12 tough questions for Mr. Bush

Saw this on another forum, and thought it was very interesting.

1. Please tell us more about your notion of "full sovereignty" for Iraq. Will this be like our returning Okinawan "sovereignty" to Japan in 1972, when we retained exclusive control over the 38 military bases on the island and the deployment and behavior of American forces on them?

2. Please tell us: If we plan to return Iraq to the Iraqis, why is the U.S. currently building fourteen permanent bases there?

3. Presumably the American troops to be stationed on these bases will remain under the control of the Pentagon and beyond the legal reach of any "sovereign" Iraqi state. Such arrangements are usually covered by a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) that we normally impose on the government in whose territory our bases are placed. Who will sign the SOFA on the Iraqi side? What are its terms? Will it be binding on the new government you hope the Iraqis will elect early next year?

4. The sovereignty discussion has been focused mainly on the question of who will control the actions of what troops -- Iraqi or American -- in the coming months. But American advisers will be stationed in every Iraqi "ministry"; the new government will evidently be capable neither of passing nor abrogating laws or regulations laid down by the occupying power (America); and the economy, except for oil, will remain open to all foreign corporate investors. Please tell us if this really strikes you as "full sovereignty"?

5. You say that we will tear down Abu Ghraib prison if the Iraqis so wish. What if they wish to preserve it as a monument to our cruelty as well as Saddam Hussein's?

6. Your administration has recently confirmed that while captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were not, in your eyes, covered by the Geneva Conventions, Iraqi prisoners and detainees were. The acts in Abu Ghraib prison contravened those conventions. We now know that teams of interrogation experts were sent by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commandant of our Guantanamo prison from Cuba to Abu Ghraib to teach Americans working there "better" interrogation techniques. If these contravened the Geneva Conventions, should General Miller be brought to trial for this? If General Miller acted at Guantanamo and elsewhere on the basis of guidelines and urgings from his superiors in the Pentagon and the military chain of command, should they face the same? Your views on this would be appreciated.

7. If it turns out to be true that some of the acts of torture in Abu Ghraib prison were, in fact, committed by members of the Israeli intelligence services, who were placed in the prison via our independent contractors, does this not further confuse American policy in the Middle East with that of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Is this really a good idea?

8. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the war and occupation in Iraq by 130,000 U.S. troops now costs close to $5 billion per month, or $60 billion a year. So far the war has cost American taxpayers $186 billion in direct military expenses. You've asked for another $425 billion in defense appropriations for the 2005 Pentagon budget, plus another $75 billion for Iraq, $25 billion for the development of new generations of nuclear weapons, and untold billion for such things as military pensions and veterans' health care. Not included in these figures are the multibillions in secret amounts spent on the CIA and other intelligence activities, not to speak of other Department of Defense "black budget" activities kept out of the appropriations process. Where is all this money going to come from? Why is our government putting all this money on the tab for future generations to deal with?

9. Speaking of military pensions and health care, would you please address the fact that something like 30% of the troops who participated in the first Gulf War are now seeking disability payments for illnesses contracted there -- chiefly as a result of our use of depleted uranium shells. Would you please discuss some of these long-term dangers of modern warfare (even when our initial short-term casualties seem relatively modest)? How will our military hospitals be able to care for all the soldiers who are likely to develop cancer or give birth to children with birth defects as a result of the current war?

10. On June 1, 2002, in your West Point speech enunciating your new doctrine of preventive war, you said there were 60 countries that were potential targets for regime change. Would you please list those 60 countries for us, and are you still determined in a second term to proceed down this list?

11. If you are determined to start new wars, or if the Iraq war drags on and not enough soldiers re-enlist, will you reinstate the draft?

12. Why do you usually give your speeches to the American people before audiences of servicemen and women at military academies, on bases, and the like, where they have been ordered by their superiors to attend and to applaud? Why not give one of your speeches -- especially if you're going to propose reinstating the draft -- at a large state college?

Source:

http://www.rense.com/general53/twel.htm

[onasis]

I would like to point out the differences between giving "sovereignty" and "power" to the Iraqis. "Sovereignty" implies simply giving the power to run laws and instate laws. "Power" is with the absence of foreign powers. To think that the Americans were going to give power this quick is very naive. Its basically a ploy to win over the anti war crowd at home and also to win over Iraqis who would like to reinstate their own laws.

[Compugasm]

I've been considering the policies of current candidates of today, in relation to candidates of 20yrs ago. I'm using Ronald Reagan as my base comparison as a conservative, so take that as you will. I think Bush is a democrat, and Kerry is a Socalist.

[onasis]

If Ronald Reagan is a conservative, I'm a fucking communist.

Ronald Reagan increased government spending like it was nobody's buisness. He dumped more money into the economy and the production to the prequels of Star Wars, than any other president. He used fake tax cuts as a basis for cutting social programs. He successfully increased inflation and left us with the Republican party being full of Neo-Cons. I hope when he died Reaganenomics died with him.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by dotComa,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dotComa,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>12. Why do you usually give your speeches... at a large state college?[/b]

I think you can pick apart all those 12 points. Since it is a debate forum, thats the purpose I guess. You want duplicitus? Hillary Clinton just gave a speech in front of a Latino group and said "This is a day the lord has made". Uh, please, I couldn't belive it. Anyway, to me this point seems like saying "why not give a speech on whale harpooning to Greenpeace".

<!--QuoteBegin-onasis,
If Ronald Reagan is a conservative[/quote]
Hmm, ok, well I was just making an observation. I have no will to debate it, or can't even support it. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up cause we're already off topic. Lesson learned.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dont forget, he was also a large part of the Iran/Conta arms deals, Oliver North is now a "News Reporter" (insert laughter here), and was proven to be part of the system smuggling drugs into the country at the same time endorsing a FEDERAL WAR ON DRUGS!

[Osborn F Enready]

Back on topic, I think Bush would have a coronary if FORCED to answer those questions knowing the penalty was a firing squad, which it should be.

[onasis]

I think you can pick apart all those 12 points. Since it is a debate forum, thats the purpose I guess. You want duplicitus? Hillary Clinton just gave a speech in front of a Latino group and said "This is a day the lord has made". Uh, please, I couldn't belive it. Anyway, to me this point seems like saying "why not give a speech on whale harpooning to Greenpeace".

Clinton testified in front of a grand jury for his mis doings. So should Bush.

[Sonart]

LOL! For over 7 years, Clinton endured 2 special prosecutors, 4 congressional hearings and a grand jury to determine that he apparently didn't do anything wrong in a land deal in which he lost money 10 years before he became President.

Bush pays a criminal millions of dollars for false information used to justify, against the advice of both his CIA and State Department, an ill conceived war and occupation in the heart of Muslim terror central, only to have that criminal hand over our most valued intellegence to a terrorist state classified by Bush as part of the Axis of Evil, and no one's talking impeachment?

How truly ironical. Gotta love our Republican Congress.

[bishop]

2. Please tell us: If we plan to return Iraq to the Iraqis, why is the U.S. currently building fourteen permanent bases there?

is there any proof of this?

i don't doubt it, but i'm interested in seeing if this can be substantiated.

[Comrade]

I lived on Okinawa for 3 years, I think you seriously misjudged the affect the military bases have on the local Politics.

1) the COLD WAR. You realize China is a short swim from Okinawa, and the Kamchatka (eastern Russia) peninsula is within range of America aircraft out of Kadena AFB?
2) The military has no say in Japanese government in the area.

Having military bases in our allies' countries isn't exactly news. We have military bases in Germany, not affecting their sovereignity one bit.
Then again, from the tone of a lot of your posts, you wouldn't oppose leaving Iraq as a babe in the woods, if it would make Bush look worse.
Bush isn't a good president, but be reasonable...

As for the American advisors and such who prevent laws from being passed that would end the laws we have placed, that sounds pretty bad. Explain a little more, so I have a little more than a bad feeling? Also, I'd like to see some of the (american-imposed) laws, and why they need to leave.

[Sean]

yea, I was curious about this claim too. I googled it, and got some results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...4+bases+in+Iraq

[Comrade]

"When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense." Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality.

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm sure a few people here have deep conspiracies to tell me about.

You know, if they're "reasonable" conspiracies that you could take to the bank without giving me the feeling that there's something being left out, then I'm all ears, but "the Bush Crime Family" seems more like hate than concern. If there's a Bush Crime Family, tell me about it, don't exaggerate it.

[bishop]

i also did my own google search. at this point, it doesn't seem like it's concrete. what would happen if the iraqis democratically tell us to leave?

of course, then you get into conspiracies where we are handpicking the successors in iraq and pulling the strings in the background. that is a conspiracy theory, but also a very believable one. just a month ago, we were posing chalabi to be the head honcho over there.

i'll tell you one thing though, this developing story sure doesn't give me confidence that we'll be leaving that place any time soon.

[sixmillman]

President Bush would never answer these questions. But I find them interesting.
So I thought I would answer them in my own words Allow me to answer in a way and manner that President Bush can not.

Questions 1,2,3
America will have a continued presence in the heart of the Middle East until such time as the hatred for western civilization fomented and indorsed implicitly by Muslim clerics and non-secular governments relents.
We will relinquish all political control of your daily lives short of allowing acts of violence against civilians, corporations, or institutions domestic or foreign.
We would prefer to have Embassies instead of Bases but at this time certain large segments of your societies seem intent on killing westerners on sight.
As we welcome your Muslim brothers to the United States, to participate in our economy, go to our schools, build Mosques and generally live lives of Freedom and Liberty, many long for reciprocal agreements with your Nations allowing American and European citizens the right to attend your Universities, immigrate to your lands to learn and share the enlightenment of your culture and civilization. Unfortunately security for those who would is in grave doubt.
So for now our Embassies will be Bases. I urge you to understand how American military presence does not mean political control. The United States has had military bases in many countries around the world for many years. Our Military Bases in Germany had little influence with the politics of Germany. Indeed the German President campaigned by insulting me. But the German government never called for the removal of the US bases from her sovereign soil. Perhaps there is more to our presence than the fascism you anticipate.

Question 4
Running a government in a modern world is more than title and pageantry. When control of a State falls into the hands of a Saddam Hussein or others who would circumvent the wealth of your Nation to destroy civilized discourse between Nations by warring on others the ultimate cost can be measured in the loss of lives of innocents. Kuwaitis, Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqi citizens all have paid in blood for Iraq’s government under the control of Saddam Hussein. Great wealth in modern society, and the wealth in Iraq’s future will carry great responsibility. For too long the political power in Iraq has been gained, and maintained by horrific violence against the people of Iraq. Force was met by force, and the transition to a government that serves the people of IRAQ will not be an easy one. We have earned the right to advise in that transition with our blood and treasure, and we have a responsibility to provide security to those Iraqi’s who will risk their very lives to create a new government in Iraq.

Question 5
Iraq very shortly will be able to decide the future of Abu Ghraib. Again I apologize for the mistreatment and abuse that occurred.

Question 6
This is a most difficult question. Best left to lawyers. As you are aware the Geneva Conventions were primarily designed to protect civilians and combatants in times of war. As such from the security of Geneva the framers of the documents to which we were signatories clearly defined “combatants”. We lament that in this modern war those who have declared war on us have stated numerous times that their targets are by the Geneva Conventions defined as “civilians”. Since these murderous factions purposely wear no uniforms when conducting their military operations they endanger the lives of civilians the world over. I do not know the solution to reconciling the Geneva Convention borne of WWI to the conflict we suffer under today. I don’t believe anybody does.

Question 7
What is the confusion? Israel is our ally. We do their bidding as they do ours. I may not like it but my reelection depends on it. If I could count on the vote of 60% of the American people who deplore this state of affairs, instead of the minority who do vote and finance political campaigns I might be saying something else.

Question 8
Because we are at war.

Question 9
Your observation is correct. War is dangerous. People are maimed and killed. Support for the troops is not just some patriotic slogan to be bandied about on Memorial Day. Those who risk all in OUR defense deserve not only our perpetual gratitude but the best medical care our society can provide. Unfortunately that care will be provided by a bureaucracy more like the US Postal service instead of Federal Express.

Question 10
I would refer you to the list posted at the official United Nations Web Site under “current conflicts” At this moment Sudan requires immediate attention lest the world allow another Rwanda genocide.

Question 11
I am not determined to start new wars, just end the ones already in progress. (see question 10) And yes if it comes to that point I agree with my Democrat colleague Barny Franks that all Americans should share the burden. However I feel that I must point out the nature of the current technology rich US military makes the use of draftees problematic at best. It would be like forcing INTEL to hire thousands of minimum wage high school graduates.

Question 12
Essentially the Secret Service is concerned with my security. Even in America there are Timothy McVeighs and other lunatics that would shoot me just to impress Jodie Foster.
It is a sad state of affairs but even as President I may only influence not control individual behavior.

[PatrickHenry]

dotComa, those are indeed toughies: How many will he be asked in person, or answer with his own lips before the 11/2/2004 encounter with destiny? He may get backed into a corner, though, by the multi-threaded scandals stinkin' up the White House these days: http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/dummies...es-scandals.htm

There are so many Bush Administration scandals and so little time to figure them all out. So I checked in with the franchised book series that succinctly provides clear answers for confused dummies like me. Q. Why are all these scandals seeming to come at the same time? Am I imagining this? Is it a liberal media conspiracy? A. No, you're not imagining it. And there's no conspiracy involved. It's a phenomenon not at all surprising. Here's how it works: Many of the Bush scandals aren't new at all; they've been brewing for a long time, with the White House trying to push them off until after Election Day. But scandals, like viruses, erupt on their own schedules.

Maybe the predators are closin' in on Dubya, but somehow I'm not holdin' my breath.

[castille]

Tough question for Al Gore: Who invented the Internet?

Tough question for Clinton: No blow, no go?

How to make the UNSC cry: So, how's Rwanda coming along?

[Sonart]

Tough question for Al Gore: Who invented the Internet?

Not Al Gore. However, during his service in the United States Congress, he took the initiative in creating the Internet, as we know and use it today.

Still promoting lies in order to paint Al Gore as a liar, Castille?

Tough question for Clinton: No blow, no go?

{YAWN} Can't answer questions about Bush, so we get this. How about this cute little line...

When Clinton lied, no one died.

[Sonart]

Maybe the predators are closin' in on Dubya, but somehow I'm not holdin' my breath.

Nope. Not with a Republican Congress.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great retort Sonart, on the one line accusations from Castille.