Bush appoints another criminal to high office

[No Limit]

John Negroponte, who has absolutely no prior experiance in national security nor intel has been appointed by Bush as director of national intelligence. He will oversee everything in the intelligence community and the CIA director will have to report to him.

Now the fact that he has absolutely no prior experiance is hardly the only problem. I'm sure everyone remembers Gonzales who would refuse to address if he supports torture or not and he is the one that paved the way for the abuses at Abu Gharib was also appointed by Bush. Amazingly, Negroponte has a much worse record when it comes to human rights, torture, and murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

From 1981 to 1985 Negroponte was US ambassador to Honduras. During his tenure, he oversaw the growth of military aid to Honduras from $4 million to $77.4 million a year. At the time, Honduras was ruled by an elected but heavily militarily-influenced government. According to The New York Times, Negroponte was responsible for "carrying out the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinistas government in Nicaragua." Critics say that during his ambassadorship, human rights violations in Honduras became systematic.

Negroponte supervised the construction of the El Aguacate air base where Nicaraguan Contras were trained by the US, and which critics say was used as a secret detention and torture center during the 1980s. In August 2001, excavations at the base discovered 185 corpses, including two Americans, who are thought to have been killed and buried at the site.

Records also show that a special intelligence unit (commonly referred to as a "death squad") of the Honduran armed forces, Battalion 3-16, trained by the CIA and Argentine military, kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of people, including US missionaries. Critics charge that Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with the Honduran military while lying to Congress.

In May 1982, a nun, Sister Laetitia Bordes, who had worked for ten years in El Salvador, went on a fact-finding delegation to Honduras to investigate the whereabouts of thirty Salvadoran nuns and women of faith who fled to Honduras in 1981 after Archbishop Óscar Romero's assassination. Negroponte claimed the embassy knew nothing. But in a 1996 interview with the Baltimore Sun, Negroponte's predecessor, Jack Binns, said that a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women Bordes had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981, and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, and then later thrown out of helicopters alive.

In early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contras after the U.S. Congress had banned further military aid. Documents show that Negroponte brought the two together with a contact in the Honduran armed forces. The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any US involvement, despite Negroponte's participation in the scheme. Other documents uncovered a plan of Negroponte and then-Vice President George H. W. Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government.

During his tenure as US ambassador to Honduras, Binns, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, made numerous complaints about human rights abuses by the Honduran military and he claimed he fully briefed Negroponte on the situation before leaving the post. When the Reagan administration came to power, Binns was replaced by Negroponte, who has consistently denied having knowledge of any wrongdoing. Later, the Honduras Commission on Human Rights accused Negroponte himself of human rights violations.

Speaking of Negroponte and other senior US officials, an ex-Honduran congressman, Efrain Diaz, told the Baltimore Sun, which in 1995 published an extensive investigation of US activities in Honduras:

Their attitude was one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan its territory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed.
The Sun's investigation found that the CIA and US embassy knew of numerous abuses but continued to support Battalion 3-16 and ensured that the embassy's annual human rights report did not contain the full story.

The question of what John Negroponte knew about human rights abuses in Honduras will probably never be answered definitively, but there is a large body of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that Negroponte was aware that serious violations of human rights were carried out by the Honduran government with the support of the CIA. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, on 14 September 2001, as reported in the Congressional Record (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2001_cr/s091401.html), aired his suspicions on the occasion of Negroponte's nomination to the position of UN ambassador:

Based upon the Committee's review of State Department and CIA documents, it would seem that Ambassador Negroponte knew far more about government perpetuated human rights abuses than he chose to share with the committee in 1989 or in Embassy contributions at the time to annual State Department Human Rights reports.
Among other evidence, Dodd cited a cable sent by Negroponte in 1985 that made it clear that Negroponte was aware of the threat of "future human rights abuses" by "secret operating cells" left over by General Alvarez after his deposition in 1984.

Understand, the above article was written long before he was appointed to this position today so there is nothing partisan about it.

Some more reading:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14485

So do you just love Bush? He loves to talk about human rights and freedom around the world yet he continues to support torture and he continues to appoint criminals to high positions. Republicans, spin away.

 

[CptStern]

heh bush has a history of dealing with criminals: Orlando Bosch, Iyad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, ... his entire cabinet

btw american officials gave the CIA torture manual: Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual to the Honduran Military. Battalion 316, a notorious honduran death squad used it's techniques

 

[No Limit]

heh bush has a history of dealing with criminals: Orlando Bosch, Iyad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, ... his entire cabinet

btw american officials gave the CIA torture manual: Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual to the Honduran Military. Battalion 316, a notorious honduran death squad used it's techniques

Yup, and our good friend John Negroponte had a lot to do with that. So lets look at the roster, we now have a guy that supports torture as the attorney general and a guy that ignores (and looks like participates in) human rights violations as the head of our national security. What amazes me is how this guy could get such a position without any experiance, almost smells a little fishy. God help America.

 

[diluted]

Hardly surprising..

 

[No Limit]

Come on 75 people viewed this topic and no republican wants to defend Bush on this?

 

[seinfeldrules]

The question of what John Negroponte knew about human rights abuses in Honduras will probably never be answered definitively, but there is a large body of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that Negroponte was aware that serious violations of human rights were carried out by the Honduran government with the support of the CIA.

hmmmmm, I'm suprised you didnt bold that one. Besides, Congress must vote on this appointee as well if I am not mistaken.

 

[No Limit]

hmmmmm, I'm suprised you didnt bold that one. Besides, Congress must vote on this appointee as well if I am not mistaken.

There is a lot more in there that proves these accusations. The evidance is circumstantial because there is no way to prove it based on the fact that the CIA did a great job of covering it up.

So if you like address the rest of the post including the torture camps he was a part of.

Second, do you honestly think it is a good idea for someone that has ties to something like this to be in such a high position in our government? He clearly had ties to this as the article pointed out, there is no denying that as he was the ambassador.

I find it amazing that you guys will defend Bush no matter what.

 

[kmack]

Don't listen to seinfeld he just makes stuff up. "Clinton bombed Iraq on the night of his impeachment", no he did not, he continues his justified and NATO backed bombing of Yugoslavia, but he didnt touch iraq like bush did. Typical right wing lies and ignorance

 

[seinfeldrules]

Don't listen to seinfeld he just makes stuff up. "Clinton bombed Iraq on the night of his impeachment", no he did not, he continues his justified and NATO backed bombing of Yugoslavia, but he didnt touch iraq like bush did. Typical right wing lies and ignorance

Then how do you explain away the fact that Clinton had his impeachment vote coming up on a Thursday, and bombed Iraq the day before (Wens)? I hardly see how I lied? Perhaps an apology is in order.

I find it amazing that you guys will defend Bush no matter what.

Again, Congress must approve these appointees...

 

[kmack]

HE DID NOT BOMB IRAQ. William Jefferson Clinton commited no acts of violence or war against IRAQ. stop saying it. it was yugoslavia with NATOs approval.

 

[No Limit]

Again, Congress must approve these appointees...

Yes, but you are defending Bush appointing him. Also, with a Republican controlled congress there is virtually no chance he won't get the job (unless some big scandal comes up as it did with Kirk).

 

[seinfeldrules]

HE DID NOT BOMB IRAQ. William Jefferson Clinton commited no acts of violence or war against IRAQ. stop saying it. it was yugoslavia with NATOs approval.

Want to make a bet?

Actually nevermind, I'll save you your money.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The fact that you believe Clinton did nothing while Bush did everything actually scares me.

Yes, but you are defending Bush appointing him.

Wrong. Where did I say "I support this man as the new Director of.....". I dont think it is fair for you to make your assumptions based on 1 source or from sources only coming from 1 side of the aisle. I dont know enough about him and neither do you, we dont have time to memorize every politican's track record.

 

[No Limit]

Wrong. Where did I say "I support this man as the new Director of.....". I dont think it is fair for you to make your assumptions based on 1 source or from sources only coming from 1 side of the aisle. I dont know enough about him and neither do you, we dont have time to memorize every politican's track record.

Look, cut it out. You were clearly trying to defend Bush by saying this is all circumstantial; let's just cut the crap for a second.

The simple fact is that this guy doesn't have a very good track record for human rights (to put it as lightly as possible) and there is no reason he should be the head of our national security. I know deep down you agree with that so lets take the partisan spin out of this and actually concentrate on what is actually good for this country. Do we really want to give the rest of the world the image that we support human rights violations and support troture? Because even if these are just allegations that is exactly what we are doing when we do stupid shit like this.

 

[Bodacious]

HE DID NOT BOMB IRAQ. William Jefferson Clinton commited no acts of violence or war against IRAQ. stop saying it. it was yugoslavia with NATOs approval.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Clinton launched more missiles at Iraq than were launched during the first gulf war.

 

[No Limit]

Amazing. Simply amazing. Clinton launched more missiles at Iraq than were launched during the first gulf war.

Maybe you didn't read the thread title; this isn't about Clinton nor the Iraq war.

Someone needs to tell him that as I am on his ignore list.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Look, cut it out. You were clearly trying to defend Bush by saying this is all circumstantial; let's just cut the crap for a second.

Cut what out? You dont know what I think.

 

[No Limit]

Cut what out? You dont know what I think.

Oh, but I do .

Unless you really feel someone that'sbeen accused of human rights violations and has no experiance should be the head of our national security; for some reason I don't believe a sane person would believe that :cheers:

To be honest I don't even think most republicans will sign off to this now that I read Liberman's comments about this guy.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh, but I do .

Sorry, you are not posting anything except your own agenda. There are two sides to every story, you are viewing it as one.

 

[Tr0n]

Sorry, you are not posting anything except your own agenda. There are two sides to every story, you are viewing it as one.

....and you are not doing the same?

Hell thats what everyone in this forum does.

 

[seinfeldrules]

....and you are not doing the same?

I havent posted anything one way or another. I havent supported him nor spoken against him.

 

[Pesmerga]

There are two sides to every story, yes. Believe me, if any one of you lived during the Salem witch trials, you'd be in that mob with a pitch fork just like everyone else. Fortunately, more freedom of speach is permitted. Unfortunately, lots of people are forced to listen to your endless whining and moaning.

I've never heard one republican say anything bad about Bush, or one democrat defend him in anything. Your minds are so bent on winning the conversation, you forget about concluding a resolve.

I'd appreciate more thinking in arguments (ya know, using that noggin), rather than just retorting comebacks and 'witty' counter-arguments.

Bush is just a figure that can make important decisions and try his hardest to do what he feels right. He is not the sole responsibility for all that ever happens in the government. There are much deeper parts of the government that most of you will never even hear mention of.

4 years. 4 years until Republicans get back on the offensive. Unless we elect another republican. Then I gotta listen to you all again...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I've never heard one republican say anything bad about Bush, or one democrat defend him in anything. Your minds are so bent on winning the conversation, you forget about concluding a resolve.

OWNED!!!1

 

[Sprafa]

I'm glad someone touched the reason I've left. that Anne Coulter topic just summed it up in a cup of tea

 

[RZAL]

Undecided on this topic or at the least neutral.

Theres my 2 cents worth

 

[KoreBolteR]

well, what can i say?
look at the world around you, iranian leaders are all criminal, NK leaders are criminal.. i suppose in someways, every country's leaders can be criminals in different ways.

because they have the power to be one

 

[No Limit]

I havent posted anything one way or another. I havent supported him nor spoken against him.

What that tells me is you are hiding your own view to cover your own ass since you don't want to say anything bad about Bush. Form your own opinions please; don't wait for RNC talking points to come out about this.

I've never heard one republican say anything bad about Bush, or one democrat defend him in anything. Your minds are so bent on winning the conversation, you forget about concluding a resolve.

That's not really accurate. I have defended Bush when idiot democrats call him a nazi, I agree with his border control policy, I agree with him on his gun policy. The problem is that Bush does stupid shit like this (appointing a criminal as national security director and appoints an attorney general who supports torture) and throws all that out the window. Don't turn this thread in to a topic about Clintion; however, if you remember while Clinton was in office the nation was a lot less polorized than this. His approval rating, even after the sexual stuff, was around 70% ( http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/ ); Bush's is less than 50%. This is especially suprising since 9/11 united this country; as usual Bush ****ed that unity up. Bush had an approval rating of around 85% after 9/11; the highest ever for a president (I believe). http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

So yes, this nation is extremely polorized right now and you get Democrats that wrongly criticize Bush and you get Republicans that wrongly defend him (as in this case). Because of this the nation is going down the shitter, and yes, I blame Bush for this as this country was united before he screwed it up.

Now back on topic. No Republican has been able to provide any good reason why this guy should be the head of our national security. Amazingly I haven't even heard any of the Fox News talking points they repeated over and over yesterday about how this guy has diplomacy experiance. This argument can be easily shred a part. So Republicans on this board; come up with a reason or admit this guy isn't fit for this job; it's not that hard.

 

[jondy]

Let's put the whole Republican/Democrat thing aside for a second - this guy, whether appointed by Bush or the Son of God, shouldn't be in office with a track record like that.

 

[Javert]

"Former Enron man Secretary of the Navy??"
-Robin Williams.

Just brings to mind. ^_^

 

[seinfeldrules]

What that tells me is you are hiding your own view to cover your own ass since you don't want to say anything bad about Bush. Form your own opinions please; don't wait for RNC talking points to come out about this.

I dont see how you are accusing me of 'covering my ass' when I havent said anything one way or another. Why dont you put down the DNC talking points and then respond in this thread?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

They tend to do that Seinfeld. They get in a tissy, and "isolate themselves" [OMFG NOOO TEH UN CRUMBLED!] from contributed reasonings.

Not suprisingly, I've done the same ... me and Stern are also building a wall between the US-Canadian border. I think while im sleeping to recover from a hard-days work ... he'll wack me. Then bury my bones in the wall.

 

[No Limit]

I dont see how you are accusing me of 'covering my ass' when I havent said anything one way or another. Why dont you put down the DNC talking points and then respond in this thread?

But why haven't you said anything? Because you do not want to disagree with Bush even when you know he is wrong.

 

[bliink]

Someone said I was coming off as annoying for treating people like children because of the way they behave in the forums..

Don't listen to seinfeld he just makes stuff up.

Cut what out? You dont know what I think.

Oh, but I do .

OWNED!!!1

(complete post, in size 7)

you are hiding your own view to cover your own ass

'covering my ass'

They get in a tissy

* * *
Ahahah.. yeah ok.. [/sarcasm]

Noone signs up to a forum to read childish drivel, so cut it out, right now, or I'll start "un-signing" people up.
No Questions/Comments? Good. :thumbs:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Honestly how is anything I have said childish? My points were quite relevant. Editing my posts to make a point doesnt make them childish.

But why haven't you said anything? Because you do not want to disagree with Bush even when you know he is wrong.

It is because I dont know enough about the guy. Neither do you. Reading one article doesnt make you an expert.

 

[bliink]

Honestly how is anything I have said childish? My points were quite relevant. Editing my posts to make a point doesnt make them childish.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough to say that there is to be no discussion on that.
Your behaviour, and others, on both sides of the fence, is immature.
Every one of the quotes I posted was either completely stupid or designed like some sneer you'd hear a 12 year old say in a school playground.

If there are any further issues, PM me, but there is to be no further discussion on the matter here.