View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Betty Arenson: The counterfeit mask

Posted: May 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

You’re familiar with the noise America has heard for a long time. It will continue, but it’s easily unmasked.

I’m talking about the themes assigned to Republicans: not caring about the poor, disliking all minorities, resuscitating the War on Women and the claimed noninclusiveness.

It’s the drumming from the left: many Democrats, most liberals and certainly the uninformed.

The assignments of shame beg one looming question of the left: What does it take for you to concede that your accusations are false?

Republicans promote social programs, i.e. welfare and food stamps, as safety nets for those fallen on hard times.

They are to be the helping-up hand, not a way of life, let alone generational subsistence.

Minorities in the Republican Party are numerous. Appallingly, upon emergence they are impugned.

If these people surfaced with the political affiliation of “D” instead of “R,” they’d be hailed. If they were smeared in like-manner, there would be immeasurable disorder.

To name a few, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and former presidential candidate Herman Cain were all eviscerated by the left.

Their political proctology “vetting” and political assassinations, all under the guise of “investigations,” were contemptible.

In May 2010, author Joseph McGinniss, a Democrat, vacated his Massachusetts home to rent the Alaska house next door to the Palins to write a book about Sarah Palin. Creepy.

Mail Online News referenced the book as a “tawdry exercise in gossip mongering” that “failed to sell many copies.” McGinniss died two months ago, and Sarah Palin had the class to not comment.

Republicans can count governors Jan Brewer, Susana Martinez, Mary Fallin and Nikki Haley. These women have at the least been discounted and at the most, vilified.

Retired lieutenant colonel and former House of Representatives member Allen West, Sen. Tim Scott, R-SC, and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele are among the many black conservatives who have been frequently and unapologetically labeled “Uncle Toms.”

In February 2011, black journalist Dexter Mullions wrote, “Short of dropping the n-bomb on someone, there are few things more insulting to many African-Americans than being called an ‘Uncle Tom.’”

Another black journalist, Jonathan Capehart, had this to say: “Sure, the n-bomb is a kick in the groin. But being called a ‘Tom’ is a kick in the stomach.”

For the Republicans-hate-gays crowd, introduce yourselves to Log Cabin Republicans, “the nation’s original and largest organization representing gay conservatives.” Their Mission statement and their beliefs are very clear and concise: “loyal Republicans ... (for) limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.”

A May 2012 McClatchy news report quoted Jerame Davis, executive director of the gay activist group the Stonewall Democrats, as saying: “We know there are Democrats who aren’t all the way there on LGBT equality.”

Undoubtedly, openly gay Republican elected politicians Richard Tisei, Dan Innis, Carl DeMaio and Jim Kolbe would second that statement, along with Richard Grenell, who worked for Mitt Romney, George Bush, George Pataki and Dave Camp.

Last but significantly prominent among the smears of minority Republicans is former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, an incredibly accomplished black woman and a real lady. Never being married targeted her as either asexual or lesbian.

Late-night leftists ridiculed Rice viciously and perversely — but hey, all in the name of comedy.

David Letterman: “Today is the 54th anniversary of the first man getting to the top of Mt. Everest. Now, if only we could get one on top of Condoleezza Rice.”

“Condoleezza Rice, bless her heart, is trying to work out a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That’s about as doable as she is.”

“Condoleezza Rice is apparently dating a Canadian politician. It’s a proud day for Canada. They’re the first nation to put a man on Condoleezza.”

Jay Leno trashed Rice as well.

That isn’t comedy — that’s cowardice — and they knew they were safe. Who was going to take them on? The women’s groups, liberals, black feminists, LGBTQs?

What relentless outrage there’d be if this were any conservative talking about Maxine Waters, Donna Brazile,

Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris.

My aforementioned question is rhetorical. We all know the answer. The left cannot let go of the sham talking points because it’s their life’s blood.

Should they recognize, then admit, the egg on their collective faces, and should decency prevail, rather than saying “Uncle Tom” they’d simply be saying “uncle.”

Betty Arenson is a Valencia resident, has lived in the SCV since 1968 and is active in a local Republican club.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: May 30, 2014 6:15 a.m.

I think this turmoil is largely in your head. I suggest you stop watching television, as step one toward re-joining the facts based society.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 30, 2014 6:27 a.m.

Facts too hard for you to accept, ricketzz?


17trillion: Posted: May 30, 2014 8:30 a.m.

These attacks are just fodder for the stupid among us. Anyone with a brain knows it's either bs and/or a purposeful attack to garner the support of various ignorant voting classes.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 30, 2014 9:21 a.m.

Trash talk comes from both parties, smart people know to ignore it. Get on with your life, don't toss and turn at night.


projalice11: Posted: May 30, 2014 9:22 a.m.

"Themes assigned to Republicans: not caring about the poor, disliking all minorities, resuscitating the War on Women and the claimed noninclusiveness."

Let the truth be told ..

THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING ..


17trillion: Posted: May 30, 2014 9:32 a.m.

I rest my case.


philellis: Posted: May 30, 2014 10:57 a.m.

Lois, what proof? Saying "Bingo" doesn't make it true.


17trillion: Posted: May 30, 2014 11:11 a.m.

Lois doesn't even know she's being played. Oh to be so blissfully unaware, so immune to logic, so completely blinded and empty of any intellect. Because, if it were true that we hate minorities and women and the poor, she would have proof of it. But poor ol Lois just can't bring herself to engage in anything close to a reasoned debate on the matter. This is the same person that couldn't comprehend "right lane must turn right".

Debate Lois style: "THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING."

Well then, there ya have it!


CaptGene: Posted: May 30, 2014 11:58 a.m.

Hey, "Blame it on Mame", "Bingo", "23 Skidoo", whatever it takes to get her point across! --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:07 p.m.

I can understand the ‘joke’ thing . . . but for Betty to gain credibility, she needs to address the conservative ‘talkers’ on radio that demean people daily . . .

As far as what republicans are doing, let’s take a brief recap:

- Cut food stamps for the poor ‘ahead of the recovery’

- Refuse to even vote on raising the minimum wage in the House

- Refuse to vote on extending long term unemployment to the ‘hard working’ Americans that lost their jobs from the malfeasance in the financial industry

- Voter suppression activities across the states that range from ‘reducing’ early voting, to closing down voting stations, not to mention asking for ID requirements that are difficult for many minorities – all based on a contrived issue of ‘vote fraud’ that doesn’t even exists

- Gerrymandering districts state by state to which the House has a majority ‘seating’ but republicans garnered less votes (somewhere around a million plus ) thus ensuring that their ‘contrived’ districts represent the majority????

- Continued support of more defense spending that doesn’t address the economic drivers creating the unrest we see around the globe

- More restrictive legislation on women’s reproductive rights state by state

- fighting against the Medicaid expansion set forth in the ACA for poor people

All of this going on and Betty writes: “I’m talking about the themes assigned to Republicans: not caring about the poor, disliking all minorities, resuscitating the War on Women and the claimed noninclusiveness.”

Betty, I can only suggest that you stop listening to conservative media and start actually ‘seeing’ what your party is doing . . .


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:09 p.m.

projalice11 wrote: "Themes assigned to Republicans: not caring about the poor, disliking all minorities, resuscitating the War on Women and the claimed noninclusiveness."

Let the truth be told .. THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING ..

Indy: As you read through the ‘quick quips’ notice that none of them refute what Betty wrote . . .


projalice11: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:58 p.m.

Sour Grapes when the Grand Old Party's feeble ideology is revealed..

Such as: "Not caring about the poor, disliking all minorities, resuscitating the War on Women and the claimed noninclusiveness, etc. etc. etc.

Did you ever wonder why the late night show host joke about the Republicans ?
Their words and actions reveal their simple minded beliefs..

"Right lane must turn right" is a good example of simple mindedness..
Get on with your life, don't toss and TURN RIGHT at night."

"Oh to be so blissfully unaware, so immune to logic, so completely blinded and empty of any intelligence that some of the negative posters poses.. BINGO

Can you imagine what the late night hosts can do with some of these inane post and inane and ridicules comments ??


philellis: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:00 p.m.

Windy, I think that you need to stop reading the liberal "quick quips" which you seem wont to rely upon and look at the real world. As I am sure you are aware, there is no truth to statements to the effect that Republicans do not care for the poor, dislike all minorities, are resucitating the War on Women, etc. If there were any such truth, I am sure that you would be quick to post the facts in support thereof - we all know how fond you are of posting facts.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:07 p.m.

Lois: I am laughing my butt off right now. I was addressing Betty Arenson about not tossing and turning at night, but YOUR self-deprecating joke is much much better... "Don't toss and turn right at night!!!"

THAT IS PRICELESS!!!!! What time is the late show?


projalice11: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:24 p.m.

"Did you ever wonder why the late night show host joke about the Republicans?"

Where is my answer??


projalice11: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:33 p.m.

"If it were true that we hate minorities and women and the poor, she would have proof of it"

HERE IS PROOF OF THE PUDDING..

- Cut food stamps for the poor ‘ahead of the recovery’

- Refuse to even vote on raising the minimum wage in the House

- Refuse to vote on extending long term unemployment to the ‘hard working’ Americans that lost their jobs from the malfeasance in the financial industry

- Voter suppression activities across the states that range from ‘reducing’ early voting, to closing down voting stations, not to mention asking for ID requirements that are difficult for many minorities – all based on a contrived issue of ‘vote fraud’ that doesn’t even exists

- Gerrymandering districts state by state to which the House has a majority ‘seating’ but republicans garnered less votes (somewhere around a million plus ) thus ensuring that their ‘contrived’ districts represent the majority????

- Continued support of more defense spending that doesn’t address the economic drivers creating the unrest we see around the globe

- More restrictive legislation on women’s reproductive rights state by state

- fighting against the Medicaid expansion set forth in the ACA for poor people

SO AND SO FORTH ..


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:46 p.m.

Nice research, Lois. Where on earth did you find all of this???

By the way, I am not defending the Republicans... just like I wouldn't defend Democrats either. Lots of self-serving career politicians these days from both sides of the aisle. Dishonesty has no party affiliation.


philellis: Posted: May 30, 2014 3:50 p.m.

More blather. Lois, do you have any concept of what facts are? As an example please detail restrictive legislation on women's reporductive rights, indicating sponsor and party. Also, please don't forget to show how that particlar proposed legislation actually restricted any specific rights. Also, please indicate votes on any such legislation showing aye and nay votes by party.

waiting. . . but not holding my breath


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 30, 2014 4:42 p.m.

David Letterman: “Today is the 54th anniversary of the first man getting to the top of Mt. Everest. Now, if only we could get one on top of Hilary Clinton.”

So. With this minor change, do you think Letterman would have kept his job?


projalice11: Posted: May 30, 2014 5:37 p.m.

Hillary not Hilary.........

HILLARY 2016...............


ricketzz: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:02 a.m.

Personally I think CBS should lose their licenses over the Letterman Sexual Abuse whitewash. He should have been made an example. What he did was chronic and felonious. And, being a rich white guy, he suffers no punishment. That is the message society sends today. Herman Cain gets awkward with a couple staffers and is vilified, Letterman is a serial harasser and he sails on.

John Boehner breaks into sobbing sniffles at the drop of a hat, but his "temper" or "emotional control" is never questioned, unlike when a woman has power and her ability to control her emotions is always in question.

I can go on all day. But I won't. What I will say is "must've touched a nerve or something"..

Betty doesn't know who her friends really are.


Indy: Posted: May 31, 2014 3:27 p.m.

projalice11,

I did a single search on the internet using this: republican legislation women reproductive health

Here’s a sampling of the first several hits of the 6 million results:

Guttmacher Institute
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2013/04/11/index.html
State Policy Trends 2013:
Abortion Bans Move to the Fore

April 11, 2013
In 2013, as in recent years, state legislatures are devoting significant attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights. During the first three months of the year, legislators have introduced 694 provisions on these issues, and 93 have been approved by at least one legislative body.

Abortion Bans
During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester of pregnancy and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Medication Abortion Limitations
Legislators in eight states (AL, AR, IA, IN, MO, MS, NC and TX) have introduced provisions to restrict medication abortion. If adopted, these restrictions would have a profound impact on access to medication abortion (see our related analysis here: Medication Abortion Restrictions Burden Women and Providers—and Threaten U.S. Trend Toward Very Early Abortion). State-adopted restrictions on medication abortion generally take two approaches.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04/13/republicans-propose-694-attacks-womens-reproductive-rights-3-months-2013.html
Republicans Have Launched 694 Attacks on Women’s Reproductive Rights in 3 Months
According to the report by The Guttmacher Institute:
• 14 States introduced laws seeking to ban abortion before viability.
• 10 States introduced laws to ban all or nearly all abortions
• 8 States have passed “personhood” laws.
• 8 States have introduced laws to limit “the morning after” pill

War on Women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women

Indy: The Wikiepedia sites has all the reference links . . . 159 of them . . .


therightstuff: Posted: June 1, 2014 10:45 p.m.

Indy: """I can understand the ‘joke’ thing . . . but for Betty to gain credibility..."""

I thought Indy lecturing someone else how to gain credibility WAS the joke thing.


therightstuff: Posted: June 1, 2014 10:52 p.m.

projalice11: """Let the truth be told ..."

How can any Obama loyalist say that with a straight face?


libbet: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:40 p.m.

Betty, methinks thou dost protest too much.


philellis: Posted: June 2, 2014 7:56 a.m.

In 2013, as in recent years, state legislatures are devoting significant attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights. During the first three months of the year, legislators have introduced 694 provisions on these issues, and 93 have been approved by at least one legislative body.


Is this a negative or positive? Such a broad brush - proving what? real indepth thought


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 9:36 a.m.

Allow me to give my impression of Lois and the Black Night:

Democrats cheer over 55 million abortions but have a cow if a convicted rapist and murderer suffers for 10 minutes. Democrats have no heart. Democrats love murderers more than babies.

Democrats rejoice over Valerie Jarret having secret service protections while vacationing in Martha's Vineyard but shrug off a US Ambassador in Muslimterroriststan having virtually no protection on 9/11. Democrats are stupid.

Democrats negotiate with terrorists and free 5 of them for one American. Democrats immune to common sense. Democrats love terrorists.

Democrats call Nassan's murder of 19 people at Fort Hood while yelling allah Akbar "workplace violence" and not terrorism. They do this while calling Clive Bundy a terrorist.

Democrats think Harry Reid is a good guy. There is no need for further truth as to how stupid Democrats are.

Some Democrats think an island will tip over if there are too many people.

Democrats create a slave population that is dependent on government and people who pay taxes. Democrats are just as bad as slave owners. Ooops, Democrats WERE slave owners and slaves were freed by Republicans.

Democrats think freezing weather is caused by global warming.

Democrats think a train that costs a hundred billion dollars is a good idea which is like saying me buying the Clippers is a good idea even though I'm 1.99 billion short.

Democrats think that illegals getting amnesty is more important than saving vets. Democrats hate vets even though they say they do. Democrats lie!

Democrats pee their britches because the rate of increase is slowed or reduced. Democrats are too stupid to know what an actual cut means.

Democrats think more gun control laws are necessary despite the record high instances of gun deaths in the most "gun controlled" areas. Democrats are really stupid.

Democrats think using the IRS to mess with their political opponents is just fine ignoring the fact that it's illegal AND could be used against them at some time. Democrats are immune to history and common sense.

Democrats whine about gerrymandering done but Republicans. Democrats are too stupid to know they do it too.

Democrats think people wanting less abortions is a war on women instead of thinking that perhaps saving a fetus here and there is a good thing.

Democrats love participation trophies.

Democrats think other Democrats are too stupid to get a photo ID.

Democrats pander to the most ignorant among us by saying Republicans are racist ignoring the fact that maybe, just maybe, we don't like his policies. Besides, he's black too!

Democrats think it's cool to have a Secretary of the Treasury who was a tax cheat.

I could go on, and maybe I will.


Indy: Posted: June 2, 2014 1:55 p.m.

One of the real values of this forum, although I wish it had more participation . . . is the ability to understand how different groups view things and how their slogans and ideology effect their thinking.

This poster below provides great fodder for debate not to mention clearly articulating the RNC talking points. In any event, let’s not disappoint:

17trillion wrote: Allow me to give my impression of Lois and the Black Night:

Democrats cheer over 55 million abortions but have a cow if a convicted rapist and murderer suffers for 10 minutes. Democrats have no heart. Democrats love murderers more than babies.

Indy: This is totally inaccurate . . . it’s no doubt recited in the conservative media but perhaps the poster can explain why:

- Religious conservatives fight sex education and non-abortive family planning that would make the abortion issue moot
- Killing people using the death penalty seems harsh enough without the person suffering from the use of poorly designed drugs

In any event, saying that ‘Democrats love murderers more than babies.’ is why this poster has no credibility with me and shows that simply being successful monetarily provides no increase in intelligence.

Likewise, being 'pro choice' is not being 'pro abortion'.

17trillion wrote: Democrats rejoice over Valerie Jarret having secret service protections while vacationing in Martha's Vineyard but shrug off a US Ambassador in Muslimterroriststan having virtually no protection on 9/11. Democrats are stupid.

Indy: Why does the poster IGNORE that the GOP reduces the amount of funding for consultant and embassy protection?

17trillion wrote: Democrats negotiate with terrorists and free 5 of them for one American. Democrats immune to common sense. Democrats love terrorists.

Indy: Again, the insanity of the poster’s remarks puts into question whether he grasp the nature of reconciliation after conflict. I wonder if the poster still hates the ‘Japanese and Germans’ after what they did in WW2?

Perpetual hate? You decide . . .

In any event, I’ll go down the list as time permits but a certain measure of thanks should be afforded this poster so you really can see what this guy is thinking as he sits on this ‘throne’ here in SCV-land . . .


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 2:22 p.m.

"- Religious conservatives fight sex education and non-abortive family planning that would make the abortion issue moot"

So you are saying that if sex ed and non-abortive family planning were MORE available, there would be no need for abortions? So in places like San Francisco and New York where we KNOW FOR A FACT that sex ed and family planning are practiced on a grand scale, abortion doesn't exist in those places? I'm not a Dem constituent so you'll have to bring up your game a bit more Black Knight.

"Tis but a scratch!"

You crack me up Black Knight.

"Killing people using the death penalty seems harsh enough without the person suffering from the use of poorly designed drugs"

I'm sure taking a pair of surgical pliers and crushing the skull of a 6 month old fetus feels really super duper! Like I said, liberals love abortion but they recoil at the thought of a monster, a real life monster, being in pain for 10 minutes, assuming he was in pain. And even if he was, GOOD! I'm not religious so I don't care if he suffered for 10 minutes or 10 hours or if they threw him into a vat of boiling oil.

"shows that simply being successful monetarily provides no increase in intelligence."

I could say the same about people holding MBAs from prestigious Cal State Northridge.

"Indy: Why does the poster IGNORE that the GOP reduces the amount of funding for consultant and embassy protection?"

Why does this poster think everyone is as stupid as a typical Dem constituent? Please prove the above! You know damn well you just lied and even if you didn't, it must have passed the Senate, DEM CONTROLLED, and the Whitehouse, DEM CONTROLLED. I'm not a high school drop out on welfare with 12 kids from 10 fathers Black Knight so you will have to be a bit smarter, if that's possible.

"Indy: Again, the insanity of the poster’s remarks puts into question whether he grasp the nature of reconciliation after conflict. I wonder if the poster still hates the ‘Japanese and Germans’ after what they did in WW2?"

The Japanese and Germans aren't actively trying to kill us at this moment Black Knight and your comment proves that you love Islamo-terrorists more than you love Americans. America is always at fault with people like you. And by the way, I don't hate the Brits even though they treated us pretty shabbily a couple hundred years ago. This again is the sign of Dems pandering to the least intelligent among us. Equating Japanese with stateless sponsors of terror! I know I'm redundant when I say "least intelligent" and "Dems".

" In any event, I’ll go down the list as time permits"

Oh, I'm all a'quiver waiting for you to address my thoughts Black Knight. The fact that you feel the need to address them instead of realizing I'm just busting your chops, sort of, says much. Tiss but a flesh wound....




therightstuff: Posted: June 2, 2014 4:25 p.m.

"""HILLARY 2016"""

I have a great slogan for Hillary's run: "Vote for me, I got boobs."

Can anyone think of any other reason someone would vote for Hillary Clinton?


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 4:31 p.m.

Yes, the other reason is because she's a democrat. It's this lack of critical thinking that makes the Democrat party as popular as it is. If one were to give real reasons why she is qualified to be president, one would have a hard time coming up with a good reason other than she has boobs and is a Democrat. Thus, the thinking of the average Democrat!


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 2, 2014 4:34 p.m.

17t- I hereby award you a participation ribbon. LOL


17trillion: Posted: June 2, 2014 4:39 p.m.

I'm so proud! I accept only if everyone gets the award! That way it will be more special than if I just got the award. :)


Indy: Posted: June 2, 2014 5:15 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Democrats call Nassan's murder of 19 people at Fort Hood while yelling allah Akbar "workplace violence" and not terrorism. They do this while calling Clive Bundy a terrorist.

Indy: Not clear of your point other than Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy was surrounded by white supremacist militia men who are guilty of sedition for pointing their weapons at Federal Marshals . . . who knew conservatives advocate lawlessness . . . or supporting 'tax cheats'.

17trillion wrote: Democrats think Harry Reid is a good guy. There is no need for further truth as to how stupid Democrats are.

Indy: Mindless . . .

17trillion wrote: Some Democrats think an island will tip over if there are too many people.

Indy: Global over population is the greatest threat facing us . . .

17trillion wrote: Democrats create a slave population that is dependent on government and people who pay taxes. Democrats are just as bad as slave owners. Ooops, Democrats WERE slave owners and slaves were freed by Republicans.

Indy: This is the ideology based nonsense that the RNC propagates on unsuspecting conservatives.

Part of this issue is that so many conservatives lack in appropriate training in economics, management, and basic business.

But at least we see we’ve got a new ‘Hitler’ type reference is calling dems ‘slave owners’ . . .

17trillion wrote:Democrats think freezing weather is caused by global warming.

Indy: Yes, the mean thermal temperature of the planet is rising consistent with the add CO2 concentration from burning fossil fuels causing 'climate change' events . . . www.skepticalscience.com

17trillion wrote: Democrats think a train that costs a hundred billion dollars is a good idea which is like saying me buying the Clippers is a good idea even though I'm 1.99 billion short.

Indy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

17trillion wrote: Democrats think that illegals getting amnesty is more important than saving vets. Democrats hate vets even though they say they do. Democrats lie!

Indy: Here again, just utter conservative ideology based nonsense . . . I’d be embarrassed to reciting such baloney . . . but you can see how the ‘conservative’ ‘mind’ tries to understand why republicans vote against veteran benefits . . .


CaptGene: Posted: June 2, 2014 6:39 p.m.

Indy Nile aka "The Black Knight": "In any event, I’ll go down the list as time permits"

Oh great, give me a second so I can move to the edge of my seat!


therightstuff: Posted: June 2, 2014 8:47 p.m.

"""I’d be embarrassed to reciting such baloney . . ."""

Says the guy who has been hawking David Brock's 99 cent pamphlet which tries to shamelessly absolve the Obama administration from all culpability with the Benghazi terrorist attack. This guy is one piece of work.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 8:21 a.m.

"tries to understand why republicans vote against veteran benefits . ."


To all the morons out there who MIGHT be inclined to believe this, I present real numbers for you:

In FY 2003 we spent 73 billion on VA spending.
In FY 2013, exactly 10 years later, we spent a 140 billion.

Thus, VA spending, like all other spending, has increased. In this case by almost a 100%. Do not let the Black Knight, with his worthless MBA from Northridge, fool you. Just because he writes it, doesn't make it fact. In actuality, if he writes it, it's a good chance is BS. The Black Knight has no honor or integrity.


CaptGene: Posted: June 3, 2014 9:37 a.m.

As an aside, isn't it fortuitous that the "time sensitive" swap of five Gitmo detainees for one "POW" has taken the focus off of the VA scandal?

I always thought the U.S. didn't negotiate with terrorists, until I found out that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Who knew? Someone should tell Google because when I search "Taliban claims responsibility" the links tell a different story.


therightstuff: Posted: June 3, 2014 11:23 a.m.

Yep, just as Obama and his minions repeatedly and deliberately lied about four dead Americans in Benghazi to save his political ass, they have released the five most prized terrorists by the Taliban for one reason and one reason only - to get the VA scandal off the front page. In order to protect his political image, Obama has put a target on the back of every U.S. soldier and American citizen who travels abroad and can be held for ransom.

It's beyond disgraceful. It's down right treasonous.


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:14 p.m.

I guarantee that if a Republican president and done this, you all would be singing their praises and marveling at how they "didn't leave a man behind" and "took care of our own".

Guaran-damn-teed.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:23 p.m.

Does that make it right Steve? Furthermore, I don't see a lot of Republican praise on these boards, mostly because they are only in charge of 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government. I see a lot of negativity directed at Republicans. I'll start with bashing Thad Cochran, 6 time senator from Mississippi. If ever there was a corrupt POS that needed to go, it's him.

And finally, it does seem Obama almost invites the bashing of him and his policies. 5 terrorists for a deserter? Then the inevitable touchdown dance in the Rose garden? And to top it off, Susan Rice going on the Sunday shows saying this guy fought with bravery and distinction. Come on Steve, that was friggin idiocy.....


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:23 p.m.

"they have released the five most prized terrorists by the Taliban for one reason and one reason only - to get the VA scandal off the front page. "

Now THIS is beyond crazy. To get the VA issue off the front page, they *released GITMO prisoners*? Terrorists? SERIOUSLY? You can't *possibly* believe that anyone would think that the way to decrease coverage of something like the VA problems would be to *release terrorists*! Geez.

Normally when trying to "bury" some issue, one wants to highlight something undeniably *positive*, not something highly controversial.

"Obama has put a target on the back of every U.S. soldier and American citizen who travels abroad and can be held for ransom."

Uh...as if those targets weren't there in the first place.

This is the same sort of "reasoning" as the McCain-style "argument" that by announcing a date for withdrawal, we're somehow playing into their hands. As if the Taliban et al. are so unbelievably stupid that they can't see with their own eyes what is happening.

Do people really think that when we're gone, if we just don't *tell* them we're gone, nobody will notice?

Do people really think that anti-American groups would not kidnap or kill Americans before, but now they will?


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:43 p.m.

If you didn't have your head stuck so far up his butt, you might be inclined to believe that the President broke the law. He is supposed to notify the ranking members in congress 30 days prior to ANY release of ANY terrorist in Gitmo. Naturally, the POS thinks he's above the law and can do as he pleases. I'm glad he screwed up again, and again, and again, and again. It just makes those of you who voted for him dig in deeper and deeper without admitting you were WRONG!


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:48 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Democrats pee their britches because the rate of increase is slowed or reduced. Democrats are too stupid to know what an actual cut means.

Indy: What we see here is the inability of this poster to understand how budgeting works and the factors that play into it. Rather than take a professional approach, the poster degenerates his comment to something partisan and mostly meaningless.

17trillion wrote: Democrats think more gun control laws are necessary despite the record high instances of gun deaths in the most "gun controlled" areas. Democrats are really stupid.

Indy: The poster ‘sees’ I guess the 30,000 deaths per year from gun violence to protect his belief in a conservative overthrow of the federal government by white supremacist militias that need ‘military style assault’ weapons . . . witness the recent event in Nevada on Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy.

17trillion wrote: Democrats think using the IRS to mess with their political opponents is just fine ignoring the fact that it's illegal AND could be used against them at some time. Democrats are immune to history and common sense.

Indy: Here again, the poster remains mostly ignorant to what republicans do in ‘defunding’ the IRS . . . as well as showing his intent to ‘hide’ campaign contributions in 501C4s organizations thus creating the destruction of our ‘small d’ democracy.

17trillion wrote: Democrats whine about gerrymandering done but Republicans. Democrats are too stupid to know they do it too.

Indy: Here the poster actually gets somewhat back on track but fails to realize that supporting a movement against the practice of gerrymandering is better than just ‘blaming the other party’.

17trillion wrote: Democrats think people wanting less abortions is a war on women instead of thinking that perhaps saving a fetus here and there is a good thing.

Indy: Again, why this poster ignores the religious conservative movement to ban sex education and non-abortive family planning birth control that makes the abortion issue simply go away . . .


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:54 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Democrats love participation trophies.

Indy: It’s understandable that based on the American folklore principle ‘winner take all’ that providing a disincentive to ‘participate’ in various new activities, especially for your people, builds their confidence and self-esteem, critically important for young people’s growth in maturity.

17trillion wrote: Democrats think other Democrats are too stupid to get a photo ID.

Indy: It’s not unexpected based on the distortive remarks by this poster that he continues to advocate solving a ‘nonexistent’ problem with voter fraud . . .

17trillion wrote: Democrats pander to the most ignorant among us by saying Republicans are racist ignoring the fact that maybe, just maybe, we don't like his policies. Besides, he's black too!

Indy: I think the solution to racism is the reality that the ‘old white people’ that still hold on to this will be dying off soon . . .

17trillion wrote: Democrats think it's cool to have a Secretary of the Treasury who was a tax cheat.

Indy: Let’s talk about Mitt Romney . . .

17trillion wrote: I could go on, and maybe I will.

Indy: The poster has actually done quite a good job of presenting RNC talking points . . . and showed how weak such slogans are based on the reality of the issues in play. But it’s good when somebody like this ‘sounds off’ to address his nonsense for both clarity and reality.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:55 p.m.

The Black Knight wrote:

Hell, I don't even know what he wrote. This is the same guy that accuses Repubs of cutting VA spending while it increased a 100% in the last 10 years. He claims that I don't know about budgeting? Excuses me, I just spit coffee through my nose.

Did anyone notice how I challenged him on sex ed and non-abortive family planning and his insane comment that if we had more, then more abortions wouldn't be necessary? That was another coffee through the nose moment. Care to respond Black Knight? If you're correct, why are there still abortions in San Francisco and New York City? Why are there abortions in Madison and Portland? The simple fact is that those places tend to have MORE abortions despite the idiotic claim that more sex ed and non-abortive family planning is necessary.

Till but a flesh wound.....


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 12:59 p.m.

"Indy: It’s understandable that based on the American folklore principle ‘winner take all’ that providing a disincentive to ‘participate’ in various new activities, especially for your people, builds their confidence and self-esteem, critically important for young people’s growth in maturity."

No it doesn't, it breeds losers! Democrats love losers, it's their main constituency. The Black Knight, thankfully, doesn't have children and for that we can all be thankful.

Black Knight, how does getting an award for losing build confidence?

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing! You can wallow in your cesspool of mediocrity and lost opportunity as that makes you a true Democrat.


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:10 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """I’d be embarrassed to reciting such baloney . . ."""

Says the guy who has been hawking David Brock's 99 cent pamphlet which tries to shamelessly absolve the Obama administration from all culpability with the Benghazi terrorist attack. This guy is one piece of work.

Indy: For those interested in a accurate flow of events on the Libya incidence, please read: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

Interestingly, our own Senator Boxer noted some interesting statistics on the ‘investigation’ into this incident that has accumulated:

Over the last 20 months, the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2012, attacks have received unprecedented scrutiny:

• 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks
• 17 hearings have been conducted
• 50 briefings have taken place
• 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted
• 8 subpoenas have been issued
• more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed
• 6 congressional reports have been released
Indy: But I find this comment from Boxer to be especially telling:

“Between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 501 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in 70 countries, which resulted in the deaths of 586 people, including 67 Americans. During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks, which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans. Those attacks were all terrible tragedies. The difference is that we never had a political party spend years exploiting them for political gain.”

Indy: As a taxpayer, I don’t like spending tax dollars to ‘fund’ partisan conservative politicians using the deaths as Boxer noted for such motivation.

Anyway, read the entire article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/the-gops-benghazi-witch-h_b_5315857.html


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:15 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "- Religious conservatives fight sex education and non-abortive family planning that would make the abortion issue moot"

So you are saying that if sex ed and non-abortive family planning were MORE available, there would be no need for abortions? So in places like San Francisco and New York where we KNOW FOR A FACT that sex ed and family planning are practiced on a grand scale, abortion doesn't exist in those places? I'm not a Dem constituent so you'll have to bring up your game a bit more Black Knight.

Indy: Again, fighting against sex education as we even seen here in SCV-land by religious conservative denies young people that ability to properly understand basic birth control techniques that eliminate abortions.

In any event, please feel free to provide statistics or sources for NY or SF . . . I’ll be happy to review.


17trillion wrote: "Killing people using the death penalty seems harsh enough without the person suffering from the use of poorly designed drugs"

I'm sure taking a pair of surgical pliers and crushing the skull of a 6 month old fetus feels really super duper! Like I said, liberals love abortion but they recoil at the thought of a monster, a real life monster, being in pain for 10 minutes, assuming he was in pain. And even if he was, GOOD! I'm not religious so I don't care if he suffered for 10 minutes or 10 hours or if they threw him into a vat of boiling oil.

Indy: As heinous of crimes committed by people that are of deranged states doesn’t make us turn into what they are . . . we need to be addressing why such crimes are committed and address their root causes like poverty, mental health, and self-esteem.

Conservatives through my lifetime like to see such actions as ‘coddling the criminal’ versus reducing crime and preventing the tragedies that create the need for punishment.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:17 p.m.

Indy: As a taxpayer, I don’t like spending tax dollars to ‘fund’ partisan conservative politicians using the deaths as Boxer noted for such motivation.

Black Knight, I don't like spending money on the Dept of Ed that doesn't educate. I don't like spending on the IRS. I don't spending money on the Dept of Commerce which does nothing to enhance commerce. Dept of Energy doesn't produce energy. Do you think anyone cares what you want to spend money on especially the 1/1000th of penny you're whining about compared to hundreds of billions that I'm concerned about?

Democrats love to complain about spending a penny on something they don't like while pissing about billions on bankrupt solar energy companies. Democrats don't understand logic and the marketplace. Democrats think Barbara Boxer is the reincarnation of Benjamin Franklin.

"Come back her or I'll really do you!"


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:22 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "shows that simply being successful monetarily provides no increase in intelligence."

I could say the same about people holding MBAs from prestigious Cal State Northridge.

Indy: Again, the poster fails to recognize that ‘training’ be it for a new fighter pilot in a F22, proper medical training for a doctor or dentist, or even an auto mechanic working on new car is essential for quality and proper resolution.

Mocking people with education solves nothing . . . and shows further the jealousy of someone that really could have benefited from the basics in economics, business management, budgeting, and cost accounting.


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:25 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Indy: Why does the poster IGNORE that the GOP reduces the amount of funding for consultant and embassy protection?"

Why does this poster think everyone is as stupid as a typical Dem constituent? Please prove the above! You know damn well you just lied and even if you didn't, it must have passed the Senate, DEM CONTROLLED, and the Whitehouse, DEM CONTROLLED. I'm not a high school drop out on welfare with 12 kids from 10 fathers Black Knight so you will have to be a bit smarter, if that's possible.

Indy: As we see again, the poster IGNORES what republicans do . . . and incorrectly blames the ‘other party’ . . . . this has its roots in the classic ‘focus group tested’ slogans used to control and manipulate this poster.

In any event, my search on this ‘republicans block embassy funding’ returned 1.9 million hits including this:

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=ApSwy1RSL5jwlnPuYcDrHLqbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-325-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=republicans%20block%20embassy%20funding

By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/12 10:41 PM EDT
Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011.
Democrats are scrutinizing the GOP proposals in the wake of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East, one of which saw Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans murdered.
“This is a disturbing example of the Republicans’ meat-ax approach to cutting every aspect of the government, no matter how essential,” said Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) in a statement to The Hill.
Republicans hit back, saying the GOP-controlled House has voted for money to ensure the safety of diplomatic staff overseas, and accused Democrats of using last week’s violence to score cheap political points.
“It is extremely distasteful that some ill-informed Democrat staff are using the instability and violence abroad to score cheap political hits,” said Jennifer Hing, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee.
“For over a decade, the Congress has made strong and necessary investments to ensure the safety and security of our diplomatic facilities and staff overseas,” Hing said.
“These investments will continue to be a priority, and the committee will continue to make decisions that focus funding on programs that have the most benefit to the American people — both here and abroad.”
Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:26 p.m.

17...if you didn't have YOUR head stuck so far up your own arse, you might think that the entire *idea* of indefinite detention, torture, etc., are abhorrent to American ideals. But since it was *started* by right-wingers, you've bought into it hook, line and sinker. Constitution? "It's just a g-d-mned piece of paper!", right?


Indy: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:29 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Indy: Again, the insanity of the poster’s remarks puts into question whether he grasp the nature of reconciliation after conflict. I wonder if the poster still hates the ‘Japanese and Germans’ after what they did in WW2?"

The Japanese and Germans aren't actively trying to kill us at this moment Black Knight and your comment proves that you love Islamo-terrorists more than you love Americans. America is always at fault with people like you. And by the way, I don't hate the Brits even though they treated us pretty shabbily a couple hundred years ago. This again is the sign of Dems pandering to the least intelligent among us. Equating Japanese with stateless sponsors of terror! I know I'm redundant when I say "least intelligent" and "Dems".

Indy: Here again, the poster ‘ignores’ the context and just marches on to the tune of partisan conservative talking points and he throws in a ‘patriotic’ recital trying to infer that only ‘conservatives believe in America’. What utter nonsense . . .

17trillion wrote: " In any event, I’ll go down the list as time permits"

Oh, I'm all a'quiver waiting for you to address my thoughts Black Knight. The fact that you feel the need to address them instead of realizing I'm just busting your chops, sort of, says much. Tiss but a flesh wound....

Indy: My only goal here is to help this poster . . . and suggest that staying mired in conservative media outlets that distort both the news and political discourse, isn’t helpful for anyone trying to address our nations problems.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:38 p.m.

"Mocking people with education solves nothing"

If you will note Black Knight, I don't mock people with an education. I mock people who claim to be educated who consistently display the opposite. In other words, if you claimed your being elected to the Presidency would cause the oceans to slow their rise, I would rightly mock you despite the fact that you consider yourself the smartest guy in the room. Get it?


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:40 p.m.

"In any event, my search on this ‘republicans block embassy funding’ returned 1.9 million hits including this:"

If you google "democrats are stupid" you get 8,700,000 hits. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:42 p.m.

Oh, looky who was for prisoner swaps before he was against them:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-McCain-Taliban-Bowe-Bergdah-exchange/2014/02/18/id/553454/


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:46 p.m.

"17...if you didn't have YOUR head stuck so far up your own arse, you might think that the entire *idea* of indefinite detention, torture, etc., are abhorrent to American ideals."

Not to me buddy! First, I've seen nothing that says we torture. If panty azzed people like you can't handle the fact that we pour some water on people that want to destroy this country, then go live in a cave where real life wont bother you so much. "Indefinite detention"? Oh, like Manson and Kaczynski? Waaa.....bad guys are being locked up forever! I'm so weepy over their precious rights...waaaaaaa! Grow up man! Life is not lollipops and candy canes and there are real bad guys out there who thank Allah for people like you.


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:47 p.m.

So is this false, 17?

"Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012. "

You can call people all the names you want, and insult them and poke fun at them or whatever you want to do. But facts...well, those are different things. They have a way of ignoring being called names or being insulted.

So...is the above statement true, or false?


stevehw: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:51 p.m.

"Not to me buddy! First, I've seen nothing that says we torture. If panty azzed people like you can't handle the fact that we pour some water on people that want to destroy this country, then go live in a cave where real life wont bother you so much. "Indefinite detention"? Oh, like Manson and Kaczynski? Waaa.....bad guys are being locked up forever! I'm so weepy over their precious rights...waaaaaaa! Grow up man! Life is not lollipops and candy canes and there are real bad guys out there who thank Allah for people like you."

Right. Because, as we've discussed, you are a sadist. We get that.

These were, vile as they may be, POWs. The war is over. What do you do with POWs when the war is over? Either charge them with crimes and try them in court, or send them back home. Funny how that worked at Nuremberg.

Drowning people is not "pouring some water" on them. Maybe we can try that on you, and see if you think it's torture or not?

Re: Manson, etc....excuse me if I missed something here, but weren't they charged with crimes, tried in court and sentenced according to law? You know...the Justice system and all that?

Seemed to work just fine there...how come we have to abandon it when we get scared of "bad guys"?


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 1:51 p.m.

"Indy: My only goal here is to help this poster . . ."

You're failing...you should try harder!

"Oh, looky who was for prisoner swaps before he was against them:"

You have me grossly mistaken for someone who thinks McCain is great. I think he's a POS politician who is soft on everything except going to war. I have nothing but contempt for him and he did NOT get my vote.

I don't necessarily have a problem with prisoner swaps if it's equitable and if we aren't swapping for a coward who deserted his post and his fellow soldiers. Screw him, let him rot with his new buddies and we'll keep the Taliban scum for another couple decades.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 2:14 p.m.

I assume it isn't false Steve, but what's the point? What was the 1.8 billion being spent on SPECIFICALLY and how much was going to security? The State Dept budget was almost 50 billion dollars. Your claim that this somehow excuses the death of our ambassador and 3 others is like saying I cut my budget from 10k a month to 9.8k a month and couldn't afford food for my family so they starved. That is just stupid! In case you forgot, "congress" is still BOTH houses so the Senate murdered Chris Stevens too I guess according to your idiotic logic, right? And since the President signed off on this budget, he's a murderer too.

I've never seen such a weak attempt to make a point. Your claim that a drop of 26 million dollars for some janitors and a new toilet AND security, whatever or wherever that means, caused the death of 4 people? Care to compare and contrast the State Dept's budgets over the last several years? You are only being insulted because it's so richly deserved. You have no clue as to how budgeting and spending works as demonstrated by your example.

Democrats can't logically talk about money because they have no comprehension. Steve whines about a 26 million dollar cut in "security, construction, and maintenance" without realizing that represents approximately 3.5 minutes of government spending. If security, construction, and maintenance were dived equally, the security aspect would cover 70 seconds of government spending. If we divide that "security" number among 274 embassies and compounds that the State Dept is in charge of, that leaves $31,000.00 for security at Benghazi or the equivalent of 2 guys for 2 months, 2 CHEAP guys. However, Hillary's State Dept DID find it within their budget to spend $5,000,000.00 on glasses! But you don't care, right? Democrats love people like you Steve!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/state-department-spends-5-mil-on-glasses-says-benghazi-investigation-is-waste-of-money/


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 2:17 p.m.

"The war is over"

Praise Allah Steve, the war is over! How any human can be so naïve is really, really, astonishing. In fact, I have no words.

Get a clue clueless one. This war will NEVER be over unless we continue to elect and support the cowardly wing of the Democrat party.

"The war is over"

Wow! That might be, just maybe, the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen in my life.


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 2:20 p.m.

"Drowning people is not "pouring some water" on them. Maybe we can try that on you, and see if you think it's torture or not?"

What is my crime? I don't care if you call me a sadist or a racist or anything else. I'm a big boy and I can take it and it doesn't bother me in the least to be called names by someone who thinks the war is over with Islamo freaks. I just consider the source, but praise Allah Steve, they love guys like you.


therightstuff: Posted: June 3, 2014 3:20 p.m.

Steve: """These were, vile as they may be, POWs. The war is over. What do you do with POWs when the war is over? Either charge them with crimes and try them in court, or send them back home. Funny how that worked at Nuremberg."""

Can you provide the surrender document signed by the Taliban?

Steve, as the evidence mounts that the guy we swapped for was a deserter in exchange for five prized Taliban terrorists.....you're STILL going to stand by Obama???


17trillion: Posted: June 3, 2014 3:38 p.m.

From the bastion of conservative discourse, the Daily Beast:

"A goodbye note from Bowe Bergdahl may darken his happy homecoming. According to a former senior military officer, when Bergdahl walked out of his remote Afghan outpost in 2009, he left behind a note explaining that he was leaving to start a new life. Bergdahl said in the letter he was disillusioned with the Army and wouldn’t support America’s war. On Tuesday, the Army announced it would pursue a "comprehensive" review of Bergdahl's disappearance, which could potentially lead to desertion charges. A team leader of Bergdahl's unit told CNN that radio monitoring after his disappearance picked up a message that an American was looking to speak with the Taliban. "There's a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away," former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow said.

Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served in the same battalion as Bergdahl, wrote in The Daily Beast that Bergdahl was a deserter who cost the lives of soldiers who died searching for him. Speaking during his trip to Europe, President Obama defended the decision to trade Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners held at Gitmo, saying the U.S. was concerned about Bergdahl's health."


therightstuff: Posted: June 3, 2014 3:57 p.m.

17T, Obama clearly made this devastating decision based entirely on the hopes of getting good press with his White House besieged with scandals. However, instead of a water bucket, I think he just threw gas on the fire. How long can his subservient wh0res in the mainstream media continue to protect their leader?


stevehw: Posted: June 4, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Well, we're withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan, and they're gone from Iraq.

What would you do with these prisoners? Hold them forever?

What's wrong with putting them on trial? Is the American justice system so weak that it can't handle trying them as criminals?

And yes...someone who delights in torturing people is a sadist. Glad you admit to it, 17.


ricketzz: Posted: June 4, 2014 6:57 a.m.

If he left a note why did they search for him? The Taliban are traditionally on our side (for business reasons). We need them and they need us. I know most of you have never seen how a fake war ends; this is it.


17trillion: Posted: June 4, 2014 8:21 a.m.

"And yes...someone who delights in torturing people is a sadist. Glad you admit to it, 17."

Try reading it again Steve. I didn't admit, I simply said I don't care that you called me it. It matters not what you say to me. I think a real sadist is someone that gets aroused over 55 million abortions.


stevehw: Posted: June 4, 2014 9:24 a.m.

We all know what you said before and how you relished the idea of torturing people to get revenge. No need to admit it again.


17trillion: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:01 a.m.

Ohhhh.....I'm so torn over your accusations. Pretty please take it back? I wont sleep tonight if you don't.

Revenge is petty and usually reserved for the weak of mind and liberals, I know, that's redundant. I prefer retribution Steve!


stevehw: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:39 a.m.

You prefer sadistic acts. You like it, you enjoy it, you see nothing wrong with it, and you rationalize it. It's okay, a lot of "conservatives" agree with you. You have company right here on this forum.


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 9:49 p.m.

Waterboarding isn't "drowning". If it were, our military would be eliminating tens of thousands of pilots who've completed S.E.R.E. Training.

http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/#!/entry/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us,516559b0d7fc7b5670a5d457/1


17trillion: Posted: June 5, 2014 9:23 a.m.

"You prefer sadistic acts. You like it, you enjoy it, you see nothing wrong with it, and you rationalize it."

NO I DON'T....(pounding my fists on the table). Take it back Steve or I'll hold my breath!

You're an odd character.


therightstuff: Posted: June 5, 2014 12:45 p.m.

"""What's wrong with putting them on trial? Is the American justice system so weak that it can't handle trying them as criminals?"""

That's a good question for Eric Holder but he's too busy providing cover for all the scandals that keep piling up at the White House. We all know that Holder has one responsibility, protect his pal Barack Obama.


stevehw: Posted: June 5, 2014 2:10 p.m.

"Waterboarding isn't "drowning". If it were, our military would be eliminating tens of thousands of pilots who've completed S.E.R.E. Training."

An old line of "reasoning".

Let's see...if the Taliban or Al Qaeda did this to our troops, it'd be torture, right? But if WE do it, it isn't.

Isn't the whole point of SERE training to show them what sort of torturous acts an enemy might do to them? Like, you know, suffocating them?

It never ceases to amaze me that Americans can actually rationalize these things (at least 17 and a few others admit that they enjoy the idea of torturing people, without trying to make the ridiculous claim that suffocating people isn't torture).

I honestly think it wouldn't matter *what* grotesque methods the Bush administration used, certain people would always support using them (and in some cases, want even more heinous methods used...right, 17?). Near-drowning? GOOD! WE WANT MORE! Bring on the electricity! Or how about some really fun ones, like actually physically maiming and disfiguring people? Maybe gouge out some eyes or things like that? Yeah! After all, they're *bad guys*, and we're *good guys*, so if *we* do it, it's GOOD.


17trillion: Posted: June 5, 2014 2:34 p.m.

"Let's see...if the Taliban or Al Qaeda did this to our troops, it'd be torture, right?"

No, they just cut off heads but libs pee their britches if you look at one of these freaks the wrong way. Liberals don't like their own country and think, like Obama, that America is at fault for all that wrong in the world.

Actually Steve my favorite torture is sticking the human filth in a cage 24/7/365 never to see the sun again. Let them slowly go insane! Now that's good quality torture!

My least favorite torture Chris Hayes, Toure, and the androgynous one, Rachel Maddow.


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 4:23 p.m.

Let's net this out quickly, Steve.

Is waterboarding "drowning"? If yes, validate. If not, retract.

Are we "torturing" our own troops?

Please advise. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: June 6, 2014 6:41 a.m.

Torture, as practiced by people acting in our name, is bullying and sadism. It has no intelligence value. It is done for psycho-pathological reasons and anyone who defends it is a bully, as well. Unless you actively oppose this activity you are a war criminal. This USA is a country full of war criminals. We are divided among mercenaries and the clueless.

When you get water-boarded in survival school you know the torturer won't kill you; do our prisoners share the same assurances? Of course not. We hung Japanese for water-boarding our guys.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 6, 2014 12:34 p.m.

"it has no intelligence value"- ummm, no.
"it is done for psycho-pathological reasons"- ummm, no.
"unless you actively oppose this activity you are a war criminal"- when is the last time you stopped a water boarding exercise? Makes you a WAR CRIMINAL.
"we are divided among mercenaries and the clueless"- ummm, my Mom said we are divided between those who return their shopping carts and those that don't. My Mom is smarter than you.

Geez, it was torture just reading ur post.... ;)


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 1:52 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Mocking people with education solves nothing"

If you will note Black Knight, I don't mock people with an education.

Indy: Here you’re just an outright liar . . . but continue . . .

17trillion wrote: I mock people who claim to be educated who consistently display the opposite. In other words, if you claimed your being elected to the Presidency would cause the oceans to slow their rise, I would rightly mock you despite the fact that you consider yourself the smartest guy in the room. Get it?

Indy: Your problem lies in your lack of education . . . most of what you parrot here is just the standard conservative talking points I’ve heard for 40 years . . .

You recite them lacking context and I guess free ‘proud’ in doing so? That’s kind of what I see in people that lack education . . . . they just ‘go with flow’ without really grasping if that’s really a good thing to do or even if the slogans have any real value . . . .

That’s where you lack of any real intelligence is your greatest weakness . . . and others see that here as well.

I can still help you, however, if you just get a grip that your ideology is failing . . . and isn’t helping anyone. It’s not even helping you!


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 1:57 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "In any event, my search on this ‘republicans block embassy funding’ returned 1.9 million hits including this:"

If you google "democrats are stupid" you get 8,700,000 hits. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.

Indy: This is where conservatives and understandably so after being ‘bathed’ in ‘innuendo and speculation’ at Fox et al that prohibit you from seeing context would allow you to make such an ignorant remark.

Again that’s where a formal education would have given you a ‘grip’ so to speak.

But indeed the number of conservative websites that are founded on ideology is enormous as your search indicated.

But you did to something ‘good’ for conservatism by IGNORING the reality that republicans ‘cut funding’ for embassies including their protection . . . only to see you parrot the RNC talking points about Libya!

If you have time . . . and it appears you do . . . why not enroll say at COC in some basic classes on economics, logic, and just basic management courses.

There, you’ll start to see the inadequacies you face and correct them.


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 2:03 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: So is this false, 17?

"Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012. "

You can call people all the names you want, and insult them and poke fun at them or whatever you want to do. But facts...well, those are different things. They have a way of ignoring being called names or being insulted.

Indy: You’ve got to give the ‘handlers’ at the RNC who create the ‘focus group tested’ slogans that 17 et al recite here credit for being able to understand their ‘target audience’ which is for the most part ‘uneducated’.

I mean just look at the folks with Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy . . . most of whom just agree with the slogans without ‘thinking’ them through.

And notice how the RNC tries to ‘frame’ issues that create the ‘emotional’ response where conservatives who then parrot mindless slogans and IGNORE the facts surrounding the things they claim they want to address.

Sadly, this is the partisan political work today in the US . . .


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 2:08 p.m.

17trillion wrote: I assume it isn't false Steve, but what's the point? What was the 1.8 billion being spent on SPECIFICALLY and how much was going to security? The State Dept budget was almost 50 billion dollars. Your claim that this somehow excuses the death of our ambassador and 3 others is like saying I cut my budget from 10k a month to 9.8k a month and couldn't afford food for my family so they starved. That is just stupid! In case you forgot, "congress" is still BOTH houses so the Senate murdered Chris Stevens too I guess according to your idiotic logic, right? And since the President signed off on this budget, he's a murderer too.

Indy: This is where the poster really demonstrates the hollowness of conservative thought.

The GOP has made the Libya incident their ‘cause’ and yet now we see this poster telling me that even though REPUBICANS CUT THE BUDGET FOR EMBASSIES . . . it’s really the dems fault that they did so.

And how is the money allocated?

Didn’t Issa discuss that in the hearings? And if not, why not? What was he waiting for?

I think this is the real issue here where the poster who lacks the ability to see the issues nevertheless rambles on with details that should have been considered if a ‘real’ effort to address the Libya incidence as in play.

Like it or not, the budget isn’t going to stop for any ‘given line’ item . . . but republicans again, CUT THE BUDGET FOR EMBASSIES.


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 2:14 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Steve: """These were, vile as they may be, POWs. The war is over. What do you do with POWs when the war is over? Either charge them with crimes and try them in court, or send them back home. Funny how that worked at Nuremberg."""

Can you provide the surrender document signed by the Taliban?

Indy: Yes, the poster struggles with the current methods of ‘war’ in today’s world . . . as if we should have left this soldier in the hands of the Taliban . . . FOREVER.

Therightstuff wrote: Steve, as the evidence mounts that the guy we swapped for was a deserter in exchange for five prized Taliban terrorists.....you're STILL going to stand by Obama???

Indy: And what evidence do you have this soldier was a ‘deserter’? Are we talking about the endless and mindless diatribe from Fox this is ‘grounded’ in ‘innuendo and speculation’?

In any event, let’s do some ‘history’ recap:

What Republicans Don’t Want You to Know: 500 + Detainees Were Released from GITMO Under Bush
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/05/500-detainees-released-transferred-guantanamo-george-w-bush.html


Indy: Posted: June 6, 2014 2:19 p.m.

stevehw wrote: "Waterboarding isn't "drowning". If it were, our military would be eliminating tens of thousands of pilots who've completed S.E.R.E. Training."

An old line of "reasoning".

Let's see...if the Taliban or Al Qaeda did this to our troops, it'd be torture, right? But if WE do it, it isn't.

Indy: Yes, in WW2, Japanese were executed for waterboarding US soldiers:

National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html


therightstuff: Posted: June 6, 2014 7:40 p.m.

"""Can you provide the surrender document signed by the Taliban?"""
Indy: Yes, the poster struggles with the current methods of ‘war’ in today’s world.

Your comrade Steve said the war was over. You said you can provide a surrender document signed by the Taliban. Is this true or have we caught you in yet another lie? Why do you keep making stuff up like this?




More Indy: And what evidence do you have this soldier was a ‘deserter’?

If you can pull your face out of Obama's ass long enough, you can see that the evidence is overwhelming.


So Indy, your leader says we don't leave any American behind. Funny, this is the same guy who flew to Vegas on a cash junket when four Americans were murdered in Benghazi. The same politician who has ignored the plight of the VA for the last five years. In desperation, he concocted this crazy swap thinking it would make him a hero. What a sick guy you continue to support. Your leader arbitrarily released the top five most dangerous terrorists in the world as dictated by the Taliban and all you can do is blame Fox News.

Such is the life of a true Obama wh0re.


ricketzz: Posted: June 7, 2014 6:36 a.m.

I am not going to pretend there are two sides to a fact.

America doesn't torture. We treat our prisoners with human dignity. This tradition goes back to the 1775 Rebellion. If we get a reputation for mistreating captives our warriors are more likely to be abused when they are captured. Torture is used by punks and bullies.


stevehw: Posted: June 7, 2014 12:00 p.m.

"If we get a reputation for mistreating captives our warriors are more likely to be abused when they are captured."

Whether they are or not, this is not a good reason to not torture people.

America shouldn't do it because it's wrong, not because if we do, then our enemies might do the same thing. That makes our sense of right and wrong dependent upon what others do.

Which, of course, is exactly what's happened here: our enemies do horrible things, so therefore, it's perfectly okay for us to do likewise.

What that means, of course, is that in this regard, we're no better than they are, and in some sense worse, because we could choose to do better but don't.

What's really hard to comprehend is when so-called "Christians" in this country support torturing people.

Anybody who thinks waterboarding isn't torture must have something wrong with their moral compass. Those who really get off on it, like some people here, are sadists, plain and simple.


stevehw: Posted: June 7, 2014 12:07 p.m.

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/09/nance/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/waterboarding-torture-article-1.227670


tech: Posted: June 7, 2014 2:12 p.m.

"Anybody who thinks water boarding isn't torture must have something wrong with their moral compass." - stevehw

Under controlled circumstances, I don't consider it torture and there's nothing wrong with my moral compass nor am I a sadist. Again, under controlled circumstances, the effect is psychological rather than physical. Sleep deprivation, temperature extremes and stress positions are also described as "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

No fun, to be sure.

torture
Syllabification: tor·ture
Pronunciation: /ˈtôrCHər /
NOUN

1 The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1q-IqLLMZ4

My understanding is water boarding was performed on 3 "high value" detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11 architect and assassin who beheaded Daniel Pearl on video.

Death from above silent drone strikes aren't exactly humane either, are they? How about the negotiation with Somali pirates via Navy snipers in the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama?

The point? When a non-state enemy who is conducting war operations against you while not in uniform, attacking civilians and aren't a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they grant no quarter and have no right to expect it.

It's easy to critique policy from the comfortable salons of Western republics protected by the civilized rule of law. Rather a different matter when extraction of actionable intelligence may prevent mass casualties.

The issue is moot as water boarding is no longer an approved interrogation technique. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: June 7, 2014 7:26 p.m.

Nice rationalization. A list of excuses for torturing people. It's not "really" torture if we don't *actually* kill you, only incite the fear of drowning that is inherent in everyone. It's okay to do it, anyway, because the person we're doing it to is a bad guy. It's okay because they don't wear a uniform. It's okay because...

If it's so okay to torture people, why don't we let the police do it to criminal suspects? (Although I'm quite certain a few people here think *that* would be okay, too).

Actionable intelligence? I seem to recall actual intelligence officers writing that it doesn't work. But even if it did...it's still not moral or right. To claim that it's okay because it may result in "actionable intelligence" is simply a restatement of "the ends justifies the means".

It's not moot...waterboarding is only no longer approved because of the current occupant of the White House. The next one or the one after that could certainly reinstate the policy. And go further.


therightstuff: Posted: June 8, 2014 9:05 p.m.

"""waterboarding is only no longer approved because of the current occupant of the White House."""

Your president is also the first White House occupant in American history to negotiate with terrorists. He said he bypassed Congress because Bowe Bergdah was too sick. Think about it...who told Obama that Bergdah was sick? uuhhhh...the Taliban?

When this lie didn't fly, your president then said if he followed the law by consulting Congress, the terrorists would have killed Bergdah. When the laughing stopped, your president had to come up with a third whopper.

He said with a straight face...we will leave no American behind. (Unless of course he needs to go to Vegas for a fund raiser like he did in 2012 during the Benghazi attack)

And yet, you still defend this guy. Amazing.


CaptGene: Posted: June 8, 2014 11:03 p.m.

steve: "It's not moot...waterboarding is only no longer approved because of the current occupant of the White House"

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that EO 13440 did that, signed by Bush 7/20/2007. It was rescinded by Obama, and replaced with EO 13492, which essentially said the same as regards Common Article 3 of the GC (the prohibition of torture, among other things) but never mentions the word "torture", or "waterboarding".

Looks to me like it was a cynical, showboat maneuver to impress the loyalists. Apparently it worked. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: June 8, 2014 6:35 a.m.

stevehw, I was giving 3 off the top of my head "reasons" to not torture. Moral people need no reasons to know better than to "torture". Moral people have an innate sense of right and wrong. More absolute than in any rule book. Moral people have shame when they stray and do harm. Moral people fall asleep right away. (more randomness).


therightstuff: Posted: June 8, 2014 11:20 a.m.

I find it interesting how Democrats whine about torture but flap their wings and crow with pride that Osama bin Laden was captured and killed.

Could you have had one without the other?


tech: Posted: June 8, 2014 11:27 a.m.

Steve, I believe you understand I'm too experienced a debater to be drawn in by hyperbole or straw men.

You think you're occupying the moral high ground but in fact my position is the more pragmatic. Water boarding was a VERY limited policy that wasn't employed arbitrarily. Rather, it was a targeted approach to what were deemed exigencies of the time.

CG punctured your illusion about Obama. Remember: Obama authorized a drone strike on an American citizen without due process and killed his minor son in the strike.

Scenario: A nuclear device is in a shipping container in the Port of Los Angeles. Millions are at risk but evacuation may not occur in time. A member of the terrorist cell has been detained and a reasonable intelligence assessment determines he knows the time table and location of the encrypted remote detonator. Obama would rescind his EO for this instance…and so would you.

It's realpolitik, not a school district zero tolerance policy.


17trillion: Posted: June 9, 2014 9:58 a.m.

Dems don't like torturing terrorists but crushing a 6 month old fetus with a pair of pliers is ok.


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:28 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """Can you provide the surrender document signed by the Taliban?"""
Indy: Yes, the poster struggles with the current methods of ‘war’ in today’s world.

Your comrade Steve said the war was over. You said you can provide a surrender document signed by the Taliban. Is this true or have we caught you in yet another lie? Why do you keep making stuff up like this?

Indy: Let me help this guy out noting that we weren’t fighting a ‘nation state’ in Afghanistan . . . but Taliban who might be Afghans but who’s ‘reach’ extends globally. So there was no one per se to say ‘we won’ and have them sign a document if you will.

More Indy: And what evidence do you have this soldier was a ‘deserter’?

Therightstuff wrote: If you can pull your face out of Obama's ass long enough, you can see that the evidence is overwhelming.

Indy: How’d would you like to have this clown on your jury trial where our ‘law’ states that you are innocent till ‘proven guilty’.

As we see here, Fox et al is out using its ‘noise machine’ to spread ‘innuendo and speculation’ that is ‘focus group tested’ to light the fire under this poster . . . although sadly, it’s all unproven speculation.

And what’s really rich from this poster is the follow up by accusing Obama as ‘negotiating’ with terrorist forgetting:

Israel’s prisoner swaps have been far more lopsided than Obama’s Bergdahl deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/05/israels-prisoner-swaps-have-been-far-more-lopsided-than-obamas-bergdahl-deal/

“JERUSALEM — The prisoner exchange that saw U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl swapped for five Taliban commanders is of more than passing interest in Israel, where trading enemy combatants for Israeli soldiers is a long and controversial tradition.
The trades made by Israel have been far more lopsided than the deal struck by the Obama administration this week. The most famous swap, in 2011, involved the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian militants in exchange for one Israeli corporal.”

I guess Fox assumes their views are ‘brain dead’ and can’t remember any history . . .


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:37 p.m.

And President Reagan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
“The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that was uncovered by Daniel Sheehan and the Christic Institute, and became national news in November of 1986.[3][4][5][6] During the Reagan administration, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[7] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of several hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.”

Indy: You can search this stuff in ‘seconds’ yet the conservatives here can’t grasp that and continue to make statements that are simply ‘misleading, inappropriate, and border on hypocrisy’. Want these folks to lead us into the future? I don’t . . .

Therightstuff wrote: So Indy, your leader says we don't leave any American behind. Funny, this is the same guy who flew to Vegas on a cash junket when four Americans were murdered in Benghazi. The same politician who has ignored the plight of the VA for the last five years. In desperation, he concocted this crazy swap thinking it would make him a hero. What a sick guy you continue to support. Your leader arbitrarily released the top five most dangerous terrorists in the world as dictated by the Taliban and all you can do is blame Fox News.

Indy: I can’t recommend highly enough this summary of the Libya incident: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)

It refutes most of the nonsense form this poster that is again put forth by Fox using their ‘focus group tested’ slogans to control the thinking of this poster. How sad is that?

And the VA? Where were the republicans? Do you think anyone stops them from ‘investigating’ anything in government?

And with all their so called support of our veterans, what where they waiting for, the 51st vote against the ACA?

There’s no excuse for the VA situation . . . but like it or not, government is now ‘budgeted’ to give politicians the ‘no new tax’ slogans regardless of the consequences.

Therightstuff wrote: Such is the life of a true Obama wh0re.

Indy: As we see there ‘Mr. Charity’ has a whole set of issues to deal with including respecting our President . . .


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:42 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Anybody who thinks water boarding isn't torture must have something wrong with their moral compass." - stevehw

Under controlled circumstances, I don't consider it torture and there's nothing wrong with my moral compass nor am I a sadist. Again, under controlled circumstances, the effect is psychological rather than physical. Sleep deprivation, temperature extremes and stress positions are also described as "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

Indy: At least we know that libertarians support ‘torture’ . . . and that’s good to know when you’re voting for one of them.

The poster also “IGNORES” that the US ‘executed’ Japanese military for ‘water boarding’ Americans.

In any event, I agree with stevehw . . . torture is torture . . . trying to euphemize it with a slogan like ‘"enhanced" interrogation techniques’ is something we should no longer have to deal with as we did under the 8 years of Bush/Cheney.


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:44 p.m.

Indy: Let me help this guy out noting that we weren’t fighting a ‘nation state’ in Afghanistan . . . but Taliban who might be Afghans but who’s ‘reach’ extends globally. So there was no one per se to say ‘we won’ and have them sign a document if you will.

Really, now? Here's what I found in "seconds":

"The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان‎ ṭālibān "students"), alternative spelling Taleban, is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread throughout Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital. However, it gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Mohammed Omar has been serving as the spiritual leader of the Taliban since 1994."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Did you mean to state the Taliban no longer constitute the government of Afghanistan?


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:48 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """waterboarding is only no longer approved because of the current occupant of the White House."""

Your president is also the first White House occupant in American history to negotiate with terrorists.

Indy: Outright lie . . . consult history on Reagan’s Iran-contra for the full details . . .

Therightstuff wrote: He said he bypassed Congress because Bowe Bergdah was too sick. Think about it...who told Obama that Bergdah was sick? uuhhhh...the Taliban?

Indy: It’s good to note that the so called military support for our military ends when they either are done surving or captured. Good to know . . . when voting for a conservative politician.

Therightstuff wrote: When this lie didn't fly, your president then said if he followed the law by consulting Congress, the terrorists would have killed Bergdah. When the laughing stopped, your president had to come up with a third whopper.

Indy: Consider if this soldier was ‘your’ son or daughter and you had this bozo determining if the US will get him back . . . scary . . .

Therightstuff wrote He said with a straight face...we will leave no American behind. (Unless of course he needs to go to Vegas for a fund raiser like he did in 2012 during the Benghazi attack) And yet, you still defend this guy. Amazing.

Indy: It’s sad this poster’s worldview is so tainted by the nonsense from Fox . . . it’s embarrassing . . .

But again, for a really good and concise review of the Libra incident: The Benghazi Hoax by David Brock, Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters for America (Oct 16, 2013)


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:52 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I find it interesting how Democrats whine about torture but flap their wings and crow with pride that Osama bin Laden was captured and killed. Could you have had one without the other?

Indy: Understandably, conservatives had to ‘endure’ the 8 year of Bush W who couldn’t find Bin Laden . . . . even threw in the ‘towel’ late in his administration noting they he had ‘other more important interest’ to contend with.

But Obama got him . . . held him up to justice and for killing the thousands of Americans on 9/11.

Only somebody like a sadist would compare finding Bin Laden to defending torture . . .


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:56 p.m.

Fortunately, readers have the benefit of my entire original posts and don't have you rely on your twisted misrepresentation of them, Indy.

By the way, you'd rescind the policy in the scenario I detailed as well.


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 5:57 p.m.

Tech wrote: Steve, I believe you understand I'm too experienced a debater to be drawn in by hyperbole or straw men.

Indy: Now were back to the ‘straw men’ excuse when you can’t defend your positions . . . tired, worn out, pathetic.

Tech wrote: You think you're occupying the moral high ground but in fact my position is the more pragmatic. Water boarding was a VERY limited policy that wasn't employed arbitrarily. Rather, it was a targeted approach to what were deemed exigencies of the time.

Indy: Again, steverw clearly showed that defending torture for any reason isn’t moral.

Tech wrote: CG punctured your illusion about Obama. Remember: Obama authorized a drone strike on an American citizen without due process and killed his minor son in the strike.

Indy: American citizen or ‘enemy combatant’? You decide if an American who swears to kill other Americans is due ‘due process’.

Tech wrote: Scenario: A nuclear device is in a shipping container in the Port of Los Angeles. Millions are at risk but evacuation may not occur in time. A member of the terrorist cell has been detained and a reasonable intelligence assessment determines he knows the time table and location of the encrypted remote detonator. Obama would rescind his EO for this instance…and so would you. It's realpolitik, not a school district zero tolerance policy.

Indy: This mythical scenario is used to defend torture by conservatives . . . the assumption is that the ‘person’ detained is a ‘terrorist’ . . . sounds more like ‘mob rule’ where anyone that ‘looks’ suspicious would be tortured . . . and this guy criticizes those that use ‘straw men’ . . . pathetic.


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:01 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Dems don't like torturing terrorists but crushing a 6 month old fetus with a pair of pliers is ok.

Indy: Perhaps the poster can tell us why religious conservatives ‘fight against’ birth control and sex education that eliminates abortions . . .


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:02 p.m.

Tech wrote: Fortunately, readers have the benefit of my entire original posts and don't have you rely on your twisted misrepresentation of them, Indy.

Indy: Hey, I just take your post as you write them . . . then dissect where they fail to either deal with reality or simply fail on ideology grounds.

Tech wrote: By the way, you'd rescind the policy in the scenario I detailed as well.

Indy: LOL


Indy: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:05 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Let me help this guy out noting that we weren’t fighting a ‘nation state’ in Afghanistan . . . but Taliban who might be Afghans but who’s ‘reach’ extends globally. So there was no one per se to say ‘we won’ and have them sign a document if you will.

Really, now? Here's what I found in "seconds":

"The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان‎ ṭālibān "students"), alternative spelling Taleban, is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread throughout Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital. However, it gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Mohammed Omar has been serving as the spiritual leader of the Taliban since 1994."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Did you mean to state the Taliban no longer constitute the government of Afghanistan?

Indy: Yes, the Taliban aren’t recognized as the government Afghanistan . . . that’s what I wrote.


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:06 p.m.

"But Obama got him . . . held him up to justice and for killing the thousands of Americans on 9/11." - Indy

Obama deserves a portion of the credit for keeping the policies in place that served justice on bin Laden.

It was an order that any President would have given. Inform yourself of the long history of the intelligence operation. And it was Seal Team 6 that "got him" by acting on that intelligence that stretched over 2 administrations.

Your mendacity amazes even me, Indy.


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:09 p.m.

Keep laughing, Indy. We know I'm right. You WOULD rescind the order.

Or do you care to deny that you would, here, now? --edited.


tech: Posted: June 9, 2014 6:28 p.m.

Tech: Did you mean to state the Taliban no longer constitute the government of Afghanistan?

Indy: Yes, the Taliban aren’t recognized as the government Afghanistan . . . that’s what I wrote.

They were at one time. The U.S. made a demand for the Taliban to surrender bin Laden.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism-july-dec01-taliban_09-21/


ricketzz: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:28 a.m.

The Taliban are as close to a government Afghanistan gets. Big picture: the USA has chosen to fight on the side of the Sunni. That means we are on the same side as Osama, and the Taliban, and the Gulf States. Russia is on the side of the Shia, with Iran and Hezbollah. If you haven't noticed we have Russia surrounded, while they have virtually no basing near us.

I am convinced Putin and Obama are reviving the Cold War at the behest of the Generals, who work for the armorers. The ancient battles are a convenient cover for more rapin' and pillagin' of we the taxpayers.


17trillion: Posted: June 10, 2014 7:41 a.m.

17trillion wrote: Dems don't like torturing terrorists but crushing a 6 month old fetus with a pair of pliers is ok.

Indy: Perhaps the poster can tell us why religious conservatives ‘fight against’ birth control and sex education that eliminates abortions . . .

I don't know, why don't you ask one? If they are fighting, they sure are doing a lousy job.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 3:00 p.m.

"You think you're occupying the moral high ground but in fact my position is the more pragmatic. Water boarding was a VERY limited policy that wasn't employed arbitrarily. Rather, it was a targeted approach to what were deemed exigencies of the time."

Oh, I see...it's okay to torture a few people, just as long it's not arbitrary.

"Exigencies of the time?" You mean, the ends justifies the means, is that what you're saying?

"Obama authorized a drone strike on an American citizen without due process and killed his minor son in the strike."

Have you ever heard me condone or support this sort of activity? No? Gee, I wonder why?

"Scenario: A nuclear device is in a shipping container in the Port of Los Angeles. Millions are at risk but evacuation may not occur in time. A member of the terrorist cell has been detained and a reasonable intelligence assessment determines he knows the time table and location of the encrypted remote detonator. Obama would rescind his EO for this instance…and so would you.

It's realpolitik, not a school district zero tolerance policy. "

OMG, seriously? Been watching a few too many episodes of "24" or Bruce Willis action/adventure movies, have you?

Jesus...you want to base national policy on freaking dreams of being a big hero in some blow-em-up Hollywood fantasy. Constitution? Don't need that when there's a NUCLEAR BOMB hidden somewhere in L.A.!

For the love of all things decent and holy, stop with the doomsday scenario crap, please...try to think rationally for a change.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:34 p.m.

steve: "...try to think rationally for a change."

Says the poster child for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Thanks for the laugh.


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:41 p.m.

So I guess steve would prefer we just kill the suspected terrorists, like Obama does. I don't know how many terrorists were waterboarded, but I doubt it exceeds the 2400+ people Obama killed with drone strikes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 5:25 p.m.

"OMG, seriously? Been watching a few too many episodes of "24" or Bruce Willis action/adventure movies, have you?" - stevehw

Really? The U.S. wasn't on alert for other possible planned al-Queda signature coordinated large scale attacks?

"Keep laughing, Indy. We know I'm right. You WOULD rescind the order.

Or do you care to deny that you would, here, now?" - tech

Same question to you, Steve.


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 6:20 p.m.

On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed to me that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in this 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to "enhanced techniques" of interrogation — including waterboarding — caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The previously classified memo was released by President Obama last week.

Before they were waterboarded, both KSM and Abu Zubaydah did not believe Americans had the will to stop al-Qaida, the 2005 Justice Department memo says, citing information from the CIA.

"Both KSM and Zubaydah had 'expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was 'weak,' lacked resilience and would be unable to 'do what was necessary' to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,'" said the memo. "Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon, you will know.'"

After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that allowed the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already "tasked" with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles.

"You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM — once enhanced techniques were employed — led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles," says the memo, referring to information CIA provided to Justice.

"You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave,'" said the memo.

http://www.creators.com/conservative/terence-jeffrey/cia-waterboarding-produced-intel-that-stopped-attack-on-los-angeles.html


ricketzz: Posted: June 11, 2014 6:55 a.m.

You are quoting a single source writing in a fringe publication. The article was never picked up by any credible news organization, but it is used as "proof" by other fringe entities. Not a single credible news organization went near it. It is fantasy (being kind here).


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 8:56 a.m.

Yeah, I'll deny it, tech. Because *IT DOESN'T WORK*.

There are plenty of books and articles by people who actually know about interrogation techniques, experts, who have said precisely that.

And if one really had your fantasy-land "ticking nuclear bomb" scenario, do you want to get truthful information from a suspect, or bad information which wastes time and resources? Because, as the experts have said over and over, a person will say *anything* under torture to make it stop...admitting to things they didn't do, making up plots that don't exist, etc.

Imagine your make-believe scenario again...you're torturing the suspect to make them talk..."where's the bomb?"

What are you going to do when he just fabricates a location? or changes what he tells you? Or tells you that there are multiple bombs, all in locations he just pulls out of thin air? NONE of which are true?

Want an example of this? KSM. Even warmongers like McCain have publicly stated that he gave false information under torture.

This crazy "nuclear bomb that's going to kill millions" fantasy is a favorite of the sadists to justify torturing people. They need it because if you posit less wildly dramatic scenarios, it's pretty clear that they just want to do it for revenge.

Is it okay to torture someone whom you think may have planted a small bomb which is likely to kill a few dozen people? What about someone who maybe, but you're not sure, might have been *planning* to shoot a couple of people? What about just your ordinary murder suspect? Can we waterboard them until they confess?

People who support torture are sadists and psychopaths.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 10:33 a.m.

steve: "People who support torture are sadists and psychopaths."

What would you call someone that supports a guy that kills 2400+ "suspected" militants without first giving them the benefit of a trial? You're mute on that subject, I wonder why?

Oh, and by the way we no longer waterboard, Bush put an end to it.


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 12:05 p.m.

"Yeah, I'll deny it, tech. Because *IT DOESN'T WORK*." - stevehw

Except that it did. But thanks for having the intellectual honesty to take a position, however misguided.

Another attempt to poison the well, ricketzz? You should know better by now. It's always a treat to set you up.

The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said that as late as 2006 fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from harsh interrogations.

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. "Do this for all the brothers," he advised his interrogators.

Abu Zubaydeh was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of 9/11. Bin al Shibh disclosed information that, when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydeh, helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the United States.

Another of those gathered up later in this harvest, Abu Faraj al-Libi, also was subjected to certain of these harsh techniques and disclosed further details about bin Laden's couriers that helped in last weekend's achievement.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 1:29 p.m.

Well, that proves it...an OpEd piece by Mukasey. Pshaw.


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:02 p.m.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/senate-report-cia-torture/7140143/

"The Senate report concludes such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name."

But it still bears repeating...even if it DID work, that just means that the ends justifies the means. And why limit its use? Why not let the local deputies use it on ordinary criminal suspects if it works so well?


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:07 p.m.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-agree-torture-doesnt-work.html

Enjoy reading all the links to statements from actual experts in interrogation and what they think of torture (hint: it doesn't work).

And again, even if it DID, that would simply be an "ends justifies the means" argument.


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:08 p.m.

Why yes, let's discount the statements of the former Attorney General Mukasey and CIA Director Hayden if it doesn't fit the narrative, eh Steve?


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:29 p.m.

There's a range of opinion and the issue has been politicized. I'd posit that interrogation techniques employed by modern democratic nation states are designed to produce results rather than exact revenge as that's in keeping with their culture. People can disagree rationally.

Your attempt to paint me as someone engaging in wild-eyed fantasies was ill-advised, however.

As I stated previously, it's a moot point because Bush issued the XO as CG pointed out.


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 2:46 p.m.

"Why yes, let's discount the statements of the former Attorney General Mukasey and CIA Director Hayden if it doesn't fit the narrative, eh Steve?"

Yes, if the statements of people actually trained in interrogation, as well as other military officers and official military policies, disagree with the political appointees' beliefs.

And as for that EO? http://www.salon.com/2007/07/23/torture/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 3:56 p.m.

Mukasey was an attorney and judge with broad experience in evaluating expert testimony.

This is from Hayden's bio:

Before becoming Director of the CIA, General Hayden served as the country’s first Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and was the highest-ranking intelligence officer in the armed forces. Earlier, he served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency, Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service.

Regarding Bush's EO, I'll provide the source rather than rely on Salon's distortion.

Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007

Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13440.htm


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 4:27 p.m.

What an awful lot of verbiage in the Bush EO, when it was so much simpler to do what Obama did:

" Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. "

Basically, just stick to the Field Manual. How hard would that have been to write?

Unless, of course, you're trying to obfuscate things and give your agencies a little "leeway" to keep doing what they're doing...to the right people, of course.

Notice the subtle differences, too...Bush's order only talked about the CIA (think maybe that's a clue there were other agencies which aren't mentioned doing similar things? Or perhaps contractors?), whereas Obama's says

"in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict".


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 5:09 p.m.

Obama gave himself an out: "...in any armed conflict...". Probably why he feels indemnified to use those drones he's so fond of, eh steve?


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 5:10 p.m.

That's rather subjective, Steve. I'm not a Bush apologist, just posting fact, i.e. his EO was first and proscribes torture. Obama revised it, as is his prerogative.

Unless you have something new, I think we've expressed our views fully. I have no further interest in nitpicking policy minutiae such as verbiage.


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:37 p.m.

I'm actually disappointed that you support torturing people, tech. You seem to have a pretty sharp mind, and good taste in cigars :). It's unfortunate that you support something like that.

I have to wonder how far some people would go if given the chance, or the rationalization, or just the opportunity to do as they wish with no repercussions. Frankly, I think for some people, there really aren't any limits, especially for the sadists we've noted around here.

Sad that America has turned into a country that tortures its prisoners, and even sadder that so many on the right think it's morally acceptable.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:47 p.m.

It's laughable to watch steve try to claim some moral high ground on torture while remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that Obama has murdered 2400+ people without giving them "due process".

This is what happens to people that place party above morality.


stevehw: Posted: June 12, 2014 10:41 p.m.

I don't believe I've ever made a comment about the use of drones, CG. I'm certainly not "blissfully ignorant" of their use, but I've not said a word about them either pro or con, have I? So you really have no idea what I think of their use, do you?

As is *always* the case with your posts, you contribute *nothing* of substance or value to the conversation.


CaptGene: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:21 a.m.

Again, you ignore the topic of Obama murdering 2400+ people without "due process", hence the term "blissfully ignorant".

You have a lot to say about torture, but nothing to say about murder, that tells ma all I need to know about you.

While you may not find anything of value in what I post, at least my posts don't require constant correction of the partisan hogwash urban myths posted by likes of you, Indy Nile and cricketzz.


ricketzz: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:44 a.m.

I post facts, from multiple sources. I have said repeatedly that Obama is a bloodied fang warmonger. The only "party" I promote is the Reality Based Community party.

Americans, by a 2 to 1 margin, love using drones. Obama is a creature of the polls, like all public prostitutes.


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 9:57 a.m.

No need for disappointment, Steve. I don't support torture as I've previously detailed in this thread.

However, I do think enhanced interrogation, including water boarding of these 3 high value detainees, was the right call at the time to prevent further civilian mass casualties in our homeland.

When democracies have unlimited war conducted against them, the necessity to defend our freedom and defeat the enemy may require hard choices that make us uncomfortable. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden come to mind.

That we struggle with these choices is an indicator of our morality. There's no equivalency to the adherents of a cult of death. Surrender to these beasts would be an end to civilization. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: June 12, 2014 2:47 p.m.

You *do* support torture. You just dance around it by calling it something else, and rationalizing your support for it.

If Bush/Cheney and their ilk had called gouging someone's eyes out or electrocuting them or castrating them or pretty much anything else "enhanced interrogation" and told you it "saved American lives", you'd be all for it.

So you can pretend you don't support torture, but the fact is...you do.


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 5:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: "But Obama got him . . . held him up to justice and for killing the thousands of Americans on 9/11." - Indy

Obama deserves a portion of the credit for keeping the policies in place that served justice on bin Laden.

It was an order that any President would have given. Inform yourself of the long history of the intelligence operation. And it was Seal Team 6 that "got him" by acting on that intelligence that stretched over 2 administrations. Your mendacity amazes even me, Indy.

Indy: Amazes or informs?

Why not mention that Bush W threw in the towel on Bin Laden . . . but Obama did get him . . .


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:01 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech: Did you mean to state the Taliban no longer constitute the government of Afghanistan?

Indy: Yes, the Taliban aren’t recognized as the government Afghanistan . . . that’s what I wrote.

They were at one time. The U.S. made a demand for the Taliban to surrender bin Laden.

Indy: Yes, I remember Bush W turning down the Taliban offer to return Bin Laden. Why do you suppose he did that?

And when the US made this demand on the Taliban, was Bush W negotiating with terrorist?

It appears the Taliban took control of Afghanistan by force and were on recognized only by: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. http://www.english-online.at/people/taliban/taliban-former-leaders-of-afghanistan.htm


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:10 p.m.

Tech wrote: On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed to me that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in this 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to "enhanced techniques" of interrogation — including waterboarding — caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The previously classified memo was released by President Obama last week.

Indy: Uh oh . . .

“Media figures have pointed to a 2005 Justice Department memo to claim that the use of waterboarding on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed caused him to reveal information intelligence officials used to foil a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. But according to the Bush administration, the plot was broken up more than a year before Mohammed's capture.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/22/media-cite-doj-memo-to-claim-link-refuted-by-bu/149428

The article goes on . . .

“Several media figures have recently pointed to a May 30, 2005, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo, written by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury, to claim that the use of waterboarding on Al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) caused Mohammed to reveal information intelligence officials used to foil a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. However, as Media Matters for America has noted, the Bush administration said in 2006 and 2007 that the plot was broken up in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed's capture in March 2003.”

“Some in the media have interpreted the memo's statement that the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Mohammed "led to the discovery" of the Library Tower plot as evidence that the use of these tactics was necessary for intelligence officials to thwart the plot. But as Slate.com's Timothy Noah noted on April 21, that claim conflicts with the "chronology" of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. For instance, in a February 9, 2006, White House press briefing that Noah cited, Bush homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend noted that Mohammed was not captured until more than a year after the individuals planning the Library Tower attacks had concluded that the plot had been "canceled." Noah also noted that a May 23, 2007, Bush administration fact sheet stated that the administration "broke up" the Library Tower plot "in 2002" -- before Mohammed was captured. Noah concluded:”

So I’m not surprised that the conservative media tries to ‘twist’ and ‘distort’ history to prove that torturing works . . .


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:15 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: More Indy: And what evidence do you have this soldier was a ‘deserter’?

If you can pull your face out of Obama's ass long enough, you can see that the evidence is overwhelming.

Indy: Why don’t you get off your throne here . . . and provide actual evidence versus the ‘innuendo and speculation’ by Fox . . .

What are you waiting for?

And isn’t just nice that religious conservatives that believe in God, say God created America, are now willing to judge an American soldier without ‘due process’ and essentially ‘make him guilty until proven innocent’.

I can’t tell you how important it is for your to recite the nonsense so Americans know when they vote for a republican, if their son or daughter is in combat, they could be made into ‘partisan political fodder’ if captured and ‘left in enemy hands’.

All, without, again, due process . . .

Sorry, but I completely and categorically reject your vision of America . . .


Indy: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:20 p.m.

Why do conservatives here ready, willing and able to castrate Obama ignore this:

Israel’s prisoner swaps have been far more lopsided than Obama’s Bergdahl deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/05/israels-prisoner-swaps-have-been-far-more-lopsided-than-obamas-bergdahl-deal/

“JERUSALEM — The prisoner exchange that saw U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl swapped for five Taliban commanders is of more than passing interest in Israel, where trading enemy combatants for Israeli soldiers is a long and controversial tradition.
The trades made by Israel have been far more lopsided than the deal struck by the Obama administration this week. The most famous swap, in 2011, involved the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian militants in exchange for one Israeli corporal.”

I guess Fox assumes their views are ‘brain dead’ and can’t remember any history . . .


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 6:53 p.m.

"If Bush/Cheney and their ilk had called gouging someone's eyes out or electrocuting them or castrating them or pretty much anything else "enhanced interrogation" and told you it "saved American lives", you'd be all for it." - stevehw

Nonsensical hyperbole, Steve. I'd support nothing of the sort because the gruesome acts you listed ARE torture.


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 7:01 p.m.

Indy: Amazes or informs?

Both. Your mendacity informs the low opinion of your posts in these forums.


stevehw: Posted: June 13, 2014 4:21 p.m.

Sure you would. I mean, a little electricity is okay, as long as it doesn't actually *kill* someone, right? Especially if it makes them talk. And *especially* if the authoritarian leaders you follow *tell* you that they get "actionable intelligence" by using a little electrical shock on a "terrorist".

And I notice that nobody ever answers my question about why, if waterboarding (also known as near-drowning) isn't torture, isn't it okay for the police to use it on ordinary criminal suspects?


tech: Posted: June 13, 2014 4:56 p.m.

A reductio ad absurdum attempt won't suffice, Steve. In the 3 exceptions, actionable intelliligence was obtained. The US and allies have subsequently developed other means to address the blind spot, i.e. the "failure of imagination" noted in the 9/11 Report.

You're also failing to establish equivalency in your other inquiry. Why would a citizen be denied Constitutional due process and rule of US law? Your're conflating conduct of war with domestic criminal prosecution.

By the way, I picked up a couple of Punch sticks. The larger guage Gran Puro was a smooth medium bodied smoke. I'm going to order some more online. I appreciate the recommendations because you're a more experienced aficionado than I am. :-) --edited.


stevehw: Posted: June 13, 2014 5:58 p.m.

If you're going to fall back on "conduct of war", then shouldn't the rules of war apply? You know, like the Army Field Manual referenced in the EO? Or the Geneva Conventions on treatment of POWs?

If mine is a reduction ad absurdum, then you're just using an appeal to consequences, i.e., the ends justifies the means. It's okay to torture in these circumstances because of the results (which are themselves questionable, according to various sources).

The problem is your argument relies on the results (some "intelligence") to justify the torture. Creating that exception means that other exceptions can also be created, with different justifications (and with less justification). Eventually, *any* justification can be used to create an exception.

Lastly, by your own wording, the waterboarding was an "exception" to the rules against torture, which ipso facto means that it is torture.


stevehw: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:01 p.m.

"Why would a citizen be denied Constitutional due process and rule of US law? Your're conflating conduct of war with domestic criminal prosecution."

Because if it's not torture, then it must not be "cruel and unusual". Right? And by your own claim, it can produce "actionable intelligence", which means it can be used to produce a confession, or information which can be used to prosecute criminals. Right?


tech: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:30 p.m.

Wrong. Timothy McVeigh was a singular domestic outlier and nothing approaches 9/11 in mass casualties from an act of war by foreign agents that don't qualify as signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Try as you might, you can't construe domestic criminal acts to fit the paradigm of acts of war. The extrapolation fails.

You'll have to bring something novel, Steve. Tendentious repetition is nonproductive and I'll decline to respond.


tech: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:54 p.m.

I'll add that your failure in logic is one of kind and degree.


CaptGene: Posted: June 13, 2014 7:35 p.m.

I find steve's extreme distaste for torture coupled with his ambivalence for drone strike murder to be the height of hypocrisy.


stevehw: Posted: June 14, 2014 10:17 p.m.

Actually, CG, you have no idea what I think about drone strikes, do you?

Tech...so where do *you* draw the line? Suppose a McVeigh-like person was caught in the US and we suspect he has plans for a bombing which would kill thousands of people.

OK to torture him then?


CaptGene: Posted: June 14, 2014 7:29 a.m.

No, I don't know, but in the end it doesn't matter what you think.

If you are in favor of drone strikes, you are a hypocrite for "droning" on about how the evils of waterboarding (interrogation that is survived) while being in favor of just killing "suspected" militants without due process.

If you are against drone strikes, you are a hypocrite for condemning people that reluctantly accept waterboarding (again, survivable interrogation) but not condemning Obama's mechanized mass murder campaign.

Either way, you are a hypocrite, but none of us are surprised by that revelation. --edited.


tech: Posted: June 14, 2014 9:23 a.m.

Non sequitur, Steve. I don't condone torture.


stevehw: Posted: June 14, 2014 10:08 a.m.

"In the 3 exceptions, actionable intelliligence was obtained. "

Exceptions to the rules and laws against using torture. Ergo, in *at least* those 3 cases, the United States tortured prisoners (or it wouldn't have been an "exception"), by your own words.

Once you've created an exception, then you've opened the door to more "exceptions". And there will always be more exceptions. (There are reports that quite a few more than just 3 prisoners were tortured, at prisons in Afghan prisons; I suspect if we knew the truth, a LOT more cases would exist than just the 3 touted by the Bush administration).



BTW, remember those right-wing media talking heads who claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture...until they experienced it themselves? And what about the intelligence experts who have written about it, calling it torture?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/waterboarding-torture-article-1.227670

The U.S. can be proud of joining the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany, among other shining examples of humanity, in torturing its prisoners. Yay for us!

Sickening.


CaptGene: Posted: June 14, 2014 10:18 a.m.

steve: "Sickening."

Talk about your faux outrage! What a phony.


ricketzz: Posted: June 16, 2014 7:01 a.m.

Sleep deprivation is torture. Endless loud noise is torture. Hog-tying is torture. Solitary confinement is torture. Strobe lights, torture. Excessive heat and or cold for long periods, torture. Forced to fly 9,000 miles sitting on a camp toilet with a bag over your head? Maybe not torture but it still betrays some very twisted people running our wars. The US War Machine, where bullying meets Sadomasochism.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...