Obama’s Waffling Makes Him Look Weak
Obama really opened up a can of worms that will come back to bite him.
This last week was the best example. The president decided, as he promised in the campaign, that he would ban torture—a decision I agree with but many don’t. Then he decided to release four Bush-era Justice Department memos that gave legal guidelines to the executive branch on “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Many wanted these documents released, and the president, after a month-long internal debate, gave them up. At the same time he said he had no intention of prosecuting the drafters of those memos or anyone else in a federal agency, mainly the CIA, who followed those guidelines.
The Right went nuts over the release of the documents. The CIA felt betrayed. The Left went nuts over the contents of the memos and pressed to have the authors—high Justice Department officials in the Bush administration—prosecuted, investigated and maybe even tortured! The president went to the CIA and gave them a cheerleading speech.
The next day he reversed himself and said it’s up to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Congress to determine if any laws were violated by the former officials.
He waffled big time. Now all sides are mad at him and he looks weak. Weakness is the death knell for a president. With 1,366 days to go before this term is up, Obama’s got to get tougher or he will be viewed as a personality who reads well from a teleprompter.
You smell waffles, the rest of us see a president who thinks, takes input and doesn’t act like a yahoo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0811 hrs
That’s rather presumptuous, Keith.
Posted by Matt on April 23, 2009 at 0828 hrs
It’s beyond presumptuous, it’s ridiculous! Only a true Obamatron would not see this guy’s first couple months in office as a trainwreck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0841 hrs
the rest of us
Who? You and the MJS editorial board?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0845 hrs
This is a great topic. I’m convinced Obama has no idea what he is doing…between maxing out the country’s credit card, shaking hands with Chavez, the implication$ of cap and trade, the future DMV-style health care reform, using his own numbers to project paying down the national debt, telling people that at some point he will close Gitmo (and getting away with it), keeping troops in Iraq long term after bashing the war, escalating Afghanistan (of all things). He truly has no idea what he is doing. If I were just an observer I would anxiously await the pending war involving Iran; instead I’m seriously fearful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0902 hrs
So I’m wondering. Why haven’t the supposed conservatives Jim Sensenbrenner and Paul (I voted for the bailout twice) Ryan co-sponsored HR 1207 (Audit the Fed)? A simple bill that will show us taxpayers where our money is going and how it’s being spent. Nutty progressive Tammy Baldwin is even a co-sponsor, yet our supposed conservative representatives are silent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0908 hrs
The problem isn’t that he looks weak. The problem is that he constantly bluffs and is apparently unused to working in an environment where every bluff is called.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0914 hrs
Seems to me that the problem is top officials throughout the cabinet and executive offices of the previous administration violated US law, treaties and international law, never mind basic human morality, in opting to not only authorize upon request, but actively advocate fo,r the use torture to either extract information or coerce desired information from detainees.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0933 hrs
Did they obtain the information, Lefty?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0935 hrs
Doesn’t matter. Don’t know how usefule the information they obtained was or wasn’t, it is irrelevant to the discussion.
The law was broken. These laws were enacted, these treaties were signed, specifically because it was determined that the ends never justify these means.
If the federal government seized all firearms in this country, and a year later a class action suit reached the supreme court claiming a violation of the 2nd amendment, and the government argued that gun crime had dropped 60% since the enactment of the gun ban, would that weaken the argument of the plaintiffs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0949 hrs
KSM talked, Los Angeles was saved.
Are people so naive that they think the terrorists really care what we say? ‘Death to America’ isn’t about America at all. It’s a focal point for their recruiting drives - taking young poor people, making them bitter and giving them something to hate.
It’s about getting power in their own country. They need their army of embittered soliders to fit for their “cause” which is just about them.
Wake up. This is the real world. Not the model UN from high school.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 0950 hrs
The information obtained is the most relevant part of the discussion, Lefty. It may be irrelevant to you. It may be irrelevant to me. It may be irrelevant to Obama. We know, however, that it is likely not irrelevant to a couple of hundred million other people.
Obama could have enacted any policy he wished. He could have done so quietly. Instead he chose to try to score cheap political points. When his bluff was called, as was entirely predictable, he was left with no choice but to backpedal.
I was unaware you had been made judge and jury as to the legality of such matters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1000 hrs
Lefty,
Here’s the problem… we have a serious disagreement over what constitutes torture. Some think that things like sleep deprivation, humiliation, and such are torture. Some do not. The people in the CIA who did this got legal opinions from the powers that be that what they were doing was legal. Even Congressional leaders were briefed and didn’t raise a stink. And NOW, years later, some people want to go back and prosecute these folks. If they acted under what they believed and thought was the law based on legal opinions from the Justice Department and with Congressional approval, how are they legally culpable?
Furthermore, the real world impact of this is huge. Just watch as the CIA and military get extremely tepid and just try to coast to retirement. Fear of retribution from future administrations will effective neuter our intelligence apparatus.
You think forced nudity is torture? Fine. But that’s not how the law was interpreted when these things took place. Republicans and Democrats alike approved of these methods. If you want to go down this path, be prepared to cast a wide net lest you want some people to be “above the law.”
Posted by Owen on April 23, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Lefty is awesome. His hypothetical argument reminded me to send in my membership dues to the NRA.
Lefty believes mankind has reached a new era. Despite thousands of years of brutality and failed attempts at appeasement and olive branches to radicals, and despite no evidence that it will work this time, and despite huge risks, Lefty believes Obama represents a new kind of human being (probably through evolution). This human being can simply, with his words alone, convince people Jihadists to stop their movement.
Lefty, I am with you. You bring the mary jane and I’ll bring my Beatles CDs. We’ll get in your Prius and drive to Crawford, Texas and sit in front of GW’s mailbox and protest Iraq.
I’ll meet you at Fireside books at lunch. Mine is the Prius with the ‘Saddam Hussein is my President’ bumper sticker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1001 hrs
You bet. Inside your world that’s presumptuous. For everyone else in the majority it is not.
The real world impact of what we did so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could prove their manufacturered link to Saddam and Al Qeada is to piss off and radicalize a lot Muslims, creating more people to fight.
Did we get useful information? What ever you think was protected is at this point conjecture.
Who knows because Cheney wanted the info classified to cover his derrière, but now lo and behold to protect that very back side he now wants it all revealed.
Who’s waffling now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1037 hrs
I say follow Bush’s suggestion:
“I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture…” - Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.Yesterday on his show Sykes conceded waterboarding was torture “I’ll concede waterboarding is torture, but I don’t care.”
In 1947 the US believed waterboarding was a war crime…So, let’s investigate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1054 hrs
Lots of verbal gymnastics on display here to avoid the fact that laws were broken.
Convince yourself what you want, I oppose the use of torture. An opinion in sync with US and International laws.
Do you support enforcing our laws or no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1127 hrs
No verbal gymnastics whatsoever, Lefty. It seems you have added oracle of legal all legal opinions to your posts of judge and jury.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1135 hrs
Its all in the timing folks. The occurrences of waterboarding all took place in 2002-2003. Oh by the way, the Intelligence committee of Congress (including one Nancy Pelosi) was briefed on all interrogation methods - over 30 times - at the time they were occurring without any outrage. Congress didn’t enact any laws regarding the practice (which had already stopped) until 2005 and 2006 requiring that the US treat state-less, uniform-less terror suspects in accordance with the Geneva conventions. The Supreme Court ruled on it in 2006.
The above paraphrased from two premiere lefty news rags even.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture7feb07,1,3156438.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
So for the self-righteous to say that all the players that deliberated on the legal questions and provided opinions on them before 2005 are criminals to be prosecuted - shut the hell up and look at the timeline.
Disagree with the decisions all you want, but setting a precedent of prosecuting members of previous administrations because you don’t like them is a VERY bad one to set.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1137 hrs
Speaking of verbal gymnastics ... what specific US law have we broken?
Not to muddy this argument, but how do you plan on enforcing these international laws when broken by the Chinese, Russians, terrorists, British, etc… (I guess you probably haven’t thought that far ahead…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1140 hrs
What law?
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C
http://is.gd/u7shPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1158 hrs
Awesome. Now do you have a law that was violated?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1210 hrs
Have you actually read any of the memos? You should take the time to do that. It’s what gives lawyers a bad name.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1224 hrs
Or, if it’s easier for you, a small excerpt of them set to music…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1226 hrs
My brother Charlie was murdered in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He went to his banking job that morning, with the reasonable belief that he would return that evening to his loving wife. That was not to be.
In the immediate aftermath, we witnessed the heart-rendering scene of our elected government representatives arm-in-arm, singing patriotic hymns, and vowing to the American people: Never again!!
Here we are, in the year 2009 - 8 short years later - debating whether or not it was ‘moral’ to water board the very sc_mbags involved in planning future horrific attacks on out mothers, fathers, children, brothers, and sisters!
President Obama: I did not vote for you. You are my president now, and I wish you every bit of success - for if you fail, we all fail. Be careful in how you judge your predecessor, for you do not yet know the events that you may face, or the decisions you may need to take in to protect this great nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1230 hrs
The memos are irrelevant. The caveat excluding lawfully sanctioned forms is going to take this to the Supreme Court…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1233 hrs
You bet. Inside your world that’s presumptuous. For everyone else in the majority it is not.
And what “majority” is that? I keep seeing that Obams’s personal approval ratings exceed the approval ratings of his policies (i.e, the budget). Meaning that a lot of people like him despite him doing things they disapprove of.
Slightly off topic, but I mention it because it shows how out of touch the political elite are.
The Tea Parties, which have been dissed by the media & liberal blogs as irreverant, have generated the following numbers:
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.
.....................................................................................
While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.
..................................................................................
One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1325 hrs
So Obama is weak for stopping torture being approved by Bush and his gang. Release all the memos and let the chips fall where they may. I think that Cheney and company are secretly sweating that they may actually have to answer for their deeds. Frank, I feel your pain. I’m sorry your brother died that day. Experts would say that information obtained under torture is not as reliable as other methods. I’m no expert but I will tend to agree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1325 hrs
Paul, is no information better than information obtained during waterboarding? Just curious….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1332 hrs
Personally, I would have done a lot worse to them poor excuses for skin. The USA must however take the high road regardless of personal feelings. That is what Obama has tried to do. Our information gathering people can obtain the stuff in myriad of ways, no doubt. Look to Pakistan, that is where the next battle front is going to happen. And them guys have nukes! God forbid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1345 hrs
So Obama is weak for stopping torture being approved by Bush and his gang
I don’t think that is the “weakness” that the article is talking about - it’s about his changing positions on the issue and the potential that as this issue gains traction, it will be a distraction that keeps him from advancing his agenda, as well as a reflection on his leadership style. He might lose “message control”, which he needs to accomplish anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1413 hrs
Germane discussion. Turns out a member of the FBI who was involved with these interrogations came out today in the NY Times—http://tinyurl.com/d4o5ps—and flat out said that enhanced torture techniques did not work.
In fact a while back some vets from WWII who interrogated Nazi prisoners said that they got more out of these guys playing chess than they would have through torture—http://tinyurl.com/cjtk6t.
Of course this would make right wing heads explode. So, what the hell.
The problem you all have is Cheney has the popularity of liver, the credibility of Tokyo Rose and the success rate of the coyote in the Road Runner cartoons.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1548 hrs
“KSM talked, Los Angeles was saved.”
KSM was snatched in Pakistan in March 2003. The LA Library Tower plot was disrupted in 2002.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1611 hrs
Not germane. If it is nice and clear cut it should be a simple matter to release all the information and let people make up their own minds. That hasn’t happened. Also, Obama’s own security adviser, presumably more informed than anyone else on the issue, has said valuable information was collected by such means.
Note that the source worked for the FBI while the CIA is presumed to have used the enhanced techniques.Where’s that transparency we’ve been told to expect?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1612 hrs
“Also, Obama’s own security adviser, presumably more informed than anyone else on the issue, has said valuable information was collected by such means.”
Intriguing. Do you have a link?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1626 hrs
This is every KSM said he did:
The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
A failed “shoe bomber” operation
The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
A plan for a “second wave” of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Columbia Center in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter
A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
Plans to “destroy” Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
A planned attack on “many” nightclubs in Thailand
A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
Sending several “mujahideen” into Israel to survey “strategic targets” with the intention of attacking them
The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
A plot to attack NATO’s headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the “Bojinka Operation”) to bomb 12 American passenger jets
The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
“Shared responsibility” for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, “owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger”
The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel PearlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1628 hrs
Dennis Blair said so here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090422/ts_alt_afp/usattacksmilitaryjusticetortureblair
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1643 hrs
Here is Blair’s official statement in it’s entirety:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2009/04/odni041609.html
My favorite part:
It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qa’ida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal. Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1653 hrs
Unless, of course, we are faced with another not so bright and not so sunny day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1655 hrs
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/senate-leaders-opposes-interrogation-inquiry-panel/?hp
Looks like there are a few others that don’t want to “go there” (interrogation Inquiry Panel)
Senate Leaders Opposes Interrogation Inquiry Panel
Senate Democratic leaders, joining forces with the Obama White House, said they would resist efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats to create a special commission to investigate the harsh interrogation methods that the Bush administration approved for terrorism suspects.
At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.
MoveOn is pushing this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/23/moveon_ad_calls_on_obama_admin_to_investigate_torture.htmlIt’s not like they care about letting Obama fix the economy or do something about health care or maybe even have a crack at being successful, is it? I hope MoveOn keeps it up - 2010 isn’t that far away. I think they are overestimating the number of “dumocrats” that will show up to vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1707 hrs
Of course there would be one interpretation of Blair’s remarks. The way they would be properly read is that he is stand up for his guys in the intelligence community, which is the same reason why Barack is seeking immunity for those who were “just following orders.” Smart move since we have to keep up morale those serving int the intelligence community, something Mr. CIA outer Dick Cheney didn’t respect or care about.
Thanks for providing the link. Were do you get that Blair supports these techniques. From the link…
Blair said he strongly supported President Barack Obama’s decision to ban the techniques, which include waterboarding, a former of near drowning widely denounced as torture.
“We do not need these techniques to keep America safe,” he said.Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement to me or anyone else who understands English.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1727 hrs
Blair said valuable information was collected in the first link, if you understand English.
His subsequent statements, including his reference to hindsight (for those who understand English), were his attempt to back away from his initial statements.
His opinions should be listened to but in the end they are just that, opinions on matters properly decided by the civilian government. His statement that valuable information was obtained was a statement of fact, and one that could be verified if the information was released. Transparency would seem to require the release of the information, at least to people who understand the English definition of transparency
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1817 hrs
Yeah, this is a real “morale booster” (from the link):
At the same time, he said CIA officials should not be prosecuted for carry out “legal orders.”
Obama on Tuesday, however, refused to rule out prosecutions of officials who formulated the coercive interrogation regime.
This will be Obama in about 10 years, trying to explain away the impact his actions/inactions had on national security (with more ah’s & er’s and not the red bulbuous nose).
Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4Will make Bush look like a freakin’ hero.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1821 hrs
Keith,
I’m quite sure from his letter, that Mr. Blair isn’t entirely supportive of the practice. But let us remember that waterboarding last took place in 2003 - before the legislation of 2005 and 2006 and before the Supreme Court ruling of 2006 - and that all of these “enhanced” techniques ended in 2006 with these decisions.
However, Mr. Blair is quite understanding of the timing and the frame of history of which it was employed, also inferring that those that made the legal analysis and decisions, and those that performed the interrogations, believed them to be legal. He also notes the repeated briefings to the Executive Branch - and to Congress.
Again - do we really want to set the precedent that an administration can investigate and potentially prosecute members of the previous administration because they disagree with some of their policies and positions? That sounds like nothing but a continuous CYA disaster for every future President.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1822 hrs
forgot the link to the pdf of the letter…
http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2009-04-16-dni-memo-to-workforce-sl_004151.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1822 hrs
Opened up a can of worms? It seems that Obama opened up a rattlesnake pit when he released those memos.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 1840 hrs
At the same time, he said CIA officials should not be prosecuted for carry out “legal orders.”
Obama on Tuesday, however, refused to rule out prosecutions of officials who formulated the coercive interrogation regime.
What’s so difficult about this? It’s clear as water. Obama is not going to let the field people hang for this, unlike the Bush administration which was SO caring about enlisted people that he let these “bad apples” take the fall at Abu Ghraib.
The fact that this very consistent policy is being “called out” by Ed Rollins makes the waffle charge very suspect.
What makes this fun is that the America people get this and the authoritarian right refuses to see it because it would kill them.
As someone once put it. Obama is playing chess while the GOP is paying checkers.
Damn right the Obama administration better investigate the previous administration. If these captives were being slapped around to prove a fictitious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, which then Colin Powell was forced to use before the UN and then sold to the American people, that is a crime.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But let’s settle it and have the investigations. What do you have to worry about if they are innocent, or is this like capitol cases in Bush’s Texas?
I can see why Obama wants to avoid this. He has enough on his plate. After all, you all whine that he is doing too much.
But the sad part that the last administration that left this mess on the White House doorstep—far worse than allegedly removing the W’s on the keyboards (which never happened)—could avoid culpability for using forced “confessions” based on torture to make the case for an illegal war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2017 hrs
We waterboarded a guy 183 times. What’s Cheney’s adage? Fool me 182 times, shame on you. Fool me 183 times, shame on me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2036 hrs
Insane diatribe of the day goes to Keith. Holey sheet is that funny.
Hugo Chavez does not play chess. He kills people.
Where is that outrage btw?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2039 hrs
So I see other than Owen’s weak “we don’t agree this is torture” argument, the rest is just smoke and mirrors. No one on here is willing to stand up for torture, and no one is willing to say it is ok to violate US and international law and treaties. So all you’re left with is, ‘it wasn’t that bad, it isn’t real torture…’ Or the fantasy ticking time bomb senario.
Good stuff to remember the next time I read about the superior religious morality of the right.
Go ahead, whack away at the pansy liberal, afraid to protect his country. I’m checking out of this thread before I write things that will force Owen to remove me himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2047 hrs
And no on has shown any laws were violated Lefty, you forgot that too. You also have shown no moral superiority nor demonstrated any moral position to stand on. You simply declare the possibility that useful information could be obtained by various interrogation techniques and acted upon to save lives to be either fantasy or irrelevant.
Any policy implemented on the basis of one’s own morality can be moral only if one is willing to accept the same consequences that one would inflict upon others through that policy. In this case the possible consequences include mass death. If you would implement such a policy, and be willing to forfeit your own life upon its’ failure, then you would have a moral position to stand on. Until then all you have is self righteousness masquerading as morality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2145 hrs
Smeety, when all you can muster is this with no rebuttal then I know I have prevailed.
Bush killed people too BTW. Where’s the outrage?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2214 hrs
Are you going to answer the moral outrage question or not?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2217 hrs
I’m okay with killing the enemy. Are you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2009 at 2220 hrs
Of course.
And of course this plays two ways. So answer my question. If Cheney was trying to force a fake admission for KSM and others that there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection to justify the invasion as David Suskind maintains, shouldn’t there be an investigation?
It’s bad enough Cheney and others weakened our moral standing through use of torture. Now if the manipulated it to miss-use our military resources, that warrants looking into.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 0513 hrs
Like I was trying to say yesterday, no one “gives a Schmitz” about this. The BDS bubble you are in isn’t that big.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/24/polls-throw-water-on-investigating-torture-tactics/
But recent polls suggest there was relatively little support among Americans for revisiting rules that allowed CIA agents to deprive suspects of sleep and to employ the waterboarding technique that creates the sensation of drowning.
“Only 28 percent of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects,” a new Rasmussen poll reported Thursday.
Rasmussen found that 58 percent of Americans were opposed to an investigation. Democrats were evenly divided on the issue, but 77 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of unaffiliated voters were against further inquiry.
Other pollsters and polling analysts surveyed by The Washington Times said they sensed relatively little support for reopening the issue to further scrutiny in the midst of a severe recession, especially with polls showing Americans putting terrorism at the top of their list of national security concerns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 0647 hrs
I must have missed something. Is there a document or something out there that has Cheney demanded Saddam-Al Qaeda confessions?
This is in my mind quite a whacky theory, but I’ll entertain it. I’ll tell you why I don’t see this happening. Cheney and Bush don’t want any of this data revealed to the public. And how would you validate this? And lastly Bush and Cheney spent eight years more concerned about the safety of Americans than their public image…why would they choose this data to publicly validate in the first place?
I’ll take this a step further and tell you why you lack credibility. You show no moral outrage towards any act other than those done during Bush’s presidency. Obama had a moment with Hugo Chavez and you hypocritically ignore my repeated questioning about this.
The answer with regard to torture is this: Al Qaeda is our enemy. There is a point at which making difficult decisions inevitably need to be made. This point is where lives will be saved. As a Christian I can go to my God, look him in the eye, and tell him I did my best. This is an ugly world and war is a rough business. In these difficult decisions lie the moral high ground.
The questions of WMD or Al Qaeda connection to me are moot. In a clusterf*ck of a world we took out a man who supposedly killed a million of his own people, tried to take over Kuwait, etc. I’m fine with that decision. I believe we saved a lot of lives in the process. We have also created the most stable democracy in the Middle East.
I’ve given my views regarding your question and a lot of the other topics brought about here. Please address my questions:
Where is the moral outrage towards Obama shaking the hand of Chavez?
What would the world be like if Saddam was still in power?
I bet you’ve never thought of the answer to the Saddam question. I’ve stumped more lefties with that question…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 0846 hrs
It’s bad enough Cheney and others weakened our moral standing through use of torture.
It’s even worse that Obama waffles on this issue for his handler George Soros and winds up weakening our NATIONAL SECURITY.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 0909 hrs
In this case the possible consequences include mass death. If you would implement such a policy, and be willing to forfeit your own life upon its’ failure, then you would have a moral position to stand on. Until then all you have is self righteousness masquerading as morality.
That’s an excellent point, Bro. And I think it makes for an easy solution to the disagreement. As long as those of us who are against “torturing” (which is ridiculous to begin with, but I digress) terrorists to obtain information which thwarts an attack on Americans are willing to volunteer themselves as targets, I have no problem with taking Keith or Lefty’s position and just letting the terrorists do whatever they want. Then, they can rightly claim the moral high ground. Posthumously, of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1056 hrs
I believe we’ve heard the last of the lefties on this thread. We’ve simply provided too much logic for their blind hatred of Bush to overcome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1105 hrs
Just let us know when the logic begins. Right now lack the time to drill into concrete.
As far as the poll, yeah it’s the Washington Times. Why would any one not believe it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1111 hrs
logic started 4/23 @ 8:28 am
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1119 hrs
As far as the poll, yeah it’s the Washington Times. Why would any one not believe it.
I guess in your bubble, if George Soros farts in your face (when you have your lips locked on his butt) & no one hears it, it really didn’t happen. I doubt MoveOn would even acknowledge this polling.
Just to “educate” you on the contents of the article, the Washington Times sourced Strategic Vision, Rassmussen, Insider Advantage Polling Group, & EPIC/MRA Polling, and kind of confirm that you are representing a very thin slice of the political spectrum.
Please share with us what MoveOn’s polls show. Gallup will be releasing their poll on Monday, so that will keep this issue “top of mind” into next week.
consider this:
American views about torture have changed in recent years. A Newsweek poll in November 2005 found that 58 percent supported torture “if it might lead to the prevention of a major terrorist attack.”
But Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, noted in his blog on abcnews.com Thursday that his last poll on the issue in January showed that 58 percent “favored Obama’s position prohibiting the use of torture under any circumstances - while 40 percent again said therre are cases in which it should be considered.”
Maybe the laws need to be changed to allow torture. The this would all be “moot”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1154 hrs
Just let us know when the logic begins. Right now lack the time to drill into concrete.
Keith, when all you can muster is this with no rebuttal then we know others have prevailed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1435 hrs
The last time Obama needed “message control” (I think it was with the Daschel meltdown), he commandeered the televison airwaves during prime time, ratings sweep week.
He’s at it again - supposedly to commemorate his first 100 days or something - I suspect it is to get past this torture issue.
The president is planning a prime-time news conference - a sure sign that we’re in a sweeps period.
Sure enough, the “May” sweeps launched Thursday night, and the White House is asking for an hour of valuable air time Wednesday for a news conference tied to Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office.
The networks haven’t said whether they’ll pre-empt their regular programming in the 7 p.m. hour, although it’s unlikely they won’t air the news conference.
http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/tvradio/43594952.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 1829 hrs
Once again, ask the lefties what the world would be like if Saddam were still in power and watch them run helpless to the hills….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2009 at 1326 hrs
Know this post is 3 weeks old, but:
Obama really opened up a can of worms that will come back to bite him.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi has really gotten bitten in the ass on this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403991.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/14/krauthammer_cia_will_destroy_pelosi.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/14/pelosi_cia_misled_me_on_waterboarding.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 1141 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:16 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).