Reply With Quote
Want to compare polls?
I don't think his overall thoughts on the matter are in the minority at all...
Want to compare polls?
The Bush administration spent the first 8 months of it's tenure trying to get a handle on a threat Clinton spent the previous 8 years all but ignoring. They ran out of time. Maybe if they had started using EITs on January 21, 2001 we could have prevented 9/11.
"The Bush administration spent the first 8 months of it's tenure trying to get a handle on a threat Clinton spent the previous 8 years all but ignoring."
holy !
i Rice had NOT ONE NSA meeting!
Repugs IGNORED EVERYTHING about terrorism that the Dem WH told them about OBL, terrorism because ... it was Dem info.
Clinton ignored OBL ... by trying to Cruise missile him to death
You are, of course, en led to your own opinion but, you're not en led to your own set of facts. I can't explain the hypocrisy and lies of Richard A. Clarke, later in his career, but immediately after 9/11 when it was fresh on everyone's minds and the Left had yet to take up the anti-Bush strategy they continue to cling to, to this day, Richard A. Clarke was in a position to know exactly what the Bush administration did do, with respect to anti-terrorism activities during the first 8 months of the presidency."The Bush administration spent the first 8 months of it's tenure trying to get a handle on a threat Clinton spent the previous 8 years all but ignoring."
holy !
i Rice had NOT ONE NSA meeting!
Repugs IGNORED EVERYTHING about terrorism that the Dem WH told them about OBL, terrorism because ... it was Dem info.
Clinton ignored OBL ... by trying to Cruise missile him to death
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
Then there was another Clinton appointee that worsened the situation...The following transcript do ents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.CLARKE: January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
Memos show Gorelick involvement in ‘wall’
It's still a confounding mystery for me (and many others) how she was allowed to serve on the 9/11 Commission and, then, remain there after these revelations.As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal do ents written in summer 1995.
“It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney’s Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required,” U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
“Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating,” she wrote.
I think it's appropriate to point out she was Eric Holder's predecessor as Assistant U. S. Attorney General.
head SEVERELY cir scribed the 9/11 report (IIRC, he didn't even trust dubya to speak the commission without head there, too), but still the report listed a bunch of stuff The Defenders of America failed to do between 20 Jan 2001 and 11 Sep 2001, if they had been serious about defending rather than HOPING for an attack so they had a pretext to invade Iraq-for-oil.
OBL and terrorism just weren't on WH radar, at all. Their priorities were
1) ramming through, with Senate reconciliation, the biggest tax cuts in history for themselves (and of course the tax created NO JOBS, and greatly increased the supposely Repug-hated deficit and national debt)
2) invading Iraq for oil
Iraq's oil was OBVIOUSLY much more important to BigOil man head, and his SECRET "national energy policy (invade Iraq)", than OBL and terrorism.
I notice no links to any supporting source. Care to share? Or, shall this remain your unqualified opinion?
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-14-2014 at 12:21 PM.
it's all in the forum, 10 years ago.
So, you should have no problem producing them.
That is the worst attempt at partisan spin that has ever been posted on this board.
Maybe if they had a NSC principals meeting about Al Qaeda on January 21, they could have authorized it.They ran out of time. Maybe if they had started using EITs on January 21, 2001 we could have prevented 9/11.
They didn't even discuss AQ until one week before 9/11.
Spin? That's out of the mouth of Richard A. Clarke. Not exactly a partisan Republican or Bush apologist.
That's not what Mr. Clarke claims. They increased authority, counter-terrorism efforts, and spending, from day one.
But, besides historical polling supporting the notion that the US general public opposed torture on years on end, simply looking at the public reaction when the abuses in Abu Ghraib were made available I think gives a solid pulse on where Americans in general stand on prisoner torture/abuse. Fortunately, torture apologists are indeed a minority, and hopefully it continues to dwindle into an even smaller minority. IMO, their position causes real damage to America.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarkes-take-on-terror/
That's what Clarke actually said, but thanks for establishing him as a credible authority.
Your complete lack of knowledge of the most basic facts after all this time continues to amaze.
I notice your "pollster" approached the question much like a Global Warming Alarmists approaches climate modeling. Why not just ask people what they think right now.
Do Americans Back CIA Or Feinstein On Enhanced Interrogation?
But how do Americans feel about enhanced interrogation, or “torture”? While soon-to-be released polling from the usual suspects will add to this conversation — for better or worse — those results will no doubt depend on how the pollsters word their questions to respondents.
For instance, a new poll released by Rasmussen Reports finds voters strongly believe it would have been better for Congress to keep the CIA’s interrogation methods a secret, particularly if the disclosures put the American public at risk.
A whole 69 percent of likely voters say they feel it is more important to protect the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks than for the public to know the full details of how the CIA got its information. Further, just 23 percent say it’s more important to publicly disclose the full extent of the CIA’s interrogation methods.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 9-10, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
A 2012 FOX Poll found roughly two-thirds of registered voters supported enhanced interrogation to prevent terrorist attacks, as well. A a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds Americans are more likely than not (48 – 42 percent) to say torture is sometimes justified, but are less likely to support some of the specific tactics used against detainees.
However, according to Gallup, who has never found majority support for the tactic, getting specific on the tactics will result in even less support for the CIA program.
Gallup first asked Americans if they were willing to allow the CIA to torture “terrorists if they know details about future attacks in the U.S.” in October 2001, when 53 percent of Americans said they would not be willing to allow such tactics.
We had a problem with all of the questioning formats, because we felt they didn’t truly get to the heart of the issue, nor accurately depict the choice. So, we conducted a PPD Poll from December 9 – 11, posing to 1,010 American adults several questions that varied in language. The results are clear — words matter. Gallup consistently uses the word torture, as did the Huffington Post/YouGov poll, despite a significant number of Americans changing their response when enhanced interrogation is used?
Here was the first question and the results:
When posed the initial question above, which made the honest choice to focus only on radical Islam for the obvious reason, 52 percent said they would while 38 percent said they would not. Perhaps a reflection of the ongoing debate, a significant 10 percent said they aren’t sure, of which, 7 percent said they previously had an opinion on the issue.Would you support the CIA using enhanced interrogation techniques on ISIS or other radical Islamic terrorists if it meant preventing another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001?
It would appear many Americans are having second thoughts.
Among a sub-sample of adults who correctly identified at least three of the specific tactics, nearly-thirds (65 percent) said they support enhanced interrogation, while 21 percent said they do not. The results indicate that those who oppose enhanced interrogation due so despite caring a whole lot about the specific facts or tactics. Instead, opposition is based on ideological grounds.
An even more accurate wording was posed to respondents next:
This question resulted in a significant increase in support, as 63 percent said they would support the use of enhanced interrogation, while just 22 percent said they would not under these conditions and cir stances. Still, 15 percent of American adults indicated they were unsure.Would you support the CIA using enhanced interrogation techniques if they were required to have a doctor present, detainees were told they would not be physically harmed or killed, and it meant preventing another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001?
Despite the telling results from these two questions, they still do not strike at the heart of the moral arguments made by both sides of this issue. The final question was tailored to do just that, and the results were both surprising and unsurprising.
Interestingly, even though the level of support among those who correctly identified at least three of the specific tacts remained relatively stable (66 percent), the overall spread from the first question increased significantly. Unsurprisingly, when pressed, those who previously expressed uncertainty, suddenly aren’t so unsure whether they want their loved ones to live, as a total of 73 percent said they would support enhanced interrogation under these cir stances. However, 21 percent still claim a moral objection under these cir stances.Would you support the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques if it was required to have a doctor present, it meant preventing another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, and it would save the life of your closest relative or significant other?
It's an academic report of multiple polls throughout a 9 yer period, from pollsters all over the spectrum. It's not a poll, there's no "pollster" and there's no "modeling"...
It includes a big sampling period, which is exactly what you want to get a solid sense of opinion over time.
But, the report, which I thought was a good read, also includes the self-delusion aspect of politics over an imaginary consensus that was never there, and the disconnect between politics and what people actually think.
It's a disconnect that's well reflected in a lot of your posts here throughout the years... actually bolstering the point of the report.
FWIW, Feinstein is another two-face liar that has caused her own share of damage to America under the guise of national security.
I haven't even read the report, as it's immaterial to the position that torture isn't justified in any case. If anybody wants to advance that's a political piece, I certainly take their word for it.
Hence the "scare" quotes I put around the term "pollster."
So, you don't actually have a poll that asks the question, do you?
No, you post some academic paper; probably of a guy that had a bias he was trying to validate. (Just like the Climateers -- which was my point.)
I posted the results of a poll that asked the specific question.
The questions from all the polls are included in the report you didn't read.
Appendix A, if you have trouble finding it...
BTW, I don't claim any non-bias on the report (I didn't write it, don't have to defend it).
I do think it's a fairly comprehensive view, considering that include polls from pollsters as varied as Fox News, Gallup, Pew, ABC/WaPo, etc, and samples from different years.
No, I read. None of them asked the question...and, all of them biased the questions they did ask by calling the techniques torture and using terms such as "by any means" etc..., when the enhance interrogation techniques have never been legally classified as such.
Like I said, this is an academic looking for a specific outcome. Did he analyze all polls? Or, did he just pick a few that fed his bias?
It's just like the climateers obfuscating the topic with a bunch of superfluous nonsense.
Why didn't he conduct a poll such as what I posted? Simple, clear questions.
You're right, but I challenged you to produce a poll -- not a white paper.
There's 10+ pollsters included on the report, each with their own questions. As any statistical analysis, more samples are actually conducive to better quality.
I think your problem is that you don't think some of that stuff is torture where the majority of people do feel that way (also reflected on the report). Part of the disconnect I was mentioning earlier, IMO.
I produced 10+ polls. That's much better than one, statistically speaking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
