Elderdude
Recycles dryer sheets
Read in the paper today that Cheney said Wednesday in a White House interview that the Bush administration doesn't regard water-boarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it.
More political ranting
- Thread starter brewer12345
- Start date
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1206-29.htm
Perhaps the Justice Department could use this [water-boarding] to speed up some investigations that are taking forever. How about that two-year investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA status?
Stick Karl Rove on the water board and we can see who really leaked what in just a couple of minutes. That would be fair, wouldn't it? After all, his boss says it's not torture, right?
And how about this whole question about whether we were lied into the war in Iraq. I bet Dick Cheney would have the answer for that one, though the water board may be tough on his bad heart. At least we would know for sure if 2,120+ brave Americans died for a lie.
Perhaps the Justice Department could use this [water-boarding] to speed up some investigations that are taking forever. How about that two-year investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA status?
Stick Karl Rove on the water board and we can see who really leaked what in just a couple of minutes. That would be fair, wouldn't it? After all, his boss says it's not torture, right?
And how about this whole question about whether we were lied into the war in Iraq. I bet Dick Cheney would have the answer for that one, though the water board may be tough on his bad heart. At least we would know for sure if 2,120+ brave Americans died for a lie.
youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
eridanus said:
Thanks eridanus, but the story you linked to just references "sources." I'd like to get the actual Cheney quote from Wednesday that Elderdude refers to. I've got a pub buddy I'd like to show it to.......
youbet said:
Oh, that wasn't a reply to your question. I just thought it was funny.
I found an editorial at the WP discussing it but no primary sources. Wait, how about this?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1026/dailyUpdate.html
Edit:
"ABCNews reported last year that it began as a practice in the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. Soldiers who had used it during US conflicts in the 20th century have been court-martialed. It was declared illegal by US generals during the Vietnam War."
If it's good enough for the Inquisition, it's good enough for Cheney!
lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!!
It's interesting that those who take a short view of things keep saying this about Bush. Did someone forget to mention WMD was discovered in Iraq. Oh ya, wait a minute those weren't the right kind or they're old so they might not be strong enough. Let's see I'm sitting in a foxhole and the bomb that just went pppffftttt and spewed a cloud of gas instead of going boom. It's ok though it contains stuff that only might kill me. We ain't I relieved that I'll only be suffering for a long period watching any children I create suffer from the poison I was exposed to, because it wasn't strong enough to kill the old man.
My vote is let's outlaw the military. That way we don't have to worry about it ever being mis used again. This is a stupid argument. Every major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD. WMD were found in his possession. He said he destroyed all of them, but they were found. A dictator like Saddam does not lose his WMD. It is what keeps him in power.
It's interesting that those who take a short view of things keep saying this about Bush. Did someone forget to mention WMD was discovered in Iraq. Oh ya, wait a minute those weren't the right kind or they're old so they might not be strong enough. Let's see I'm sitting in a foxhole and the bomb that just went pppffftttt and spewed a cloud of gas instead of going boom. It's ok though it contains stuff that only might kill me. We ain't I relieved that I'll only be suffering for a long period watching any children I create suffer from the poison I was exposed to, because it wasn't strong enough to kill the old man.
My vote is let's outlaw the military. That way we don't have to worry about it ever being mis used again. This is a stupid argument. Every major intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD. WMD were found in his possession. He said he destroyed all of them, but they were found. A dictator like Saddam does not lose his WMD. It is what keeps him in power.
youbet
here is the McClatchy article on Cheney and waterboarding
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...ce=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay
disgusting
JohnP
here is the McClatchy article on Cheney and waterboarding
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...ce=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay
disgusting
JohnP
Here is the Whitehouse transcript of the interview.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html
lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
lets-retire said:
"Kimmitt said he would leave it to the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether the discovery of the sarin in the artillery shell represents confirmation that Hussein possessed stockpiles of chemical weapons."
Guess what they determined?
Hey, there were plenty of people who still supported Nixon after he was impeached too.
sgeeeee said:I am always fascinated and amazed at the neo-con's ability to delude themselves.
It's Clinton's fault.
I grow tired of either side using their "talking points" that are more designed as sound bites than as real truth. "Bush lied" is probably the best example. It's repeated by every half-wit dem that can find a microphone.
Any review of the data at the time comes up with the same conclusion. Iraq was actively working on WMD. They were intentionally frustrating the UN inspectors. No credible person claimed they didn't have WMD based on the available data. The entire leadership of both parties riled at their WMDs. Only after the fact, does one party act "shocked" and try to make it appear that there was an intentional attempt to mislead the American people.
Good story. But it's not true. Actually most of the world concluded that there was no proof of WMDs. Most of the world refused to go along with the invasion. Even the US voters resisted the administration's push to justify invading for several months. The story from Bush and Cheny changed 3 or 4 times before they were able to make one of their lies stick.2B said:
But rest assured, it's Clinton's fault.
The publicly disclosed portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMDs indicated the consensus of the US intel community was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Prominent Democrats and Republicans in Congress had access to the same information as the President, they reached the same conclusion. Other nations with their own independent intelligence sources were reportedly in agreement. The only significant international apologists for Saddam were France and Russia--and what we have since learned of the UN's graft-ridden oil-for-influence program and the Iraqi's own reports of payolla makes it abundantly clear why officals in these nations were in his corner.
When an individual makes a statement he/she knows is untrue, we call that a "lie." When an individual makes a statement believing it is true, but which later turns out to be untrue, we call that a "mistake." Seems simple enough, if we take off our conspiracy helmet for a moment.
Does anyone doubt that the war would have been avoided if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions calling for complete access for the inspectors? Does anyone doubt that Iraq was in breach of the agreement that ended the first Gulf War (remember, the one in which they invaded Kuwait?), which was the genesis of the later resolutions?
WMD was one issue, but not the only one, that led the US and allies to the decision to go to war. How many additional dead Iraqis would there be if here had been no war?
Prominent Democrats and Republicans in Congress had access to the same information as the President, they reached the same conclusion. Other nations with their own independent intelligence sources were reportedly in agreement. The only significant international apologists for Saddam were France and Russia--and what we have since learned of the UN's graft-ridden oil-for-influence program and the Iraqi's own reports of payolla makes it abundantly clear why officals in these nations were in his corner.
When an individual makes a statement he/she knows is untrue, we call that a "lie." When an individual makes a statement believing it is true, but which later turns out to be untrue, we call that a "mistake." Seems simple enough, if we take off our conspiracy helmet for a moment.
Does anyone doubt that the war would have been avoided if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions calling for complete access for the inspectors? Does anyone doubt that Iraq was in breach of the agreement that ended the first Gulf War (remember, the one in which they invaded Kuwait?), which was the genesis of the later resolutions?
WMD was one issue, but not the only one, that led the US and allies to the decision to go to war. How many additional dead Iraqis would there be if here had been no war?
sgeeeee said:But rest assured, it's Clinton's fault.
Clinton is the only president that I am aware of that confessed to a felony -- purjury. It was well under reported but he lost his law license for a short period of time.
My big issue with Clinton is that he had several opportunities to "lead" and never chose to. He was the perpetual "sort of" president. He was always seeing how the wind blew and looking at how it would impact public opinion. Things went ok while he was president and that was fine with him.
Jefferson who had a number of issues is considered "great" because he seized the opportunity for the Louisiana Purchase.
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
sgeeeee said:The neo-con strategy: Repeat the lies like a religious chant and blame Clinton.
With all due respect.....I doubt you know what a neo-con is.
You can look it up though.
JG
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
2B said:
I'll tell you what........The Louisiana Purchase just about tops anything
(commerce-wise) done since. Maybe buyig Alaska? Of course,
Manhattan was a good deal, also.
JG
I don't have any tickets any more, but I can understand the implications behind that public statement. It sounds like there was plenty to work with.samclem said:
Let's not forget the Americans who died during Gulf War I, of Gulf War Syndrome, and during OPERATION SOUTHERN WATCH. It was time to end the watchful waiting.samclem said:
Brilliant . . . just brilliant.Mr._johngalt said:
The GWB appologists just redefine what the word "fact" means. They say it with authority and believe that means it's true.
Hey, if "other nations with their own independent intelligence sources" were in agreement, why did they make public statements that they did not see convincing evidence and refuse to be part of the invasion?
Only this administration claims that congress had equal access to the information.
It would be interesting indeed to examine the death rate of Iraqis before and after the invasion.
Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
sgeeeee said:The GWB appologists
I hope you are not including me in this group. BTW, that's a pretty
serious spelling error.
JG
donheff
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I was sucked in by this BS at the time as was most of the country. To be fair to us, even Clinton believed it to be the case. He didn't understand that his bombing of Iraq (widely opposed by the republicans as a distraction from more important semen stained skirts) had completely destroyed Iraqs WMD infrastructure which was shaky at the time and never even started on the road back.samclem said:
False. Only a few members had access to this info. The vast majority had access to only the public portions. Also, the members who did have access, had only what made it up to the NIE. The were not privy to the earlier discussions that were shut down. The President and his staff, however, had access to the whole shebang and to the intelligence community doubts which they chose to ignore because they had already made up their minds.[/quote]
In fact the inspectors had been unable to find any WMD in months and months of looking - during the later months of the effort they were largely unobstructed, albeit a lot of hostile comments were spewing out of Saddam. What is obvious in hindsight is that Saddam had complied - or, rather, been bombed into compliance. If the inspectors had returned to Iraq, the Bush Administration would never have accepted findings that the WMD program was defunct because they "knew" Iraq had them. They would just have asserted that they weapons were well hidden.
