Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[Chris]

Nothing like watching an idiot flop around on the tv like a fish outta water eh?

No, the opposite. It wasn't like he ever showed remose that his government ran up $5 trillion in debt after inherited a surplus. Or that his government borrowed $1.4 trillion in the last 12 months before Obama took office. Or that the economy Obama inhereted was tanking fast.

It was like he was Mr. Budget Hawk coming from a government that had closely toed the line on the debt, and now all of a sudden the deficit is a big concern since Obama took office.

Fucking hypocrite is what he is.

hey obama won't show remorse for his "trillion dollar deficits for years to come" either

Nor should he.

When you are fighting deflation, you have to spend.

Also Obama is using honest accounting by including the cost of the two wars in the budget deficit, which Bush refused to do.

 

[Iriemon]

Nothing like watching an idiot flop around on the tv like a fish outta water eh?

No, the opposite. It wasn't like he ever showed remose that his government ran up $5 trillion in debt after inherited a surplus. Or that his government borrowed $1.4 trillion in the last 12 months before Obama took office. Or that the economy Obama inhereted was tanking fast.

It was like he was Mr. Budget Hawk coming from a government that had closely toed the line on the debt, and now all of a sudden the deficit is a big concern since Obama took office.

Fucking hypocrite is what he is.

hey obama won't show remorse for his "trillion dollar deficits for years to come" either

And if he then criticizes the next president for deficits he'll be a fucking hypocrite too.

 

[Chris]

So, Newby, you would be okay with other countries waterboarding our military personnel if they were captured POWs?

Dosen't matter if we are okay with it or not. They are going to do it any damn way. Always have. What part of that don't you guys get?

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

 

[WorldAHope]

I am just glad to see many religious people justifying an immoral act based on the benefits that they can derive from it.

No pun intended, but does this not beg the question of "What is the point behind Justice?". Since you can now justify an immoral act, and you could always justify a moral, what acts can you not justify?

Think about it--the Pro-torture nuts make this argument: An act is justified as long as I or we can Benefit from it. Thus, any act that allows you to benefit, regardless of its moral standing, is justifiable.

Thus the act of shooting a man for his wallet is just if the shooter can benefit from it. The rational for nuking Europe is also justifiable since it is possible that one of those nations--I place money on France--could one day betray us and fight against us. How do we benefit--we eliminate a potential threat to our shores.

This is the basis of the right wings moral logic. The only justice you need is the one that you can benefit from!! Thus the signature!!

There are still some Americans who think that anything done by a President in the name of National Security is okay, no matter which laws are violated, no matter how vile it is, or how secret, or ineffective, as long as he gives the appearance and charade of "keeping you safe" (and pats you on the head).
And as long as he isn't a Democrat.

Obama has inherritted a pile of disasters, and this will probably be the hardest one for his administation.
To be the first president to put the nation through War Crimes investigation and Trials of his predecessor. Air all the dirty laundry of the Bush presidency, and there is a LOT
while he is trying to clean up the economy, finish up 2 wars, mend relationships with the rest of the world, and while the AG is already up to his knees in corruption investigations against Republican (mostly) members of Congress and lobbyists.....
the last thing Obama wants its to go down this War Crimes investigations path. We have so many other things to focus our energy and attention upon.
He knows it will get ugly and acrimonious, that some will whip up partisan rancor at this, at every step of the way, (Cheney...Rove...Gingrich...FOX....GOP in Congress...)
and that will sour all hope of bipartisan cooperation on all other matters.
The last thing he wanted. The Dems in Congress and the tidal wave of public outrage will have to push and drag him what he sees as a gigantic distraction from the most important work at hand.

 

[MaggieMae]

Where is all the fury over the fact that the war is still continuing and being funded? Where are the daily headlines about the numbers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're still happening you know? Under Obama's watch. Where's the screams and the cries that I heard for nearly 8 years, why did they suddenly die on Jan. 19th, 2009, when nothing has 'changed'?

Although there continues to be predictable hot spots, US involvement in Iraq is winding down dramatically, while the mission in Afghanistan is just now proceeding as it should have eight years ago.

iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

 

[WillowTree]

Here's the honest truth of it, the obamalama didn't want to persue this, but being the spineless critter he is he caved to pressure from the left wing lunatics. now pandora's box is open.. let's proceed with full discloure,,why don't the chickenshits release all the information??

 

[WillowTree]

So, Newby, you would be okay with other countries waterboarding our military personnel if they were captured POWs?

Dosen't matter if we are okay with it or not. They are going to do it any damn way. Always have. What part of that don't you guys get?

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

I get that you think tjat.. me, I think it's morally wrong to have that option of torturing one and saving millions. Now I get that you on the left are willing to let millions die so the taliban suffers no discomfort..so you can feel like the sanctimonious good guy. We on the right get that.

 

[WorldAHope]

I've always said that. if they fought as hard for this country as they did to bring President Bush down I might garner up a little respect for them.. sadly it's not the case.. because they want to be seen as "good" they are willing to sacrifice their children your children and the world's children so the terrorists have already won the battle.. I pity us.

Who are the "they" who you say won't/didn't fight FOR this country ?
Liberals ?
You are lumping people into imaginary baskets, thinking folks are somehow fundamentally different. Lliberal/Democrats and a Conservative/Republicans can serve, DO serve, right now,
side by side, and each will fight and would kill for one another.

Happens every day, and has happened for the last couple hundred years in the American armed forces.
I served. My parents served. My brother, my son. My uncle died in World War 2 - a liberal democrat, decorated for his bravery, posthumously. He killed alot of enemy soldiers before he was killed.

Is that what you are meowing about?
You been cowerring in Rush Limbaugh's cave too long.
Crawl out, get some air, see what is really happeneing in the world.

isn't it quite obvious the "they" are the ones who think their children should die before a Taliban is made uncomfortable? I thought that's who "they" is.

Well , then you don't have to worry about those 'they'.
That particular type of fictitious straw person exists only on the lips and pens and blogs of right wing media pundits
They make their fictitious 'they's up
so they have something they can knock down, like a little kid beating up the couch pillows
and that impresses weakminded people, who believe those 'they' are all around,
that 'they'
SURROUND you.

'They' don't exist.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Japanese practice of waterboarding was entirely different than what was done here. You can't compare the two issues, you need to read more about what was actually done in the water boarding sessions on American troops by the Japanese. If you did so, you would know they weren't comparable.

Funny, because Chase Nielson's account is pretty close to what we do now.

This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.

Really? Doesn't sound like it to me.

So how do you know that's not exactly the way our own "interrogators" waterboarded? Do we know how many suspects did actually die as a result of waterboarding? I don't think anyone kept any records. After all, let's not forget that the actual videos were all mysteriously destroyed.

 

[WillowTree]

Who are the "they" who you say won't/didn't fight FOR this country ?
Liberals ?
You are lumping people into imaginary baskets, thinking folks are somehow fundamentally different. Lliberal/Democrats and a Conservative/Republicans can serve, DO serve, right now,
side by side, and each will fight and would kill for one another.

Happens every day, and has happened for the last couple hundred years in the American armed forces.
I served. My parents served. My brother, my son. My uncle died in World War 2 - a liberal democrat, decorated for his bravery, posthumously. He killed alot of enemy soldiers before he was killed.

Is that what you are meowing about?
You been cowerring in Rush Limbaugh's cave too long.
Crawl out, get some air, see what is really happeneing in the world.

isn't it quite obvious the "they" are the ones who think their children should die before a Taliban is made uncomfortable? I thought that's who "they" is.

Well , then you don't have to worry about those 'they'.
That particular type of fictitious straw person exists only on the lips and pens and blogs of right wing media pundits
They make their fictitious 'they's up
so they have something they can knock down, like a little kid beating up the couch pillows
and that impresses weakminded people, who believe those 'they' are all around,
that 'they'
SURROUND you.

'They' don't exist.

yep! me thinks they do..

 

[Chris]

Dosen't matter if we are okay with it or not. They are going to do it any damn way. Always have. What part of that don't you guys get?

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

I get that you think tjat.. me, I think it's morally wrong to have that option of torturing one and saving millions. Now I get that you on the left are willing to let millions die so the taliban suffers no discomfort..so you can feel like the sanctimonious good guy. We on the right get that.

Torture is morally wrong, and it doesn't work.

Treating our enemies fairly is one of the things that makes America great.

What would Jesus do?

 

[Yurt]

So, Newby, you would be okay with other countries waterboarding our military personnel if they were captured POWs?

Dosen't matter if we are okay with it or not. They are going to do it any damn way. Always have. What part of that don't you guys get?

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

but it is not morally wrong to shoot and kill someone to save a life, is that right?

 

[WillowTree]

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

I get that you think tjat.. me, I think it's morally wrong to have that option of torturing one and saving millions. Now I get that you on the left are willing to let millions die so the taliban suffers no discomfort..so you can feel like the sanctimonious good guy. We on the right get that.

Torture is morally wrong, and it doesn't work.

Treating our enemies fairly is one of the things that makes America great.

What would Jesus do?

I'll withold my opinion until and if the obamalama releases all the report,, all of it,, the good the bad and the ugly.. meanwhile I'm assuming from your answer you care more about how you look than you do defending this country.. we get that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Evidence suggests "enhanced interrogation techniques" successfully countered the Second Wave attack on Los Angeles.

I find it odd that presumably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded ONLY after all other torture techniques were unsuccessful, but the "second wave" allegedly plotted for Los Angeles was due to occur shortly after the attacks of 9/11/01. KSM was captured in March of 2003.

Two questions: Since the LA incident never happened in that interim, how could it have been KSM who fed the information of the pending attack to the CIA only after being waterboarded? If the LA attack was planned to occur sometime after March of 2003, wouldn't bin Laden have aborted the mission once he realized his top master planner had been captured?

 

[Chris]

Dosen't matter if we are okay with it or not. They are going to do it any damn way. Always have. What part of that don't you guys get?

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

but it is not morally wrong to shoot and kill someone to save a life, is that right?

Nice try at a deflection.

Torture doesn't work.

Ask John McCain.

 

[Agnapostate]

THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THESE MEANS.

Why not?

Why is it not ok to torture an accused gang member but is ok to torture an accused terrorist?

Is it ok to torture an accused mass murderer? How about an accused rapist? Or an accused child molester?

The distinction lies in the purpose of information extraction that's intended to be the consequence of torturing a person with knowledge of an imminent attack (the "ticking time bomb" scenario), that would cause numerous civilian casualties. Ultimately, the suffering imposed on such a person would be less in intensity, duration, etc. than the suffering imposed on numerous innocent civilians in the case of an attack that caused a high number of casualties. Hence, the act of torture would ultimately cause less suffering in such a case.

I have no ideological objections to that. My objections lie in a more technical area, namely as to whether torture actually does cause persons to yield such critical situation. I've heard reports claiming that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed offered information of further planned attacks when waterboarded, and if that information did indeed prevent such attacks, I'd say there was no moral problem involved in the torture.

 

[WillowTree]

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

but it is not morally wrong to shoot and kill someone to save a life, is that right?

Nice try at a deflection.

Torture doesn't work.

Ask John McCain.

how about we ask the obamalama to release all the report.. all of it?

 

[MaggieMae]

do i have to buy a prius?

Actually, real liberals BIKE to work. And only wear organically grown cotton and birkenstocks.

That is so 80's. We've shed our commune image and become "elitists." (At least that's the more recent characterization).

 

[Ravi]

how is it weak? it is a valid question. you condemn torture outright, but i am curious as to how far you are willing to take your belief. torture one to save one or torture one to save millions.

apparently you would let your platoon die...or am not understanding you and that you would torture one to save your platoon...it is a simple question and goes directly to moral equivalence of this discussion. i am trying to understand your morals and how you value life.

IMO, in order to save many, i would take the consequence of breaking the law and commit torture. to me, life is more valuable than the harm that the person being tortured will suffer. that person will live and can get over it, look at mccain.

Bingo. That is how it should be...it should not be legalized. If you can make your case after the fact that you should be shown mercy then excellent. Otherwise, you don't just torture people because you MIGHT learn something.

i never suggested it should be legalized. just as i agree that you should not drive into oncoming traffic as it is against the law and puts others at risk, however, if i knew doing so would save lives i would not hesitate.

that is why i am trying to understand the folks who just willy nilly say no torture period. what they are saying is, if torture saved one million lives they still would not commit it.

I think they mean it shouldn't be legal. It is impossible to say that no one would ever engage in torture, only that if an American does, they would be held accountable. And in some cases receive mercy.

If you legalize it then it happens as a matter of course.

 

[Yurt]

It is MORALLY WRONG to torture prisoners.

What part of that don't you get?

but it is not morally wrong to shoot and kill someone to save a life, is that right?

Nice try at a deflection.

Torture doesn't work.

Ask John McCain.

it is not a deflection moron....answre the question

but it is not morally wrong to shoot and kill someone to save a life, is that right?