Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 02:48pm PT
|
I just love to insult anyone who identifies themselves as being either conservative or Republican.
--Norton
I just love to insult anyone who identifies themselves as being either conservative or Republican.
--Norton
I just love to insult anyone who identifies themselves as being either conservative or Republican.
--Norton
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 04:56pm PT
|
if preferring rush as a spokesperson to this idiot is wrong, then i'm glad i'm wrong:
http://www.therightscoop.com/janeane-garofalo-on-dissent-then-and-now/
hey apogee, what does it matter who reports the facts? if obama's director of national intelligence said it, then fox news and every other news outlet should report it because obama's director of national intelligence speaks for obama...but since you don't really care about facts unless they're presented by a "trustworthy" media outlet, here you go:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/16/politics/100days/main4950212.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4950212
oh yes, that's the same cbs that employed dan rather, he of the "the memos are fake but still true" fiasco
"First of all, torture is against the law, making it illegal, or in other words, a crime"
oh warbler, i agree that torture should be against the law; the FACT you and other libs conveniently disregard is that there is no clear definition of torture that's why members of congress from both parties (you know, those folks we elect to MAKE the laws) were briefed on the cia's methods INCLUDING WATERBOARDING and never raised objections...you can't have a crime if no law was broken...and let me explain that the law's language is purposely vague ("shock the conscience") for just such situations as 9/11...admittedly, i sleep very well at night knowing ksm was waterboarded, and i'm sorry you don't
"Even if Obama does think it's acceptable, they're still war crimes"
so, why aren't you protesting the man you voted for? according to your position, he is refusing to prosecute war criminals...isn't that aiding and abetting? and think of this, obama says these techniques were acceptable in context, but he vows not to use them...so, he won't use interrogation techniques that he believes are acceptable in certain situations? that means he lacks the strength of his convictions
"The political factors behind Obama's reluctance to push for justice are certainly more complex than any of us know, and I'm not going to speculate what they might be"
so you admit that obama is motivated primarily by "political factors" rather than his own convictions...maybe you'd like to extend that same understanding to george bush in the weeks following the murder of 3000 people on american soil? or maybe you would like to vow, right now, that if we are attacked again, and 3000 people die under obama's watch, and he decides to waterboard some captured conspirators for "political factors", you'll support him? you've already established your position when the motivation is protecting american civilians against further attacks
"Obama's reluctance to prosecute him is not a crime"
ummm...dennis blair vowed that the obama administration will DEFEND those involved
"maybe he is a little overwhelmed of all the bad things Bush was able to do with the Republicans support"
no, dr. f, it's because obama has "political factors" to consider...warbler even said so
"Can you say Abu Ghraib"
i can...i can also say all involved in the incidents that took place on ONE cell block by ONE shift of guards and reported by another guard have been tried, convicted, and punished
"The DOJ is responsible for prosecuting them, technically"
ummm...if you recall your high school government class, the doj works for the executive branch...that means eric holder works for obama...and i repeat, obama is not "not prosecuting"; his national intelligence director has vowed to "DEFEND" those involved
"let's see what happens before we accuse BO of war crimes also"
why not "see" what they have said? oh right, obama's actions usually contradict what he says...good point warbler
"Since when did torture get the same fuzzy lines as pornography"
again, the language in the law is actions "that would shock the conscience"...of course, i've seen libs defend a child's right to access the most vile pornography on the internet, overlook the fact that the man they voted for president voted against a law guaranteeing full medical aid to babies that survive an abortion (go here for all the pertinent documentation http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm }, and throw urine and feces as a form of "protest" (http://calgoldenbearfootball.blogspot.com/2008/06/sf-chronicle-berkeley-stadium-tree.html); so i'm not really sure what would "shock the conscience" of libs
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 07:05pm PT
|
Sorry Warbler! :)
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 08:45pm PT
|
bill, interesting article on embryonic stem cells...but that's only ONE breakthrough compared to the dozens reached using adult stem cells...it's also proof that W's injunction against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research did NOT hamper the research, which, obviously, was always legal, simply not profitable as demonstrated by Pfizer's patronage after the fact...i think if it can be done with embryonic stem cells, it can be done with adult cells...and even if it can't, i don't think it's right to take a life just to give somebody vision
"Or if they felt it was an essential method for extracting information from prisoners, why didn't they overtly try to change the law"
the memos clearly show W sought advice on what was legal...that's part of doj's responsibility to the president--to determine if his actions pass legal muster...as far as i know (and i admit i haven't done any research) prior to 9/11 there was no law forbidding waterboarding, which is why congress--even after the dems took control--didn't pursue impeachment or any other action...the laws did not specifically refer to any interrogation method
"Most experts agree that torture provides unreliable information anyway"
irrelevant...if you're so sure, you should say, "even if these techniques are effective, they should still be illegal"...references to unsubstantiated claims of ineffectiveness are cowardly...three men were waterboarded; we don't know specifically what information was gathered, but we do know that america was not attacked after 9/11 even though "most experts agreed" that another attack was imminent...either W's decisions made us safer or you must present another explanation
"You got a link to where he states "these techniques were acceptable in context"
from a previous post in which is shared dennis blair's explanation for defending the interrogation techniques...blair is obama's director of national intelligence...he works for obama...he speaks for obama
in the months after 9/11, Blair claims, "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 Qaida 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..."
Blair continues: "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."
ergo, in a "bright, sunny, safe" world, such techniques "APPEAR graphic and disturbing"...ergo, on a dark, dangerous day (i.e. after watching 3000 innocent people murdered on american soil by crazed terrorists) those techniques wouldn't seem so graphic or disturbing
"The political factors behind Obama's reluctance to push for justice are certainly more complex than any of us know, and I'm not going to speculate what they might be"
sorry, but your words speak for themselves...the sentence clearly states that obama's reasons are "political"; NOT legal, NOT principle, NOT moral, NOT patriotic, etc.
"bush was absolutely secretive about breaking the law for political reasons"
so, you beleive that W did not announce to the world our interrogation techniques because of politics rather than national security...any proof? don't you think obama at least has the strength of his convictions that he would prosecute IF he had proof? of course, that would mean prosecuting every member of the house and senate intelligence/security committees who were briefed on the techniques (including waterboarding) and through their silence (i'll say the repubs for national security, but the dems for politics) enabled these so-called "war crimes"
"Where have I "already established [my] position when the motivation is protecting american civilians against further attacks"
by demanding W be prosecuted even when obama's own director of national intelligence makes clear that W "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"
"What is your definition of being involved, and how do you know all involved have been prosecuted? The recent memos released suggest that there was a policy handed down from higher up the chain of command"
abu ghraib had nothing to do with interrogation...you had a handful of poorly trained, bored, and probably resentful reservists who got out of hand with a few iraqi prisoners...but you're right, again...W is so smart he's been able to cover up his involvement despite sending a bunch of dedicated lackeys to prison
"You are implying that his lack of action is, in fact, a war crime. By extension, you are admitting the bush administration is guilty of war crimes"
no, YOU are claiming the bush administration is guilty of war crimes, and i'm pointing out that your rather determined defense of obama seemingly demonstrates a willingness to "march blindly in lockstep with your chosen leaders" despite your claims to the contrary
"Even then, the degree of offense is less, and more understandable"
really? who's worse...the man who commits the crime or the law enforcement official elected to uphold the law who KNOWINGLY allows him to get away with the crime? i'd say they're at least equal
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 08:56pm PT
|
Obama has been in office just a few months. He is forced into status quo simply by the fact that our nation is in dire straits and to try to change so much, to fight battles on all fronts, he would probably be successful on none. So he is forced to pick and choose what he tackles, first priority being to save our nation from the economic lowpoint legacy left by Bush/Cheney.
Give the guy a chance.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 12:27am PT
|
Bookworm said - "if preferring rush as a spokesperson to this idiot is wrong, then i'm glad i'm wrong: "
Uh since when is Jeanine Garofolofofofolfolo a spokesman for anything other than her own loud, obnoxious self? She gets press because she acts and she is loud, not because a massive chunk of the left wing eagerly awaits her next commandment. Rush, on the other hand, seems to have a tentacle wrapped pretty firmly around a pretty huge chunk of the right wing's lizard brain.
Nice straw man anyway.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 07:47pm PT
|
i know you libs will spin this as just another chapter in the vast right-wing conspiracy, but here's cheney in an interview with hannity:
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.
"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.
"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."
you libs claim torture doesn't work, and that we got no valuable information by pouring water up ksm's nose...well, here's a chance to find out for sure...why don't you demand that obama declassify ALL the memos on torture? i've got a funny feeling barry won't accept cheney's challenge
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 08:08pm PT
|
naw, it was JOHN MCCAIN who claimed torture doesn't work.
Even the Israeli Mossad, the baddest "CIA" on the planet, made clear years ago that the subject will say anything he thinks the torturer wants to hear to make it stop, make up all kinds of falsehoods.
Libs got no problems with trying to extract "meaninful and actionable" information from as#@&%es. What we have a problem with is continued, senseless, cruelty. To us Libs, that becomes just plain old human sadistic "fun" for the torturer.
We, like JOHN MCCAIN who you voted for, know that a line has to be drawn somewhere.
You don't waterboard someone 183 times thinking you are going to get any new information, but that is what Cheny and Bush gave the orders to do.
And you quote Cheny. He LIED us into a trillion dollar war, and somehow you think because he said something that anyone other than a fellow Republican is gonna believe it? NO WAY.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
|
Well said, Norton.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 08:51pm PT
|
"so predictable...libs don't care what other memos might prove "
Who said that?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 09:07pm PT
|
let me refresh your memory:
"somehow you think because he said something that anyone other than a fellow Republican is gonna believe it? NO WAY"
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 09:10pm PT
|
Bottom line:
The biggest and worst terrorist attack in US history happened with Republicans in control of all three branches of government.
It happened after Shrub was WARNED an attack was "highly likely".
Repups do NOT have the high ground on "security".
They blew it, on their watch.
They got nothing. Worst foreign policy blunder in history, Iraq.
Worst economic collapse since the great depression.
All above under their watch.
NO solutions to any of our problems. Maybe a TEA PARTY!
Run up the biggest INCREASE in the size of the Federal government, and the BIGGEST deficit in US History 2000-2006.
Their solution? Have THEIR media promote, organize and speak at TEA PARTIES, then say it was all spontaneous and "grassroot".
They got nothing. Marginalized, not included in any meaningful policy making, lost the last election by an electoral landslide.
What is their answer to their party's shrinking voting base?
Why, we gotta go EVEN MORE HARDLINE CONSERVATIVE.
We lost to the terrorist Obama because we were NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!
They just don't get anything. Pathetic. Led by Rush Limbaugh, moron Michael Steele, and Boner crying on the Senate floor.
Pathetic, out of touch with a LEFT OF CENTER America, can only win in bible belt red states.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 09:14pm PT
|
Another good one, Norton.
"let me refresh your memory:
'somehow you think because he said something that anyone other than a fellow Republican is gonna believe it? NO WAY'"
I don't think that is a rejection of memos, but of Cheney.
However, I also think Cheney, like most liars has next to zero credibility.
|
|
Bill
climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 09:20pm PT
|
Studly, I hope you are right, but with the economic crisis he has turned the solution over to the very people who created the problem - his economic team is a bunch of Wall Street insiders, and he has done basically whatever the big bankers wanted. So I wonder what these things that are more important than saving the economy, more important than the rule of law, more important than human rights, for which he is hoarding his political capital.
All Obama has demonstrated in the last three months is an alarming willingness to capitulate to the established interests in Washington at every opportunity. So if he ever grows a set and takes a stand, let me know, cause I'd love to see it.
This is the best general summary of the economic crisis that I have read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
The article is by Simon Jonhson, a former head economist of the IMF. His point is that the U.S. currently resembles the failing developing nations that he used to deal with in the IMF. The government has been 'captured' by the oligarchy, and is unwilling or unable to enact the reforms needed.
|
|
Bill
climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 10:46pm PT
|
Actually DrF, Didn't they torture KSM's children - I think they were 8 or 9 at the time - by putting them in a box with insects (in addition to beating them, etc) in order to get them to reveal their father's location? See, torture DOES work! God bless this fine nation!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009 - 10:58pm PT
|
Bookworm, your postings here on ST are the perfect metaphor for the entire GOP right now- in the absence of any meaningful, useful ideas, you are flailing your arms around, desperately trying to push any button that will get a reaction, or better yet, build some kind (any kind) of coalition that might gain political clout in some far-off time in the future.
Haven't you noticed this? Your postings are all over the board, with no cohesive strategy- just ranting and raving. In the past, your postings have been more articulate and rational (even if I don't agree with you)- lately you just seem unhinged. Do you have some fantasy that perhaps you will find the ultimate issue (button) that will suddenly get everyone to see it your way, and demand Obama's resignation or impeachment?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2009 - 03:11am PT
|
"so predictable...libs don't care what other memos might prove
conservative: "here's proof"
liberal: "you're an a**hole" "
That's a mighty black pot you're sitting in there booky.
Also the idea of Hannity interviewing Cheney being "proof" of anything is just hilarious. This would be like me getting all hurf blurf because you couldn't see he OBVIOUS TRUTH revealed when Michael Moore interviewed Al Franken. THEIR CREDIBILITY IS UNQUESTIONABLE.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!