hands over his mouth so he couldn't speak? Does it mean he was drinking B grade water and it clouded his thoughts to the degree that he didn't realize he does not have the right to speak an opinion that opposes the administrations' PUBLIC POLICY? What does it mean? To me, it is an excuse to excuse (justify) Powells' mea culpa ....An explanation for the ignorant masses..."Just explain to the masses/taxpayers/public/constituents that Powell was out of the country when he said it." Does that mean if you are beyond our borders, you are not held accountable for what you say? ha ha ha...John Walkers' lawyer could use this rationale.....LMAO ... Politicians are soooooooo hysterically amusing...
Last edit by prn nurse on Jan 29, '02