Reply With Quote
Can't be bothered to read? Just want to stick to you narrative? I'm okay with that, you don't have to respond.walls of text
Watch out he is now using Kelly and Fox!
Can't be bothered to read? Just want to stick to you narrative? I'm okay with that, you don't have to respond.
Well, I would have posted an MSNBC video if they had bothered to interview Dr. Mitc and I became aware of it.
I posted Cheney on Meet the Press (Not a Fox program, in case you didn't know).
What is being said is relevant to the discussion, I don't understand the reference to the network as if it meant something.
Personally, I don't dwell on torture apologists nor want to invest time into their excuses.
Yup.
Actually, I reposted it because of all the nonsense that took place between the two postings.
I read every word.
Yeah, you and the Senate Committee have no interest in hearing from the people they pretended to investigate.
I already commented on the report (which has no bearing on the fact that torture is torture, you seem to be confused about that)...
It's funny you thought that was a good response. I was cringing watching that on Sunday morning (not referenced from some blog).
Jon Stewart mocked it quite appropriately: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/6r9uao/immoral-kombat
You seem to be confused about the difference between torture and harsh treatment.
A comedy show? Oh yeah, I forgot that's where most of you idiots get your news.
What's the difference according to you?
You seem incapable of accepting the difference of opinion. Why is it so important to you that everyone agree with you that EIT <> Torture?
I watched him on MTP, then I saw Jon Stewart mock him appropriately.
He invoked 9/11 so many times I thought it was Giuliani.
Not confused at all, as already discussed on this thread 3+ years ago, the same position I have today on the matter.
This issue is strictly a humans rights issue for me, not a political issue (like it is for you).
The main difference is that I don't have sworn allegiance to some party/president/administration, so I don't have to constantly come up with excuses for them.
You're not going to convince me that there's some sort of gray area on this, and I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so it's unavoidable that we're going to go in circles on the matter.
Last edited by ElNono; 12-16-2014 at 10:56 PM. Reason: typo
Actually, make that a humans right AND foreign relationship issue...
Well, that is the context in which these activities occurred.
Nor am I confused, I have the same position I had 3+ years ago. I have the same position I had 12 years ago.
This is a strictly legal issue for me.
The big question you seem unwilling to explore is whether or not the administration did what they claimed; Instead of asking their lawyers to justify torture, they asked their interrogation experts to devise harsh interrogation techniques that were effective but, that didn't cross the line into torture and then they had their Office of Legal Counsel review that. I'm persuaded and satisfied that's what they did.
Were there excesses? It appears there were. But, those are by people that were operating outside the legal framework that had been developed.
If you had bothered to read (or pay attention for the past 12 years), most of the worse abuses were promptly reported and investigated...
And, as much as it appears they want to, the current administration's Justice Department can find no cause to prosecute anyone from the Bush Administration for any of what they did with respect to the detention and interrogation of detainees.
The other questions on which you seem willing to remain ignorant are (and this is from where my appearance of partisanship may come), is whether or not the Democrats (particularly on the Senate Intelligence Committee) are lying about what they knew and when they knew and, further, about what they approved of then that they disapprove of now. If you had watched the interview with James Mitc , he would have made the point that you don't need to trust him or the CIA on these questions but just look at the contemporaneous record that the CIA created they never thought would see the light of day. His charge is the Senate Committee had access to much more than what they included in the report and that they chose to cherry-pick a very few incidents and, even then, misrepresented the record on those.
I think even the public record will show the Democrats now wringing their hands over our interrogations of terrorist detainees were pretty much all on board when the EITs were being employed.
I continue to be amazed at how low Democrats are willing to stoop for partisan politics.
I'm not excusing them, I'm trying to determine the truth. And, I make no apologies for believing the enhanced interrogation techniques were warranted, justified, and effective. I also don't believe they cons uted torture just because they may have the same name as a torture used by Japan or some rogue GI in Vietnam.
Well, you're still in the minority.
About Half See CIA Interrogation Methods as Justified
And that's during and after a pretty harsh beating in the Left Media news cycle, 24/7 for a week.
You go ahead with your sanctimonious self-righteousness. Most of us will continue to be satisfied the Bush Administration (at least) was willing to take on the most difficult issues at a time we needed a President to do just that. He, and the vast majority of those that served in his administration are just fine with what they did and would do it over again, in a heartbeat.
I'm sure you've lodged your complaint with the Human Rights Commission and International Criminal Court on the current President's "Killer Drone" program.
And, speaking of foreign relations; the Senate Report has (as has much of the partisan nonsense perpetrated by Democrats over the past decade) done real damage to our relationships with allies and others that cooperated with the U.S. in the Detention and Interrogation program.
Well, he decided to focus on Russia before 9/11 instead of terra, so I understand his impotent rage as a factor in deciding to overcompensate for his failure with torture.
Not according to one of those liberals I mentioned, Richard A. Clarke. He said the Bush administration quintupled the money and increased the effort to stop al Qaeda, over the Clinton administration (who, he claims, had no plan for al Qaeda to hand over to the Bush administration on January 21, 2001) that had allowed 4 major terrorist attacks (the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, two embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole) during his tenure.
Sorry. I provided quotes from Clarke saying Bush ignored terrorism before 9/11.
You produced nothing.
Which blog told you Clarke said that?
And I provided quotes from Clarke, contemporaneous to the events (and prior to the quotes you posted), that has him saying otherwise. I can't help that he took up company with the rest of the Democrats that chose to start lying and change their stories for political expedience.
You really don't pay attention, do you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
