Cheney fearmongers: Obama is ‘making some choices’ that ‘raise the risk…of another attack.’
Cheney fearmongers: Obama is ‘making some choices’ that ‘raise the risk…of another attack.’
Weeks after President Obama was inaugurated, former Vice President Cheney warned that Obama’s policy promises — including closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and ending torture — would lead to a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Today, in a new interview with CNN, Cheney upped his fearmongering, insisting Obama has made Americans “less safe”:
KING: I’d like to simply ask you, yes or no, by taking these steps do you believe the President of the United States has made Americans less safe?
CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. … President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
Watch it:
For the last time: Torture made Americans — both at home and those serving overseas — less safe. In fact, former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan testified that the Bush-Cheney policies had convinced him that “revenge in the form of a catastrophic attack on the homeland is coming.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Darth Cheney can go Fcuk himself.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:35 amThat goes for John King as well for asking such a moronic question.
Yeah, we heard ya the first time, Dick.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:37 amThe criminal Cheney has opened the door for the Obama Administration to start calling him and his puppet GW out by name for not only their incompetence, but to encourage Leahy, et.al. to proceed quickly with setting up the Truth Commision and specifying that prosecution willn occur if warranted.
These f***ing scumbags did their worst to destroy this country as we know it.
Time to make it clear to all just what these traitors did for the last 8 years.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:38 amCheney fearmongers: Obama is ‘making some choices’ that ‘raise the risk…of another attack.’
– - Here on TP today, it’s apparently going to be All Dick, All The Time day.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:38 amThe only thing that is making america less safe is that Cheney is back behind the wheel of a car.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:42 amYeah, you guys protected the 15 or 20 twenty people that died from anthrax and yet somhow Leahy and Dashele got a couple of letters filled with the stuff to help them along on their votes for the Unpatriot Act.If we get attacked again the Boy Emporer and Darth will be behind this hienous act to.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:43 amGuido the Loving OBGYN Says:
And when we’re attacked again they will blame it on Obama and the Democrats.
They absolutely will. President Obama had better understand this and proceed accordingly.
These *ssholes want to play hardball, but forget they neither possess the bat or the ball anymore. President Obama has all the cards now and needs to call in Rham from the bullpen to handle these traitors.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:43 amFor the last time: Torture made Americans — both at home and those serving overseas — less safe. -Ali
oh, surely not… you KNOW it’s not the last time…
the rubes and bots will need to be reminded repeatedly…
March 15th, 2009 at 10:44 amcheney made choices that INVITED attack, this guy is not only a sociopath he’s a moron, he’s ASKED the middle east to hate us, he’s created the very recruitment poster for insurgents, for terrorists
this man needs to be put away before he does more damage, he is DEFINATELY working for the other team
March 15th, 2009 at 10:44 amSo am I supposed to be hoarding plastic sheeting and duct tape or am supposed to be going to the mall?
March 15th, 2009 at 10:45 amCheney is a tool.
why would anyone expect anything else from a sadistic lying self-absorbed psychotic loon such as cheney. He is brought on the infotainment shows specifically to say stupid outrageous things that will get a reaction from otherwise rational people.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:53 amKING: I’d like to simply ask you, yes or no, by taking these steps do you believe the President of the United States has made Americans less safe?
I’m frankly surprised that King’s enunciation is so clear and understandable considering he’s asking these questions with his tongue up Cheney’s @ss…
March 15th, 2009 at 10:53 amShorter Dick Cheney: Rogue elements in the spook world still loyal to me are planning an attack on the US in order to humiliate President Obama.
-GSD
March 15th, 2009 at 10:54 amWon’t time tell? Cheney can make the point that we weren’t attacked domestically since 9/11. If Obama shifts modes back to a law enforcement response, and we don’t suffer major domestic attacks like 9/11, Cheney’s charge will be hollow. If, on the other hand, we do have significant domestic attack(s), Cheney will be vindicated on this charge.
We are making a choice. Americans have decided that the policies of the Bush administration were too heavy handed to deal with the risks we face.
But, it seems reasonable that if you take a less aggressive approach, the risk of attack would increase.
The balance between levels of enforcement and risk is subjective. Whether we are attacked in the future is not.
Time will tell.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:01 ambackup
March 15th, 2009 at 11:04 amDon’t you think there are more variables at play. To think that things are this simplistic is reall sort of simplistic
backup Says: Won’t time tell? Cheney can make the point that we weren’t attacked domestically since 9/11.
Why do you ‘people’ ignore that 9/11 happened during Bush’s watch? There wasn’t a need for another attack. The first one was ‘mission accomplished’… Sheesh!
March 15th, 2009 at 11:06 amI also find it utterly hypocritical that the Cons cry about supporing the troops, but then don’t even bother to consider them in the fact that over 4,000 Americans have died since 9/11… MAybe they didn’t die here on our soil, but they were attacked and died, thanks to Bush and Cheney’s policies.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:09 amCHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11.
How many times does he get to admit that they tortured people before he gets arrested?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:11 amWhen did the anthrax attacks occur? Corporate greed as manifested in tainted peanut butter strikes me as an attack on the domestic population as welll. I suppose it just depends on the definition of attack
March 15th, 2009 at 11:16 amunbelievable. Bush dropped the ball on 9/11. I think because he dropped the ball, the administration went overboard to make sure it didn’t happen again. I agree that we went too far, with the waterboarding, gitmo and other privacy issues. I agree with Obama’s moves to be more moderate. But, if you are realistic, you acknowledge that if we suffer 9/11 type terror attacks after we take a more moderate stance, Cheney’s charge will look accurate.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:17 amUh DickFace? Allowing 9/11/01 to happen made us not safe and the reason why there hasn’t been another attack on our nation is because you haven’t revved up your assassination squads yet!
We fully expect you’ll be speaking to all Americans soon with lots of nukes being dropped on us after you command your buddies at the Pentagon/CIA to do so.
Spit.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:19 amThe question of ‘the next attack’ is not ontological but temporal; not, that is, a matter of whether it will come, but when.
So the crucial question must be: what will be the response of the US State to the next incident?
It will probably depend on the severity of the event, of course. But it does not strain credulity to imagine the national imposition of martial law under certain circumstances, even though any attack will have been necessarily ‘local.’
March 15th, 2009 at 11:21 amAn attack is inevitable, the Republic666ans are just laying the ground work for blaming it on the Democrats, and ya know what, it’ll work. Americans are spoon fed sheep.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:21 amMy favorite protest sign seen in Kennebunkport, Maine during the summer of 2007:
“THANKS TO GEORGE BUSH THE NEXT 9/11 ATTACK WON’T BE A SURPRISE”
March 15th, 2009 at 11:21 amCHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. … President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
Here we see a Republican employing the False Choice mode of lying. He is attempting to have us believe that what the Bush Administration did to “keep us safe” was the only option available, and that to do anything differently would be to guarantee we would be attacked again. This is a lie.
Whether or not we were attacked on 9/11, both Cheney and Bush took oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the people of the United States. Machiavelli was not one of our nation’s founders, nor did he have input to the drafting of our Constitution. The ends do not justify the means. What Bush and Cheney did was not only unconstitutional, it was, in fact, criminal.
Every day that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney walk around this country free is an insult to every man and woman who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Arrest them both now. Let them be the only two people that President Obama declares to be “enemy combatants”.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:22 amTroop deaths continue to mount in Afghanistan. An effort fully supported by Obama. An effort Obama pledges to increase. Into Pakistan.
http://icasualties.org/oef/
I don’t know how you can blame the Bush administration for troop deaths and than ignore the 1000+ that have died in Afghanistan.
We’ve had a change in leadership. We can look at what Cheney has to say on the subject. We can also discuss why Obama’s policies seem to be remarkable similar:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01282009.html
March 15th, 2009 at 11:24 amLiar. If they had truly stopped a terrorist attack it would have been plastered all over the front page of every newspaper for propaganda purposes. They continue to hide their lies behind the state secrets meme. Give us some love Cheney. Don’t give us any details of how you prevented the attacks just give us some generic examples. That’s all we’re asking. I’m feeling pretty safe myself since I believe the next major terrorist attack will be against Israel.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:24 amWayne. I agree with this. But, even if we agree that the ends don’t justify the means, is it reasonable to acknowledge that if we decide to take a higher road, that we expose ourselves to more risk?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:26 amONE THING DICK CHENEY WANTS TO FORGET:
Bill Clinton kept America safe after the 1993 WTC bombing and it wasn’t until George Bush & Dick Cheney were given the White House in 2001 that we became unsafe again.
John Ashcroft stopped flying commercially during the summer of 2001 and refused to tell the MSM why when asked.
The Bush Regime knew a huge attack was coming and did nothing to stop it because they knew it was their political capital to convince the nation to go into Iraq.
Though some may feel the Regime kept us safe, well, that’s because they’re under the belief that Dick Cheney and others weren’t behind the 9/11 attack by making sure the attack went smoothly and uninterrupted.
Now that we have an African American Democratic President in the White House, the Bush Regime will be attacking our nation again in the hopes Americans will believe it’s the Democrats who make our nation unsafe.
WE WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT!
If nukes are dropped, Dick Cheney’s fingerprints will be all over it.
If there’s a huge biological attack, Dick Cheney’s fingerprints will be all over it.
If there’s a huge chemical attack or dirty bombs going off in all corners of the US, Dick Cheney’s fingerprints will be all over it.
The End.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:27 amLooks like b-cup wasn’t comfortable letting his troll flag fly last night.
He’s back being concerned.
Thanks for your concern, b-cup.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:29 amSo, if they’re remarkably similiar, you must love, support, and worship President Obama then! Right Wingnut? I mean, you neocons told us for years that we liberals should support George Bush right or wrong because supporting the president is proof you’re not a traitor or unpatriotic!
Right?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:30 amCheney’s charge will look accurate.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am–
but will it be accurate? Yes/no backup?
Why did NORAD instruct our F-15/16 fighters the morning of 9/11 to fly over the Atlantic Ocean away from where all the action was? Because Dick Cheney in the basement of the White House and as president of his newly formed Shadow Government gave the command to do so.
Any plane before 9/11/01 and after 9/11/01 that goes off course 5 degrees or more, someone on the ground is in contact. But not on the morning of 9/11! Nope. Planes were doing circles in the air and no one seemed to care. Lots of people on their ‘first day of their new job’ that morning too. Coincidence?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:33 amKayinMaine
March 15th, 2009 at 11:33 amDo you remember the Kennedrunksnort T’s or the Georege HW as a ninja turtle ones?
Whether it will actually BE accurate is not b-cup’s concern.
It is, however. necessary that it look accurate. Just as it is necessary that one look reasonable.
This is critical.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:34 amKayinMaine. I support Obama’s policies in Afganistan and Pakistan. I assume that he has access to information that I do not. And that he is making decisions that are in the best interest of our country.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:35 amb-cup seems to suggest, quite reasonably, of course, that the military efforts in Afghanistan, which harbored and trained those who attacked us on 9/11, are the moral and practical equivalent to the invasion of Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with those attacks and was not a threat to this nation.
Quite naturally, b-cup seems to argue that if one objects to 4000 American lives lost in wrong-headed war that was launched on bad (possibly false) information,then one must similarly object to 1000 lives lost in a war that most Americans still feel was necessary and justified.
Thanks for this level-headed perspective, b-cup. Your concern is inspiring.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:39 amCount Dracula hearts Jabba the Hut.
-GSD
March 15th, 2009 at 11:40 amis it reasonable to acknowledge that if we decide to take a higher road, that we expose ourselves to more risk?
Except the experts all agree that the ‘high road’ actually is not only morally and ethically preferable, but PRACTICALLY preferable as well. As in, it reduces the danger we face from terrorism…
Why do you, Cheney and the rest of the dwindling number of ‘real American’s’ believe that your ‘common sense’ thinking trumps the lessons of history?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:40 ambackup,
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
— Albert Einstein
Sheep.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:41 amdbadass. We could obviously get attacked again. Whether we continued all the policies that Cheney champions or whether we move to a position of law enforcement that Obama favors.
If/when that attack occurs there will be those that immediately blame Obama’s relaxing of Bush policies. And there will be those that will say the attack would have happened regardless.
But, there will also be an investigation of what led to the attack. If that investigation definitively points to an action caused by a relaxation of policy
(like this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html)
then Cheney will be vindicated. If the investigation does not definitely point to the relaxation of any policy, the American public will give Obama a pass, like many gave Bush a pass for missing 9/11.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:41 amWell, since 9Eleven happened almost 9 months into the Bush/Cheney what bad policy choices did the dynamic duo make?
And, oddly, Bush approval ratings went UP after 9Eleven surely Dick doesnt want that..
March 15th, 2009 at 11:42 amrocks. Obama is continuing much of Bush’s policy. What are you doing to question his authority?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:43 ambackup Says:
The ends do not justify the means.
Wayne. I agree with this. But, even if we agree that the ends don’t justify the means, is it reasonable to acknowledge that if we decide to take a higher road, that we expose ourselves to more risk?
No, backup, and that’s the lie the Right Wing is putting forth. We have laws in this country and our citizens have rights. Why is it being assumed that the only way to keep us safe (which is not their job, BTW) is to take away our civil liberties? Here are just a few things they could have done to keep us safer without destroying our civil liberties:
1) Pay attention to the people who worked in the previous administration who you asked to stay on and work for you. They were telling you that terrorism would be your biggest priority. When john Ashcroft submitted his list of the DOJ’s top seven priorities, fighting terrorism was not one of them. And his DOJ budget request, submitted 9/10/10, asked for increases in 68 DOJ programs, but counter-terrorism was not among the programs for which they wanted increased funding.
2) Pay attention to memos that warn you a sworn enemy might try to use planes as weapons. Increase security around airports. Ask the FBI to consolidate all related reports regarding people from the Middle East and airplanes. This alone might have done something to thwart the planned attacks.
3) Pay attention to the Constitution, particularly the part that says that the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (emphasis mine.) Instead of having an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, try having an Office of Faithfully-Executed Laws. Don’t hire lawyers who will look for ways around the law and the Constitution, hire lawyers who understand what the purpose of having laws is in the first place and who will make sure you stay within them.
backup, do not fall for the false choice argument that our only two options were to ignore the law and the Constitution and turn this country into a dictatorship (which, effectively, it was) or follow the law and the Constitution.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:44 amYeah. because that’s exactly what happened after 9/11.
Oh, wait — no it didn’t…
I’d chalk this one up to “false narrative”, wouldn’t you, dbadass?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:45 amhttp://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/15
After reading the article “The US is facing a Weimar Moment” I am more frightened by Cheney and his cohorts. Will history repeat itself??
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/15
March 15th, 2009 at 11:46 amSee, the way it works, backup, is the last president gets blamed. Bush Jr blamed Clinton for WTCII and so WTC1 is Bush Sr’s fault. And if another attack happens it will be Bush Jr’s fault.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:46 amThat should be “9/10/01″ on Ashcroft’s budget request. Please excuse the typo. It was the day before the attacks.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:50 amOn what basis does Private Citizen Cheney make these remarks?
He hasn’t had access to current intel for months.
He’s no longer an expert on the current situation.
That said, two things:
I suspect that the missile attacks going on inside Pakistan are an actual attempt to get Bin Laden.
And that, in the wake of 9/11, there are thousands of dedicated people in our intelligence community, in the FBI, in the Border Patrol, in the Coast Guard, and yes, the CIA and NSA, working tremendously hard to keep the United States safe. The terrorists are real, and these folks are sincerely dedicated to stopping them. We are, in fact, safer for their efforts.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:55 amBut they would be doing this no matter who was in charge. The Bush Administration made their lives vastly harder by their Mussolini-like military adventures, their trashing of the Constitution for the purposes of spying on their political enemies, and their ‘war-of-civilizations’ rhetoric. (Not to mention leaving Bin Laden in place as a boogeyman to scare voters with.)
They continue their work under the Obama administration, and deserve our continued support.
The GOP are doing everything to put Obama down. It’s doesn’t matter that we are now in a recession (depression), nor unemployment is high, nor high % of people are without health care, nor there are two fronts (wars), etc. which were on the GOP watch. Nope who care about the American people. All They care about is getting back into power so they can continue to rape America.
So far as to Cheney’s warmongering, that’s is pet project. If America is attached I will blame the GOP for not protecting our country. Why? Because they are the ones who have made the terrorist stronger not weaker.
The O Administration is full aware of the threats and are dutifully on watch unlike the Bushies re 9/11. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen again, and I pray to God it doesn’t but I have more trust in O Administration.
Besides now, our country is also faced with American terrorist. Some actor saying he want’s to become Texas president……
We as a country in this time and place should be working together not trying to destroy the country.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:55 amWayne. Your points one and two, I agree with. The Bush administration dropped the ball on 9/11. It was their responsibility and they failed.
I need to think about your point three. I believe liberty has a cost. (A cost I think is worth paying, BTW). In order to live in a free society, we open ourselves up to risk.
I don’t currently believe that we can simultaneously relax enforcement and also enjoy less risk.
I think that the waterboarding and invasions of privacy have crossed lines of balance in the equation, but I think it’s a tradeoff. We should respect the rights of the detainees at gitmo to a trial, we should avoid spying on our citizenry, we should not torture. But, it is very plausible to me, that when we take that higher road, we inherit increased risk along with the higher moral ground.
I’ll think about it and check back later.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:57 amI’d chalk this one up to “false narrative”, wouldn’t you, dbadass?
–
March 15th, 2009 at 11:57 amIndeed grasshopper, indeed…
you’re right:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html
March 15th, 2009 at 11:58 amI don’t currently believe that we can simultaneously relax enforcement and also enjoy less risk.
Except we are not ‘relax[ing] enforcement,’ we are abandoning techniques which the experts agree have led to MORE risk and less moral authority and adopting techniques which have been proven effective and ethically sound… you follow?
It may be ‘plausible’ to you but what is ‘plausible’ is not necessarily supported by the facts… ‘common sense’ is not the best way to fight and catch terrorists… that’s why we PAY people to study counter-terrorism, shouldn’t we listen to them?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pmot,
saw will ferrell: you’re welcome america -
a final night with george w. bush on hbo
last night. when you see it you’ll quickly notice how w.
is filled with the same pomp and abject stupidity of a
backup comment. hilarious. here’s a preview
from youtube. see if you don’t agree :)
::
**
March 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pmbackup,
Does someone need to remind you what Ben Franklin said? (Essentially) “Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
I would also argue that the problem wasn’t that our government was too restricted in what it could do to prevent attacks like that one, but that they simply weren’t using the authority they already had. They weren’t trying to prevent the attacks, backup. It was a lie to claim they needed new authority to prevent another attack, which they failed to do, BTW. Inherent in all of these right wing defenses of the Bush post-9/11 policies is that they were necessary to prevent another attack. No, they weren’t, and no, they didn’t. There were still the unsolved Anthrax attacks.
You may want to to give up a little of your liberty for a little security, but I (and others here) sure as hell won’t.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pmRest assured backup,
March 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pmObama is concerned with keeping American’s safe…
Obama has promised that he will pursue OBL into Pakistan if the intelligence supports it, he’s also said he’ll listen to the experts on this and then base his decisions based on their advice and counsel… contrast that with this…
Bush and Cheney both asked Clarke to investigate the ‘links’ between 9/11 and Iraq the day after the attacks… and when Clarke told them there were no ‘links’ they told him to ‘look again’ wink, wink…
repugs are US haters bigtime.
they encourage and participate in the US failure.
they hope for another disasters to happen to us.
Please put these fascist in jail.
How can they go around hoping for the US destruction? repugs want to finish the destruction they started on Sept. 11th.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pmWayne. If you read through my posts, I’m in agreement with you.
I’m only making the point that to have liberty, to be free, you have to accept risk.
We have collectively decided that we want more liberty. I agree. But, with the push for more liberty, I think we open ourselves to more risk.
And many here claim to be champions of liberty. But, no one seems to want to contemplate the Bush policies that Obama has continued.
If it was simple equation, I don’t see why Obama would hesitate dismissing all those Bush policies immediately.
That hasn’t happened. Why?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThe guy is a sociopath. Nuf’ said.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pmYes, lets build a big prison and put ourselves in it…so we can have…liberty?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pmAnd once we have taken away our liberty, what the terrorists really want, then we can be free of risk.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pmIf it was simple equation, I don’t see why Obama would hesitate dismissing all those Bush policies immediately.
That hasn’t happened. Why?
One reason could be that Obama Saw the folly of Bush’s total rejection of Every Clinton Policy….for example …Clinton’s concern about Al Qaeda.
After his Near Loss in 2004….Bush revised many of his policies …relying more on Realism and rejecting Ideology….for Example… Rumsfeld’s dismissal.
I, for One am thankfull that Obama is more thoughtfull and less Knee Jerk in his decisions.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pmXisithrus Says:
But, with the push for more liberty, I think we open ourselves to more risk. -backup
Yes, lets build a big prison and put ourselves in it…so we can have…liberty?
*
you nailed it x.
backup, the walking contradiction
and a stranger to himself.
::
but these two facts will not stop him from commenting.
the only thing that could accomplish that small miracle
would backup being forced to read what he writes.
that would stop him.
:|
March 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pmWon’t time tell? Cheney can make the point that we weren’t attacked domestically since 9/11. If Obama shifts modes back to a law enforcement response, and we don’t suffer major domestic attacks like 9/11, Cheney’s charge will be hollow. If, on the other hand, we do have significant domestic attack(s), Cheney will be vindicated on this charge. B-Cup I don’t understand this logic.
But it was Bush who didn’t listen to Bill Clintons memo.
It wasn’t the Policy that needed Change it was the person who ignored it.
9/11 didn’t happened because we didn’t had intelligence, 9/11 happened because Bush IGNORED IT.
I really can’t understand how can you say Bush policys were neccesary when there was ALREADY GOOD intelligence BEFORE and he ignored them, how can you defend Bush saying that we needed torture to get “good intelligence” when there already were good intelligence?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:38 pmjoe.
Here’s an example.
A crazy guy goes into a church with a gun and shots a dozen people.
Then, many churches throughout the country have this debate: We could buy and install metal detectors for the entrances and have a policy that we search everyone and their bags before they come in. That way we could protect ourselves from something similar from happening.
People come to the conclusion: Although it might make us safe from that kind of attack, it isn’t worth the cost of the equipment and the imposition of those who want to attend.
But, deciding not to implement the measures, doesn’t make the members more safe.
It’s a balance between liberty and safety.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:40 pmThe swinish Vampire Cannibal Cheney. Up to his old tactics. Trying to frighten the good little credulous parishioners out there in Cornpone Land..
Meanwhile, what about his war-profiteering and leaving the USA vulnerable to attack on and before 9/11?
That perfidious Enemy of the People must be hauled before the bar of Justice and made to pay for his insidious war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, and trashing of the Constitution!
====
March 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pmDick “Death Squad” Cheney makes Bernie Madoff–purely an economic criminal– look like an amateur.
====
March 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pmEvery time I see Cheney’s pale old nasty sneering face on the tube I want to throw up. Why is that?
Same goers for that that fat fock Bill Bennett. I mean what the hell is that bloated creature on TV?
Haven’t we seen such slithering slime bags enough for one lifetime?
Why does Corporate Media insist on rehabilitating those vicious insects? Silly question…
You’d think there weren’t another 300 Million people in this country with opinions just as valid as all the rotten-hearted disgraced rightwing reactionary know-nothing a-holes!
====
March 15th, 2009 at 12:43 pmSorry for the delay in response but I was out doing Sunday stuff. ;-)
There were lots of great t-shirts & signs at the protests down in Kennebunkport against George Bush and his family. The best one (though not politically correct mind you) was the big yellow sign that read, “OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”. The guy holding this sign was near the front of the protesters as we approached the Bush Compound. I thought it was beautiful (kind of midevil-ly), but some thought it was very tasteless.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pmWe understand your reasoning, b-cup. We just recognize that you operate using false choices. It’s your medium. It is the tool with which you feel most comfortable. (Although it must be admitted, you’re also efficient with other tools as well, such as strawman arguments, false narrative, simplistic analogies…)
It all sounds eminiently reasonable, until one looks closely at what you’re saying, and then its absurdity becomes clear.
That’s all we’re saying.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pmYou continue to be an American Taliban retard. Your answer to this scenario (along with Beck and other neck drooling knuckle draggers such as yourself) believe there should be more guns on the streets in the hands of citizens and in some cases like, Mike Gallagher, believe there should be more concealed weapons!
Idiots. All of ya.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pmHow were we safe after 9/11?
Anthrax?
Sniper shootings?
School massacres?
Oh wait.
FORMER President Bush said it was a “GLOBAL War on Terror”.
England.
Spain.
Bali.
And that’s not including the 4000 soldiers, the civilians, the wounded.
Yesirree bob, DICK has sure kept the world safe.
On more time.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pm9/11 happened on YOUR watch, Dicky.
Nothing more need be said, you mucking foron!
Really? I thought Rush Limbaugh was king of the fearmongers?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pmArchie Bhead = king of stupidity.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pmSays it all, Doc.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pmDid the journalist ask the obvious follow-up question? i.e. How does closing gitmo, eliminating torture, etc. make us less safe? I have never had this explained to me. The journalists I have seen ask these questions seem quite willing to accept that these changes do in fact affect our safety. I may not be the brightest individual, but I think that supposition is debatable. I would like Dick Cheney to explain exactly how not torturing will put us at risk. I am sure the explanation will have a lot of ifs and hypotheticals rather than substantive evidence.
Backup
I noticed your link about the suicide bomber that was released from gitmo. Can you please tell me if this person was actually a terrorist prior to his detainment? It seems to me that if he were, he wouldn’t have been released. Is it possible we “created” a terrorist by detaining someone at gitmo?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pmI’d like to know who in Texas sent James Cummings (white supremacist, neo-Nazi, who hated President Obama, and who was a millionaire in his own right) to Maine to set up shop, so he could privately create a dirty bomb?
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/03/13/rachel-maddow-witnesses-the-maine-media-blackout-on-the-james-cummings-story/
Huh, who in Texas sent him to Maine? Dick Cheney, got an answer to that one for us? Was James Cummings (his wife shot him dead after years of abuse and is a hero now for protecting the country!) ON YOUR DEATH SQUAD PAYROLL?
Inquiring minds would love to know, DickFace!
March 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pmbackup Says:
joe.
Here’s an example.
A crazy guy goes into a church with a gun and shots a dozen people.
Then, many churches throughout the country have this debate: We could buy and install metal detectors for the entrances and have a policy that we search everyone and their bags before they come in. That way we could protect ourselves from something similar from happening.
People come to the conclusion: Although it might make us safe from that kind of attack, it isn’t worth the cost of the equipment and the imposition of those who want to attend.
But, deciding not to implement the measures, doesn’t make the members more safe.
It’s a balance between liberty and safety.
*
we don’t live in a church.
::
read your own comments.
study them. think about them.
consider their stupidity.
::
March 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm“I poop my pants regularly” – Archie B
Can you say “infantile”?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pmarch,
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”
—Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
*
“human being and fish” arch.
it can be done.
:)
word.
!!!
March 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThe trolls fear President Obama because of his skin color, because he’s intelligent, and because he cares about Americans. When President Obama said to the nation that he wanted to help the American people, the American Taliban (the republican party) has been screaming and screeching ever since! Had President Obama screamed he wanted to help the top 5% of the wage earning wealthy in this country, the American Taliban would be worshiping him today!
The End.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pmbackup Says:
It’s a balance between liberty and safety.
I believe that you are forgetting what it means to live in a free society. In exchange for being allowed to roam about the country free from having to pass through police check points and orders to “show your papers”, we have rules (called “laws”) and penalties (in the form of fines and imprisonment) to deter people from harming one another. It is hoped that the fact that you could go to prison, possibly forever, is enough of a deterrent to keep people from harming each other. Sometimes the, and the penalties for breaking them, aren’t enough, and we have things like what happened in Alabama. (My condolences to the families of the victims of those shootings.) Since it happened entirely within one state, it would have meant police barricades outside every town in Alabama to prevent it from happening at all. And we Americans are not ready to have it come to that. So we accept the risk that someone will not be deterred by the law and cause others harm anyway.
That does not mean we have to throw away our constitutional rights in order to remain free. We just have to accept that for some people, the law will not be enough. And that’s a risk I’m willing to take, provided I can be sure that the law is being faithfully executed by our president. We now know that with Bush, it wasn’t.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pmArchie B, how much money did Dick Cheney pay Musharref of Pakistan for “terrorists” (were really Musharref’s political opponents) to be brought to GITMO to make it appear ole Dickey & Georgie were being tough on terror?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pmArchie B Says:
Is it possible we “created” a terrorist by detaining someone at gitmo?
yes, because we all know that Bush invented and created all of the terorrists…..
Actually, Archie, you’re the first person I’ve heard make the allegation that “Bush invented and created all of the terorrists (sic)”. This is another false argument, also known as a “lie”.
Does anyone on the right know how to debate honestly? And by “honestly”, I mean by using facts that conform to reality to make their arguments. Anyone?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pmIn all of my life I cannot recall a time when Americans were so afraid. As each year passes more and more fears are created. Now the fear and safety folks have become a huge money making industry, and that’s part of what this whole tragic affair was about. Attack us, pull out the fear card every time it benefits you, stir up the crazies amongst us, and create false security systems for us to buy into. Screw dick and georgie and anyone else who buys their $hit!
March 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pmNeocons don’t understand sarcasm. Nice try Archie B! And wait….did you notice George Bush & Dick Cheney acting just like the terrorists when they were in office?
Using religion to get the masses on their side,
Torturing people,
Secret prisons all around the globe,
The VP had his own personal assassination squads around the globe and nationally,
Refuse to admit fault even if the evidence proves otherwise,
Drink red koolaid,
Are called the American Taliban.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pmGo away, you despicable loathsome criminal.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pmArchie B Says:
It’s called sarcasm, wayne.
Really, Archie? Because it sounded more like an attempt to dismiss the idea that Bush created any terrorists (which, in fact, he did) by making a false remark about the possibility that it might be true.
So, if you were simply being sarcastic, then you agree with the other poster who asked “Is it possible we “created” a terrorist by detaining someone at gitmo?” Do you agree with this poster?
BTW, when you lack a sense of humor, being sarcastic doesn’t come across that way to others.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pmarch,
how times can you say
“can you say”?
*
“You’re working hard to put food on your family.”
—Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000
*
“food on your family” arch.
it’s called sarcasm.
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:05 pmYep, Archie. That’s what I said. I suspect, though, that even you know you are being disingenuous.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pmArchie B,
Ralph’s not anyone “on the right”. And you do poop your pants regularly, so he was using facts.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pmHmmm… why didn’t Archie also include the comment he left that “inspired” mine? You now, the one that included a similar “quote” from the President?
Could it be Archie is incapable of debating honestly?
Heh — look who I’m talkin’ about… it’s Archie. Why even ask the question, except rhetorically?
March 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Archie B,
Ralph’s not anyone “on the right”. And you do poop your pants regularly, so he was using facts.
*
wayne, arch was responding to this
famous call to action by gw bush:
“We ought to make the pie higher.”
—Presidential candidate George W. Bush, South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
*
arch, you “make the pie higher” in
your pants if that’s what you feel
you must do.
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:13 pmarch,
tip:
make a michael medved face.
that’ll help you pinch it off.
:|
March 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pmThe greatest risk to America is the Republican Party and the cheap thugs who run it. That means you, Dick.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:17 pma threat of another attack? Maybe from Cheney’s ‘Executive assassination ring’… and where are the missing US nukes?
March 15th, 2009 at 1:29 pmCheney and Bush kept us safe for eight years. In fact, they kept us so safe, that only four more planes were hijacked and used as missiles during their administration than in all the previous administrations combined. And only 3,000 more people died of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil than did under the eight years of Clinton.
Of course being black and living below sea level turned out to be a deadly combination under Commander Guy’s watch, but think of all he did to revive the economy–at least Halliburton’s and Black Water’s economies.
Yes, if anyone knows anything about getting attacked while sleeping on the job, it would be Dick and George. I think Obama better listen to these two. In fact, if I were you, I’d watch these two rascals. I have a feeling they are going to go far.
Maybe like Dubai with steamer trunks full of cash.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWayne. you can understand the skepticism of those that don’t see how laws will deter those not only that carry out church shootings, but the 9/11 attacks or suicide bombings.
The heavy handed Bush policies were an attempt to address these kinds of threats, because how would you expect someone willing to blow themselves up, to be deterred by law?
Again, I feel that our policies became too heavy handed. And I agree with Franklin that if we trade our liberty for security, we deserve neither.
But, there should be a realistic appraisal of the situation. For us to take the moral high ground, for us to choose liberty over security, there is increased risk. Risk that is worth the costs. But, risk none the less.
We cannot have it both ways. A non-existent Utopia where we relax enforcement to become more open and additionally become less open to risk. It sounds great, but it’s not realistic.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pmIt is possible that the gitmo detainee that was released was a peaceful person before his detainment.
But, assuming that you are peaceful, could you imagine that a detainment and torture would compel you to become a suicide bomber of innocent people, if you were released?
If you believe that the Bush administration had a policy of pulling innocent people from the battefield and detaining them for no good reason; the idea that the policy is creating terrorists is plausible.
But, what is more likely, is that the administration suspected the detainees for some reason that lead to their detainment. And the suicide bombing that resulted from the release was that individuals intent all along. And the reason for their detainment in the first place.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pmyes, backup
they must all be
arrested for future crimes.
**
would that he read his own crap.
+
March 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pmTime to buy more stock in Proctor&Gamble, the forecast calls for an all-time-high run on Depends…
Or is this more evidence of the Rovianesque “assassination-ring, casually mentioning the possibility of some unforeseen disaster?
What a shit-stained, dirty little Dick.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pmIt seems that whether Cheney is in office or retired,the theme remains the same in addressing the public, ‘Get scared…Be scared’.
I wonder if boogeyman Obama’s latest tape released just in time for Cheney’s CNN interview…!!
March 15th, 2009 at 1:56 pm(puts head in vice to bring himself down to b-cups level of “thinking”):
how would you expect someone willing to blow themselves up, to be deterred by law?
I somehow remember us having all the intelligence required to have completely thwarted the 9/11 disaster.
Try again…
March 15th, 2009 at 1:56 pmYes.
Next question.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pmblancadebreeSays:
Cheney and Bush kept us safe for eight years.
They dept US so safe they allowed 9/11, a historical attack, to happen and with ample in your face evidence.
They dept US so safe they allowed our country to go into what appears a historical depression.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pmBush and his vice president made so many enemies and now obama is trying to make so many friends, dick still talks about attacks.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pmSorry , meant Osama
March 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pmThey dept US
supposed to be kept
March 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pmIf you believe that the Bush administration had a policy of pulling innocent people from the battefield and detaining them for no good reason
Backup,
Many Gitmo detainees were NOT picked up on the Battlefield. Many were Just “fingered” by Accusers who received Bounty Money and No Scrutiny.
The fact that over half of these “Worst of the Worsts” were released without Charges should tell you something.
And according to Gerald Posner, the confessions of one Waterboardee (ABU Zubaydah) implicated several Saudi Princes and the head of Pakistan’s airforce as having foreknowlege of 911. All of these Individuals DIED under mysterious circumstances.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html
March 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pmralph. you’re saying that you would kill innocent people, if you suffered detainment and torture at the hands of the Bush administration?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pmBackup – I can’t possibly imagine what being unlawfully detained for years would do to my psyche.
I find it interesting that you felt the need to add the word peaceful to your characterization. I simply said the person wasn’t a terrorist.
I also don’t suppose that the Bush admin had a policy of detaining innocent people, but that doesn’t mean that innocent people weren’t inadvertently detained.
Why the need to “re-frame” the debate in such ridiculous terms?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pmI agree. Would it turn you into a suicide bomber of innocent people?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pmbackup Says:
Yes.
ralph. you’re saying that you would kill innocent people, if you suffered detainment and torture at the hands of the Bush administration?
**
ralph,
you should know that
throwup borrowed that
question mark from a
fox “news” chyron.
**
March 15th, 2009 at 2:13 pmNo, I’m not saying that, you fool.
You asked:
could you imagine that a detainment and torture would compel you to become a suicide bomber of innocent people, if you were released?
Yes. I can imagine it. I can imagine other people undergoing such a change at the hands of a foreign invader as well.
Stop trying to move the goal posts. I realize it’s the only way you can get to where you’re going sometimes, but it’s one of the many reasons you have developed the reputation you enjoy around here.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pmI don’t think the American people are afraid.
The Right has been telling them they have to be afraid! Be afraid! in order to get them to vote for them and their programs.
Are the Republicans afraid?
No, they’re using the trope to justify torture, warrantless wiretapping, plundering the US Treasury, imperialism, and state secrecy.
What was the FIRST THING the Republican Administration did after the 911 attacks?
They rounded up the entire Bin Laden family and FLEW THEM OUTOF THE COUNTRY. While all other air traffic was shut down.
Does that sound like an action designed to protect Americans’ lives? Or designed to protect George W. Bush’s business partners?
WE’re supposed to be afraid of Al Qaeda. We invaded Afghanistan to thwart them–but used bin Laden’s co-reigionists as the cordon around Tora Bora, and didn’t even seem upset when he got away.
Was George Bush just simply gaming the American public to create a useful boogeyman–or was he following orders of the people who bailed him out of his business disasters?
The Republicans make a career of drumming up fear of things they’re not afraid of. Islamofascism–the Nation of Aztlan–the Destruction of our Moral Fiber–down to comic books in the 50’s.
The real threats? It was the Democrats who went to war against the Nazis while the Republicans screamed Isolationism. It was HarryTruman who rooted out the Communist agents in the government and sent troops to thwart the Communist invasion of South Korea. It was John F. Kennedy who dealt with Russian missiles in Cuba.
The Republicans, on the other hand, went after screenwriters and put ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.
George W. Bush talked about an Axis of Evil. Three states: a big state with anactive military (Iran); a state with an active nuclear weapons program and an active ballistic missile program (North Korea); and a country under a ten-year blockade with a crippled economy and military.
Who do they go after? Why, they go after the cripple. NOT the countrywith the DOCUMENTED WMD’s. Not the big one.
The little guy with no resources.
They overthrew Saddam Hussein and occupied the country because of WMD’s. North Korea? Negotiation.
Pakistan was found to be actively peddling nuclear secrets on the black market.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3481499.stm
what was the reaction? None.
At Gitmo, they imprison ‘the worst of the worst’–and then let them go.
Then they try to use their subsequent behavior as justification for keeping it going.
If the Republicans ACTUALLY thought they were the danger they SAID PUBLICLY they were, WHY DID THEY LET THEM GO?
José Padilla was arrested with John Ashcroft pushing screamin headlines about the DIRTY BOMB plot. Afterwards, they quietly dropped the charges. If he had been a foreign national, they would have let him go, but because he was an American citizen, they kept him isolated, away from lawyers.
The Republican Party wants only phony threats, phony boogeymen, dangers that aren’t really dangers. They want to stir the peons up and keep their politicsl power and their wealth. They want the masses scared of Mexicans, while they use them as chep labor; they want them scared of Arabs, while they walk hand in hand with them inthe White House gardens. They want them scared of the things they themselves profit from.
Real threats are a different story. A hurricane destroys a major American city? America’s financial markets melt down? They thrash around like fsh thrown up on the beach. Crises are only to take advantage of, not to solve.
Here’s the point. They DON’T KNOW HOW.
Because government is not a job to them. It’s their due.
They’re far worse than actual aristocrats, bacause at least the ols aristocratic rulers actually ran their countries.
They think than power just means status and riches–not governing. Theyjust stuff their pockets and let it all go to hell.
And when it does go to hell, they stand around, jam smeared on their greedy little faces, and scream that it’ss not their fault, and blame Clinton and Carter and FDR and Michael Moore and Bill Maher.
You know why the Republicans are conducting this Joe the Plumber Maglev to Disneyland Rush Is A Genius sideshow?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pmBecause deep down they think that Obama will fix it, and that they can continue to snipe.
If Obama had turned out to be clueless and incompetent, and if it looked like America might actually suffer a Weimar-like meltdown, things would be different.
They wouldn’t start acting responsibly, heavens no–but they’d start running for theiir undisclosed locations.
But they’re going to let the people who view government as a tough job and a soolemn responsibility actually fix things, and then scream insults at them.
Why would you insist on a definitive answer from someone whom you quoted as saying he couldn’t imagine what it would do to his psyche?
As joe cantwell asks — do you even read what you post?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pmJohn McCain was tortured in Hanoi. Did that experience compel him to resort to violence against innocence?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/mccain-votes-against-tort_n_86549.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/725854.stm
March 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pmB-Cup could you respond to my comment on how Bush fixed something that wasn’t broken and made it better/safer?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pmralph. what are you saying? I’m asking this: Do you really believe that this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html
Who was supposedly picked up because he was a threat in the first place, was actually not a threat until he was detained. And then, because he was detained and tortured, he became what the administration claimed he was in the first place?
Reasonable people will recognize the contortions that you are going thru to placate your worldview.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pmbackup Says:
Comparing a soldier to a randomly pickedup arab that are trown in jail without charges.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pmThis would only make sense in the minds of repulicans.
Oh my God!!!! Is Dicky planning or have the knowledge of ANOTHER FALSE FLAG OPERATION????!!!! Keep him away from NORAD!
March 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pmBackup
So, in your opinion, it is a contortion to conclude that a person released from custody without EVER being charged might not have been a terrorist in the first place?
Apparently it is also a contortion to conclude that being wrongly detained might lead to a radical change in someone’s behavior.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pmbackup Says:
Reasonable people will recognize the contortions that you are going thru to placate your worldview.
**
backup writes about “reasonable people”.
the world record for gall has just been shattered.
::
March 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pmSince when does the FORMER vp get on TV and run his mouth like this?
Not funny, coming from the man who ALLOWED 9/11 !!!!
TV Bosses – HEADS OUT OF ASSES, PLEASE.
DICK – GO AWAY – FOREVER
March 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pmB-cup
I’ve to ask another question again.
Are you claiming that everyone that was capture were a threat?
And that when they’re realesed (because they weren’t),
that if they participate in a terrorist attack after their release it’s because they were a threat before being a victim of torture?(asuming torturing them had nothing to do with it?)
Considering your view on that men, do you consider everyone in Gitmo to be the same as him?(same reasons to be in Gitmo)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pmb-cup, with all due respect, you’re a fu(king idiot.
The fact that there are bad people in the world does not preclude the possibility of someone being mistakenly detained and tortured, and becoming full of enough ate that he is willing to kill his now-perceived enemy by any means at his disposal, even suicide bombing.
Nor does the fact that some, like John McCain, can undergo such a process and NOT become a suicide bomber.
It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition.
You asked if I could imagine such a transformation taking place. I am saying this:
I can easily imagine an innocent person, captured and detained mistakenly, tortured to obtain information he doesn’t have, growing to hate his captors and driven to seek revenge upon his release.
Your false choices do nothing to cloud that, and your accusations of “contortions” are all in your head.
You are once again demonstrating the disingenuousness for which your arguments have become famous around here.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pmso, let me get this straight, our use of torture and alternative interrogation “were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story.”
was this the same “intelligence” that told us iraq had WMD’s…?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pmI hope to god we don’t ever get attacked again, but if we do, the blood is on your hands LIBS.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pmI believe that some at Gitmo were wrongly accused and deserve a trial. I am also saying that the detainee that was released due to a lack of evidence wasn’t innocent. The intial suspicions that lead to his detainment were correct. He was released not because he was innocent, but because there was a lack of evidence that he was guilty.
I am saying that the detainee turned suicide bomber wasn’t turned into a suicide bomber because he was detained and tortured. He was a suicide bomber all along. That’s why he was a suspect and detained.
Everyone makes the claim that Gitmo is creating terrorists. Besides the gut feeling, does anyone have any information that false imprisonments and torture cause the subsequent criminal behavior progressives want to attribute to Gitmo?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pmI believe it is safer to go hunting with Cheney, than it was to live in a nation governed by him.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pmA simple man Says:
——————————————————————————–
I hope to god we don’t ever get attacked again, but if we do, the blood is on your hands LIBS.
I think you mean it would be Obamas responsibility to prevent it, just as it was Bush’s responsibility to prevent the attack on 9/11. That’s what you mean, right simple?
See guys – simple is just pointing out that the President that’s on watch at the time has a grave responsibility.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmbackup, your point is moot. Or it should be. By legal standards in the US that applied before 2001 the worst thing that should have happened to a detainee was detention. This Jack Bauer/24 crap about who would feel what or do what after torture is hooey. It should never have happened.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pmPreemptive finger-pointing.
Very Republican of you.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pmAwwww, simple is back being simple. Isn’t that sweet?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pmb-cup, do you believe that the detention and torture of an innocent man from a tribal culture could affect that man’s psyche so severely that upon his release, he vows revenge on his captors in any way he can get it?
It seems you are arguing in the negative. Please clarify.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pmI think backup has been watching Rambo movies again.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pmBackup
Did you read the article you yourself linked to?
In the article it says the guy was picked up in Afghanistan trying to go to Pakistan. It says nothing about him being a suspected suicide bomber. You are just making stuff up.
You are also making up the notion that anyone has claimed Gitmo caused this. All I said was that it was POSSIBLE someone was not a terrorist until after being detained. I even put the term “created” in quotes to indicate that I consider that a less than ideal term to use in this situation.
There really is no point in discussing this with you. Ralph’s characterization of your approach to “debate” is more correct than I am sure you would like to admit.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pmI liked John Kerry’s idea of going after the terrorists by dangling a ‘carrot’ in front of their faces to arrest them instead of dropping bombs on innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11/01.
Don’t you agree, Backdrop, that this is a much better way of dealing with them, because laws on the books don’t always stop terrorism or other crimes?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pmI hope to god we don’t ever get attacked again, but if we do, the blood is on your hands LIBS.
—-
When it says Libbies, Libbies, Libbies on the label label label….
Simple man is sort of ridiculous
March 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pmif backup went galt on us
what difference would it make?
*
no difference at all.
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pmB-cup let me make this easy for you to answer.
If I’m accused of smoking pot and went to jail
and was tortured for info on what I did.
And at the end of the day there comes a test result showing I didn’t and I was released.
Feeling that I was tortured for no fing reason.
I go ahead and smoke pot.
You would claim that I smoke pot before I went to jail?
Even when the test result suggest otherwise, you would claim that there was not enough evidence correct? and that I wasn’t innocent?
Come on B-cup you hit the wall just admit it already.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:21 pmREMINDER:
Under George Bush & Dick Cheney SOME GITMO PRISONERS WERE RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC.
President Obama wants to instill Habeas corpus, but will NOT release any prisoner that has committed acts against us or is a danger to society.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pmIf America is attacked again, think of this:
“THANKS TO GEORGE BUSH THE NEXT 9/11 ATTACK WON’T BE A SURPRISE”
March 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pmFinn Says:
I believe it is safer to go hunting with Cheney, than it was to live in a nation governed by him.
*
on the scale of logic this outweighs
everything that throwup has written
(and will write) here today.
**
March 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pmGOP = BEDWETTERS
March 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pmActually, we don’t need to point the finger at Gitmo for creating terrorists. We did give Iraq Burger King and Brittany Spears. Or was it Mickey D’s and the McRib sandwich?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pmArchie B Says:
SOME GITMO PRISONERS WERE RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC.
Under pressure from the far lefties like the good ol aclu dirtbags.
They let you roam the streets too.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmHere’s a former FBI Interrogator speaking about torture and its impact.
Most of what he says focuses on the impact of our torture program on recruiting for Al Qeada, but it’s along the same lines.
Another article says, Psychologically, torture often creates a state where the mind works against the best interests of the individual, due to the inducement of such emotions as shame, worthlessness, dependency, and a feeling of lacking uniqueness.
Further, Torture can rob the subject of the most basic modes of relating to reality, and thus can be the equivalent of cognitive death. A person’s sense of self can be shattered. The tortured often have nothing familiar to hold on to: family, home, personal belongings, loved ones, language, name.
Does that maybe sound like a recipe for a suicide bomber or what?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmDariana. Or you could frame it this way: a middle aged father and husband is wrongly accused of raping a teenage babysitter.
He goes to prison for 5 years and is abused in prison. After 5 years the babysitter recants and admits that it was really her boyfriend.
You’re asking me to believe that the innocent father and husband now feels compelled to go out and rape innocent teenagers, because of his mistreatment.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pmArchie B Says:
Under pressure from the far lefties like the good ol aclu dirtbags.
There is that damned ACLU again, trying to make sure the laws are enforced.
So, Bush had the power to detain people indefinitely, order the torture of prisoners, invade 2 countries, but was too weak to stand up to the ACLU? Good to know my donations are put to use wisely.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pmApparently, Archie has the same reading comprehension problem as b-cup has.
Wot a surprize.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pmarch,
it was called “blackwater” and
now it is called “xe”.
*
try to keep up.
:|
March 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pmbackup, syllogistic logic is beyond you. Stick with the basics.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pmI see Archie is again plagiarizing others’ work and presenting it as his own, without attribution or link.
If he was going to go to all that trouble, you’d think he would pick more intelligent stuff to rip off.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pmSo there you Archie B. Shall I take that cok out of my ass and shove it done your throat some more. We all know how much you like that. Children are tougher then you…
March 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pmralph. I appreciate your efforts to show that torture is often counterproductive. I agree with you and could add it to the list of reasons why we should not torture.
But, I don’t see how we make the leap from this legitimate point, to promoting the idea that the torture turns innocent people into suicide bombers.
I just don’t believe that.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pmanyone have any information that false imprisonments and torture cause the subsequent criminal behavior progressives want to attribute to Gitmo?
What is it about discussing the immorality of torture that causes you to focus on other’s observations?
Deflect often?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pmIf you were an American statesmen, or former statesmen and you had reason to believe that there was a real threat of a terrorist attack on American soil with a nuclear weapon, would you be blabbering about it on Larry King or would you be doing everything in your power to convince people who could do something about it that the threat is real in private chambers, and not alarming the rest of us?
The first thing I think of when Cheney goes nuclear is the alleged missing nuke from Minot. I believe Cheney and his minions are indeed psychopathic enough to arrange a false flag attack on Americans to prove to us how dangerous the world is.
And I think they’ve already done that. Call my a tin-foil hatter. I don’t care.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pmbackup Says:
ralph. I appreciate your efforts to show that torture is often counterproductive. I agree with you and could add it to the list of reasons why we should not torture.
But, I don’t see how we make the leap from this legitimate point, to promoting the idea that the torture turns innocent people into suicide bombers.
I just don’t believe that.
Listen to yourself! An American trying to justify torture!
Bonehead.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pmah yes,
the dialogues of arch and backup.
like the bureaucrats at wannsee,
the banality of evil.
::
March 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pmthe dialogues of arch and backup.
Like “Dumb and Dumber” without the funny.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWhatever, b-cup. I don’t expect you to be able to follow the line from a simple presentation of clinical finding to a logical possible conclusion, because you can’t even follow a simple, one word comment of mine without going off into one ditch after another.
I’m still not sure if it’s because you’re incapable or unwilling. But it doesn’t really matter, because no one here takes you seriously anymore anyway. Your game is stale and well-known.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pmArchie B Says:
joe cantwell Says:
arch,
it was called “blackwater” and
now it is called “xe”.
………….
The obamapologist is right on cue…..
**
did you make that up yourself?
i bet you did!
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pmNo need to apologize for President Obama. He isn’t the one who destroyed our reputation and standard of living. That would be the crooks you voted for TWICE. Fearmonger in Chief Cheney and his puppet boy.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pmArchie B:
White Prezidunce, GOOD.
Black Prezedunt, BAD.
We know, we know…
March 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pmHas anyone diagnosed Archie’s condition as for sure Trollette’s Syndrome?
Perhaps he can talk to Troll John Kerry’s doctor about getting a scrip.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Whatever, b-cup. I don’t expect you to be able to follow the line from a simple presentation of clinical finding to a logical possible conclusion, because you can’t even follow a simple, one word comment of mine without going off into one ditch after another.
I’m still not sure if it’s because you’re incapable or unwilling. But it doesn’t really matter, because no one here takes you seriously anymore anyway. Your game is stale and well-known.
*
true, ralph.
but can’t you see
that it keeps him alive?
+
ALIVE!
…
March 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pmSaudis bombed the WTC and we killed 100,000 Iraqis because of it. But bcup can’t understand why people would be angry because we tortured their families. What a genius.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pmHe’s just getting the pins to put it on you diaper boy.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pm… and Archie charges it.
ralph moves the white flag at the last instant and laughs as Archie charges headlong into a brick wall.
Archie shakes his head, sits dazed for a moment, then gets up and resumes his goofy antics, having damaged nothing particularly valuable.
(Of course, ralph had to ignore Archie’s silly misspelling in order to make this scene happen, but ralph was glad to do so in order to see a bump rise on Archie’s forehead.)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pmArchie B Says:
ralph waives white flag…..
*
actually it’s your sister’s
panties.
*
want a sniff?
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pmArchie B
March 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pmShall I beat you senseless some more. Don’t worry about ralph. Worry about me. Actually worry about ralph. Everyone already knows you are scared shitless of me
this is your brain on oxycontin:
Archie B Says:
“6 dead babies found in obamas trunk.”
joe/ralph’s response: “But Bush started a war and personally shot 4,000 people and tortured people all over the world!”
*
March 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pmDoncha love how wingnuts make up outlandish stories, and then criticize us for the way they imagine we would respond to them?
It’s really one of the most charming of stupid troll tricks.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pmbackup Says:
So you would claim that revenge is unnormal?
You would claim that if person A hits person B for no reason.
Person B wouldn’t even think about hitting person A back somehow?
In fact if he did,
You would claim that person Bwould’ve
March 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pmwant to hit person A before he even cared/knew about person A, correct?
Seriously, Arch, they can treat that with medication these days.
Look into it.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmArchie, I hear your mom is real angry with you for cutting holes in her best white sheets.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pmWho wishes to place beats that I can say anything no matter how foul and Archie B will not respond. Archie B is so much of a pussy it is absurd. I just do this because of the principle of the whole thing. Damn that loser must have to go through all sorts of contortions to justify their attempts to pretend that I am not eating them up from the inside out…
March 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pmdbadass, is it ok if Ralph and I play with your pet roll for a bit? I promise I won’t hurt him bad.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:49 pmArchie B f ucked those bodies he placed in Obama’s trunk. Still the bodies were better than his sister is. Oh and don’t even get me started on Archie B’s mother….
March 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pmFrankly, I don’t think I can recall another time that a former Executive has used this kind of language. He is almost inviting an attack, so he can say, “see, told you.” I swear, if we are attacked again, I will believe Cheney had something to do with it.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pmThe revenooers get the still again, Archie?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pmHoodathunk
March 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pmNo problem just be rough on him. He likes that…
Archie B Says:
You know it’s true. That’s the funny part!
*
ok arch, one more time
just for you:
liberals – funny,
conservatives – not funny.
**
learn to live with it.
::
March 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmYeah, I know. I think you should try to get in touch with reality if that’s the way you want to go.
But seriously, those outbursts of gibberish you’re prone to launch? They can be controlled under a doctor’s supervision. Don’t worry about the possibilities that it will change your personality. Everyone thinks you’re an a$$hole already.
You have insurance, right?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmThe policies of the Bush family and Dick Cheney are responsible for the death of millions of Iraqi men, women, and children over the past 30 years. If there is another attack on America, I hope that the attackers remember who made the decision to murder all those civilians.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmArchie B Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Seriously, Arch, they can treat that with medication these days.
Look into it.
………….
I prefer sober living. You know, reality?
:)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pmActually Dick,
Your presence at NORAD, North America’s Air Defense Command Center, on the morning of 9/11 and subsequent dereliction of duty to “protect” the United States that day is all the fear-mongering I need, thanks you fcuking piece of shit traitor.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pmArchie, medical science has pills to help you control your Trollette’s Syndrome. And it tastes better than huffing PAM and starter fluid.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pmAnd while you’re at the doctor’s Arch, it wouldn’t hurt to get that head looked at.
That’s a nasty bump ya got there.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmdbadass, you’re right! Archie is scared shitless around you. He can’t even make eye contact.
You own his ass.
I guess that means you get to clean up the place when he craps himself and gets it on the sofa, huh?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmah, ralph, I think that is his head.
March 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmArchie B Says:
“6 dead babies found in obamas trunk.”
Now we have an idea of what goes on in the mind of a lunatic.
Thanks?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pmWhat could possibly make one so delusional?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:04 pmWhat could possibly make one so delusional?
Home-schoolin’, brought to you by the wingnut, bible-humping, gun-thumping, complete and utterly moronic society for the regression of humanity.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pmShayne, if one were to apply Trollish logic, I would say ’sober living’. For the rest of society oxygen deprivation makes more sense. It is hard to breath properly with one’s head so far up Rush’s butt.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pmDariana. I understand your point. But, to me the situation is more like person A hitting person B, and then person B hitting person C.
It was a suicide bombing that killed innocent people.
Suicide bombings that are the hallmark of terrorists. Terrorists that the U.S. government claimed to be detaining at gitmo.
I can see the detainee’s desire to strike back at the U.S. I do not understand his willingness to take innocent lives and enabling a vindication of his initial detention.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pmBackup -
And if hitting person C indirectly affects person A?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pmBackup, first off you should consider going down to the nearest John Deere dealer and see if they have a big enough tractor and strong enough chain to pull your Western head out of whatever rectum you have it buried in.
Then you might want to understand that suicide bombings are the last resort of people who have limited access to explosives, a great deal of rage and no ticket to the US. It isn’t about killing innocent people, its about striking out where you can.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pmUh oh. Cheney might be in on the plans for another false flag attack. Better waterboard him for a while to find out what he knows.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pmYes, b-cup. because suicide bombers aren’t driven by insensate rage, after all. I’m sure they sit down and rationally calculate every angle before they decide TO BLOW THEMSELVES UP IN A CROWD OF STRANGERS.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pmIf you believe someone from neighborhood B bombed your house, would you:
1) bomb neighborhoods C and D
March 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pm2) bomb neighborhood B
3) call the police
And backup, who do you think makes the explosives the suicide bombers use? Goats-R-Us?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pmOld Uncle Dave, for Cheney I would opt for the field telephone connected to the crotch. We could always say we were just trying to call him.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pm“One ringy dingy, two ringy dingy”
March 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pmtbone. you have a point.
It is possible that the suicide bomber was innocent (not capable of being a suicide bomber) before he was detained and subsequently saw killing innocent people as the best way to retaliate against his former oppressor.
That is possible. I still haven’t seen evidence that imprisonment and torture causes that kind of change. Additionally, it seems coincidental that the administration claims that they are holding people at Gitmo that are terror threats. Then it releases a detainee and he engages in a terror attack. And the charge is that the detainee actually became a terrorist due to the detention.
It seems much more plausible that the detainee had that intention all along.
But, you have a point. I just don’t believe that detention and torture turns you from being someone not interested in terror against innocent people, into someone that is.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAnd yet you can understand Bush invading Iraq because Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, attacked us. That you had no problem justifying.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pmHoodathunk Says:
Old Uncle Dave, for Cheney I would opt for the field telephone connected to the crotch. We could always say we were just trying to call him.
Kid’s stuff.
Set him next to a stack of old microwaves, and fire them up.
His pacemaker will have an orgasm.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:33 pmShayne, I warn you, don’t try to follow b-cup’s train of thought. It will drag you into swamps and wildernesses that haven’t seen civilization in centuries.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:34 pmBingo. Maybe our trolls should talk to members of the Irish Republican Army. Perhaps they wouldn’t be so blinded by the brown skin and they could understand the rage.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pmPlus there are those incredible switch-backs in the mountains…
you wouldn’t think a train could make those kind of hairpin turns, even a train of thought. But b-cup’s can, and with ease. It’s really quite breath-taking at times.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pmI hear banjo music whenever he posts.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pmwiley. If I was the police, I wouldn’t call the police. And if I believed that neighborhood C and D were also building bombs they intended to use to make additional attacks against neighborhood B, I’d probably send in the police to disrupt that effort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
March 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pmThat is possible. I still haven’t seen evidence that imprisonment and torture causes that kind of change.
But it will cause Stockholm Syndrome, when the victims identify with their captors, and become converted to their cause. If the human mind is capable of making this seemingly-impossible leap, the idea that imprisonment and torture might cause a much less drastic psychological change is entirely believable.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:38 pmRemember that the people who told us to be scared were a drunken AWOL coward during the Vietnam War and a five deferment coward during the Vietnam War. I never forgot about that and found it to be very ironic.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pmand what might backup say when folks who have had their retirement plans plundered by the Wall Street types who are getting bonuses think when good old Americans pick up their 410’s and 30-30’s and invade Manhattan?
It could happen.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pmbut b-cup, what if neighborhood D was having a block party, and neighborhood B was away visiting its grandkids for the afternoon? What then? Would you allow a Wal-Mart in neighborhood E? Because you have to consider that kids from neighborhood A walk through neighborhood D to get to school in neighborhood B and you don’t want to lure them into neighborhood E on their walk home from school where they could buy cheap t-shirts with clever sayings, do you?
Is that what you’re saying?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pmIf I was the police, I wouldn’t call the police.
Ah, but you’re not, in this case. You’re a militia, undeputized by the larger govening body, acting in you own perceived self-interest, like a cattlemen’s neck-tie party, for accused rustlers.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:44 pmbarfly, I think it’s entirely possible the b-cup hasn’t seen evidence that imprisonment and torture causes Stockholm Syndrome.
Because we know that b-cup is all about evidence, dammit!
March 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pmRalph. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I’ve had trouble with backup’s logic (oh, I’ll be generous and call it that.), but now it makes sense.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pmbackup, let me see is I can put this in American terms. You have been working for years, putting money into a retirement account. (I know, this is a stretch but try and imagine it).
All of a sudden, your account goes from enough to maybe give you a decent retirement to $12.50 because of shoddy practices by OmniBigAzz Bank. Said bank is now paying its management millions in bonuses for sinking your retirement.
Do you decide to pack up your shotgun and go to NY to tackle the corporate honchos or do you decide to go Rambo on the local OmniBibAzz branch there in your hometown of Dogbutt, Ar.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pmacting in your own self interest because there is no higher authority to act for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
March 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pmneither.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pmb-cup,
And if the police reported to you that they had no evidence that anyone in that neighborhood was making bombs, would you bomb them anyway?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pmWill George Bush & Dick Cheney admit to their crimes by being tortured?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:03 pmKay, they don’t have to be tortured. They already admitted to it.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pmA-cup, when will Dick Cheney attack America next? He’s been warning us for a month or two now. Have any inside information you’d like to share?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pmGood point Hoodathunk! I had forgotten. See? We don’t need torture. We just have to give the prisoners a sense that they won’t be held accountable for their crimes and they’ll sing like a bird.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pma few billion dollars seems to have the same effect as waterboarding.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pmwiley. ask the Secretary of State:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
March 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pmBackup, you can’t get AIDS from hypothetical.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pmacting in your own self interest because there is no higher authority to act for you.
I said perceived for reason. The head of the posse had it in his head to dispose of the Saddam Gang, before they’d even attacked the town. And the Sheriff was making progress – at showing that the Saddam Gang had no real weapons that would threaten the town.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pmwiley. ask the Secretary of State:
As I said in the last post, perceived, because she was going on information supplied (or not supplied) by the Bush administration.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pmb-cup should be more thankful that he can’t get AIDS from hypocritical.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pmSaddam was executed for being an autocrat who utilized secret police and surveillance to deny people basic human rights. He used torture and military power to gain his own personal ends.
Maybe its just me but that sounds familiar.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pmwatch it again. she wasn’t saying that the Bush administration had her convinced it was a problem. She was saying that from her own experience, she knew it was a problem.
Her husband knew it was a problem, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
March 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pmHoodathunk, did Saddam ever use white phosphorous as an inti-personnel weapon?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pmSorry, sticky keys. That’s “anti.”
March 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pmBCup,
March 15th, 2009 at 5:19 pmDon’t try your hand at Psychology. It’s a FAIL.
Oh, but I forget you excel at THAT.
Practice makes perfect. Carryon.
b-cup, answer two questions, if you can:
1) Did Bill Clinton use his presidential authority to invade Iraq?
2) Did Senator Clinton have the authority to order the invasion of Iraq?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pmDon’t know, barfly. Did we teach him how?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pmShe was saying that from her own experience, she knew it was a problem.
Her husband knew it was a problem, too:
Yet any chemical weapons would have long been inert, and useless as WMD. That’s just using logic, not hyperbole.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pmDick Cheney’s theme song, soon to be adopted by his sheep clone brother. “Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste.”
I like the BS & T version better than the Stones but I like brass.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:22 pmHoodathunk Says:
Don’t know, barfly. Did we teach him how?
Sorry to use you as my straight man, but no, Saddam never did that, although we did, on his forces.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pmAlways glad to play the straight man for a good cause, barfly.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pmBarfly:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pmLogic isn’t good enough for backup. Backup requires evidence. Unless of course that is evidence to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist. Then it is simply ok to presume.
Of course, we’re all aware that b-cup is successfully using his famous “mission creep” tactic, in which, bereft of arguments, he tries to draw the discussion into territory more comfortable for him, despite its irrelevance to the topic or even to the previous run of discussion.
Like most of b-cup’s favorite tricks, he’s quite good at it. I wonder if he still thinks we don’t notice, though…
March 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pmb-cups ‘concern’ is legendary. Sort of like him, a legend in his own mind.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pmralph. no to both. the argument is that due to 9/11 the response to the situation changed. That’s what the administration believed and that was also what current Secretary of State Clinton believed.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pmRalph, it seems b-cup wants to play with you. Silly rabbit.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pmSo what’s your point, b-cup?
Do you even have one?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pmIt really is hard to get a nickle’s worth out of trolls these days.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pmthe argument is that due to 9/11 the response to the situation changed.
No, it’s not. It’s now that evidence is overwhelming that the books were cooked, during the Bush administration, and the rationale that 9/11 justified aberrogating of long-established international precedent, concerning the treatment of prisoners, has done our cause more harm than good.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pmMarch 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
It’s simple economics, Hoodathunk. They haven’t got a penny’s worth of sense among ‘em.
Although Archie does provide a sawbuck worth of nonsense all by himself.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pmbackup Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I thought so.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pmb-cup speechless…priceless.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pmMy post was lost in cyberspace, but it was really fantastic.
I’ll try to summarize.
We’re off topic.
After listening, I concede that suicide bombing is more understandable when you have limited options. you’re right.
I also concede that it’s possible (I believe unlikely) that the detainees were ‘turned into’ terrorists at Gitmo.
Back to the thread: I agree that some of Bush’s policies should be reversed. We should not torture. The detainees at gitmo deserve a trial. And I have reservations about giving the government authority to wiretap.
Where I disagree is, with the notion that you can relax policies meant to increase security and than enjoy less risk from terror threats.
If we decide to not torture (I believe we should not torture) whatever intel we would get from that, we would not get.
If we decide not to wiretap, whatever intel we would get from that we would not get.
And if we decide to give a trial to the detainees (which I support) there is an increased risk that the detainees released will pose a threat to our security.
It is a tradeoff. I think it is a good trade (more liberty for less security) but a trade, none the less.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmbackup Says:
The argument is that due to 9/11 the response to the situation changed.
Yeah…NOW we check the airline passenger lists and see if any KNOWN Al QAEDA Operatives are on it.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pmPersonally, I’ll take liberty and the Constitution. I feel better about my chances of talking to a ‘terrorist’ and reaching an understanding than ever convincing a righty tighty clown troll that their head is rectally inserted.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:02 pmGee, how did that happen?
Presuming, no doubt, that those policies were effective in the first place. The demonstrated competence of the Bush administration in other areas (economics, human resources, foreign relations, disaster relief, nation-building) should give no one reason for pause.
Any group of bureaucrats who can so efficiently render aid to its citizens in a natural disaster, or manage the world’s largest economy can certainly be trusted to enact effective security measures, right?
Understanding, of course, that whatever intel we would get from that would be worthless, anyway. At least, that’s what virtually every intelligence professional says.
I think you mean “wiretap without a warrant”. You see, the government can still wiretap, b-cup. They just need to go through proper channels to make sure the technique isn’t abused.
Of course, if we just hold them indefinitely with no due process, there is increased risk that the image of injustice that the nation presents to the world will justify attacks in the minds of terrorists.
Your tradeoff, b-cup is based on a lot of your signature false choices and false narratives. You have not disappointed us today.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pmYou just blew my mind.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pmBackup’s position: Constitutional rights when convenient. Torture when it isn’t. Morality is situational. The other side aren’t human.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmCheney is evil reincarnated. He’s still trying to keep Americans in fear – what a sick old man. I’m kind of glad that CNN keeps Dickhead talking – we need to know what crazy Cheney is up to at all times. We need to make sure he’s not planning another September 11th attack. Anybody that has “luv” and respect for Rush – is suspect to me!
March 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmIf we decide to not torture (I believe we should not torture) whatever intel we would get from that, we would not get.
This assumes other methods aren’t as effective. There is no evidence to support this assertion.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmCan you spell pitiful, Archie? I knew you could.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pmhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2005/0531sold.htm
March 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pmArchie – show some gratitude – Bill Clinton kept you safe for all 8 years.
More than can be said for your fake cowboy cheerleader.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:25 pmcheap shots from a cheaper excuse for a troll.
the barrel’s very bottom.
i figured Archie is what that would sound like.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pmI don’t think we should waterboard, but I think the verdict is out on whether it is effective in getting useful information.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1
March 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pmb-cup, waterboarding is torture by any definition. OF COURSE WE SHOULDN’T USE IT!
March 15th, 2009 at 6:31 pmUh, he was a bit tied up……cigar ring any bells?
Yours, apparently.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:32 pmralph. if it’s black and white that Bush’s policies were ineffective, why is Obama clinging to many of the same policies?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html
March 15th, 2009 at 6:32 pmUh, he was a bit tied up……cigar ring any bells?
–
March 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pmLike the one I can shove in and out of your ass whenever I please?
I agree that we cannot detain those at Gitmo indefinitely. That’s why I support them getting a trial.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pmRalph, will you please smack this silly troll, once and for all? He is terrified of dbadass, ignores me and must think you are the nice cop.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:34 pmFrom b-cup’s link:
“Kiriakou said he did not know that the interrogation of Zubaydah was being secretly recorded by the CIA and had no idea the tapes had been destroyed.”
Gee, b-cup. Too bad the tapes were destroyed. if we still had them we could verify that “the threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks”.
Now I guess we’ll just have to take the administration’s word for it.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmb-cup please show where I said “it’s black and white that Bush’s policies were ineffective” or STFU.
More of your stupid false narrative games.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pmAnd although Obama is closing Gitmo, why is he continuing a similar policy in Afghanistan:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_continues_Bush_policy_at_Afghan_0221.html
I don’t think this tradeoff between security and rights is all that simple. Otherwise, Obama would not be continuing the practices.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pmFrom b-cups’ link “From that day on, he answered every question,” Kiriakou said. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”
But of course, we must rely upon their honesty, knowing their torture of Zubayda was likely among the destroyed tapes the CIA has acknowledged, after this report was aired.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pmHere’s an article that sums up many of the areas that Obama has continued Bush policy:
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/02/26/news/nation/doc49a68f0714f4b550407976.txt
The question is obvious. Is Obama somehow as evil or wrongheaded as Bush? Or are there factors that we are unaware of that cause the administrations to make the decisions they do.
I suggest that both men, Bush and Obama, work to keep the country secure. I think sometimes they believe that certain limits to liberty are worth compromising for security.
I do not think they want to deny people rights. I just believe that in their circumstance – actually being responsible for the nation’s security- it is the lesser of two evils.
Otherwise, why would Obama continue the same policies?
March 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pmLet’s try a second option, b-cup. Maybe what President Obama has discovered about Gitmo is so heinous and horrifying he is shifting it to a back burner because the economic mess is also so massive he has to set priorities.
Either that or the aliens from Arcturus have drawn his attention and sucked the brains out of his head like they did George.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pmAnd you.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:57 pmCome on, Hoodathunk. Progressives are really more principled but Obama is just distracted with the economy?
Is that covered in the case for walking and chewing gum?
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/
March 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmSorry that I was away for a long time.
But reading your responses b-cup.
(I’m finding it really hard not to insult you)
You’re smart enough to know the Constitution, but you still try to justify torture.
You understand how Revenge/hatred works but you’ll still try to exclude that as a reason.
You want to believe that in Gitmo everyone there are terrorist or the ones that leaves.
Even when you’re proven wrong, you’ll say there were lack of evidence.
Seems to me like you know you’re wrong but you wish you were right.
And instead of changing your stance you rather spin/tweak reality/facts in order to somehow boost your argument.
Considering everyone hear knows of that BS it won’t get you far.
You remind me of a BillOreilly person.
When you realize you lost the argument, you’ll say that you agree with the person and then in the next sentence place a BUT argument (self contradicting).
And then try to get on a different topic.
You’re a very predictable R person.
I personaly believe(hope I’m right) that even you don’t believe the BS you’re trying to potray.
Like I said before.
Fact is Bush ignored 9/11 warning that Bill Clinton left(wich means the intelligence were FINE there were no fuking need for torture to get “good intelligence”)
Bush tried to fix something that wasn’t broken and made us less safe, it’s that simple.
Acusing someone for doing something he didn’t do and putting him on the brink of death for years and expecting him to leave in “peace” when he is freed is simply uncommen infact it’s expectable it’s simply emotions.
You can try and twist it as much as you want but no one other then your Far Right would believe you, heck I’ve many Ron Paul supporters friends and even they would disagree with you.
Before you respond to this comment please instead of putting the parts where you”agree” with me simply respond with the “but argument”
March 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pmDariana. If what you believe is so clear cut, why is President Obama continuing many of the same policies that Progressives lamented Bush for?
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/02/26/news/nation/doc49a68f0714f4b550407976.txt
From the link:
and this:
Dariana. It’s possible that you have been listening to only one side so long, you can’t conceive of any other possibility.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pmbackup. backup. backup…I didn’t say distracted. I said priorities. If the house is burning down one doesn’t worry about who started the fire until after the fire is out. Pay attention, little boy.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pmPut the traitor, war criminal Cheney in prison.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:13 pmSomething else to think about.
If it is so obvious that the Bush administration’s activities were criminal, why aren’t they being indicted?
There is a strong majority in the House and Senate. There is a Democratic President.
The Bush administration had all time high disapproval ratings.
The new leadership has not only the motivation to pursue indictment, but the moral obligation.
Why isn’t it happening?
Maybe, it’s because the the allegations that are taken for granted here are based on half the truth.
Otherwise, why isn’t Cheney on trial, instead of on CNN?
I am open to listen to other possibilities.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pmbackup, did you miss my last post? Priorities. Obama has been in charge for less than 3 months and he has already overturned many of the previous administrations lesser offenses. Give it time, boy.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:17 pmBackup, care to bet that by the end of the year your precious previous administration will be lawyered up?
March 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pmI didn’t think so.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pmbackup Says:
Personally I believe that our president fear the risk of their being another attack while our economy is screwed, not simply from terrorist but from the likes of Dick Chaney.
The loss would be too high.
Not removing a policy now doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be removed later, remember he just got in.
And of course what I think of that would be pure speculation.
Just like you’re doing speculating and making excuses for Bush.
At Least try not to act like you know for a fact that what you think/speculating is fact.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pmIt’s like conspiracy in creation.
Hah. I finally found this:
http://www.cdi.org/blair/hair-trigger-dangers.cfm
There is more to the threat of nuclear terrorism than a few bad actors with a nuclear bomb. Combating the threat requires global cooperation and the work of experts in nuclear activities, such as the Red Team experts that made this discovery and spies (like Valerie Plame). Lots of very well informed and experienced people are always working to do what they can to mitigate the threat.
Cheney bellowing like the Team B drama queen that he is does nothing to mitigate the threat.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:40 pmb-cup, why don’t you just come right out and say what you’re trying to say, without building strawmen like “if it’s so black and white” or your implied “either all of Bush’s policies were bad, or none of them were”?
Why don’t you just come out and say, “Torture kept me safe; I’m all for anything that keeps me safe”?
Yeah, yeah, you’ve said you don’t think we should torture. But you think there’s a “trade-off”. You also said you weren’t defending Rush Limbaugh, either, but you spent eighteen hours one day doing just that.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:41 pmHoodathunk, if I may indulge in some b-cup thinking:
No. Either Obama reverses everything NOW or NONE of Bush’s policies were bad.
It’s black or white, doncha know.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pmYeah, yeah, you’ve said you don’t think we should torture. But you think there’s a “trade-off”. You also said you weren’t defending Rush Limbaugh, either, but you spent eighteen hours one day doing just that.
Exectly he’ll say he agrees with something and play a “but argument” that contradicts it I’ve seen it to many times now…
March 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pmHoodathunk, Yeah, while waterboarding him!
re: field telephone
Alas, Cheney is untouchable. He’s connected and protected. Hell, he got to keep his testimony to the 9/11 coverup commission a secret: not under oath, no recordings or notes. That takes some serious clout! He could shoot someone in the presence of witnesses and get away with it. Oh… wait…
March 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pmI am open to listen to other possibilities.
You do know the old saying about pissin’ in the wind, right?
Then again, the color yellow really looks good on you.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pmbackup Says:
the argument is that due to 9/11 the response to the situation changed.
So, if Russia were attacked by Saudis trained in Afghanistan and financed by Pakistan–it would be perfectly all right with you for Russia to invade and occupy IRAQ and Afghanistan forever—and control their oil and gas, of course???
March 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pmSo, b-cup… were you able to pinpoint where I had said “it’s black and white that Bush’s policies were ineffective” or was that another one in a long string of b-cup strawmen?
March 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pmDid anyone actually read the link that b-cup is touting as exposing “many of the same policies that Progressives lamented Bush for”?
Here’s the second one listed:
Mr. Obama continued another Bush policy the day after his inauguration when his Justice Department filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a long-running lawsuit that sought to force the Bush administration to recover as many as 15 million missing White House e-mails. The Bush administration had done the same thing.
White House emails.
That has what exactly to do with terrorism, b-cup?
Is that really the way you want to prove your case? Or were you just counting on people to not bother checking out your link?
Perhaps this was another attempt at the patented b-cup Mission Creep?
Lame. Very lame.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pmArchie B Says:
1) Did Bill Clinton use his presidential authority to invade Iraq?
Uh, he was a bit tied up……cigar ring any bells?
I remember very clearly, Clinton sending a missile attack on al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and every single Republican squealed “Wag the dog—he’s trying to distract us from Monica!”. Richard Clarke said that Clinton did much to go after al Qaeda and Bush did absolutely nothing.
And remember, it was Reagan, GHWBush, and our CIA that built up al Qaeda in the first place. And our good buds, the Pakistanis (who really do have WMD).
March 15th, 2009 at 8:28 pmThe Bush administration bragging that they kept us safe since 9/11 is like an airline bragging that a flight from New York to Los Angeles got 90% of the way to its destination.
There is also the destruction of and neglect of New Orleans. I don’t remember any major cities being lost under Clinton.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pmFollowing Cheney on the CNN show was ex-Admiral JOE SESTAK:
“What (Cheney)’s actually suggesting is that we have to continue to compromise on what is actually the source of Americans’ greatness, our principles, in order to protect those principles, rather than admitting that what’s really endangering our national security today is a military that is so overstretched from the tragic misadventure in Iraq that we can’t even, John, respond to any other contingency in this world, and an economy that’s in tatters and is actually causing a global recession; most of all, that the power of our ideals is one that this world no longer looks to us in order to implement across the globe.
How can we say that keeping a man in a black hole forever, perpetually in a black hole, and say, let’s torture when we decide to, is what America stands for?
We’re a nation of laws, not of men in the executive branch that interpret it.”
March 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pmIsn’t this like yelling “fire” in a theater that isn’t on fire?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:15 pmgood progressives,
stupid backup.
nice thread.
**
March 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pmkeith,
i donated to admiral’s sestak’s campaign.
he is everything that throwup is not.
***
March 15th, 2009 at 11:34 pmWhy is this warmongering war-criminal not rotting in a prison cell somewhere instead of spreading his, propaganda, lies, fear and vile on the airwaves?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:44 am.
D!ck Cheney = MURDERER!
.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:53 amLet me see,
Bush and Cheney protected us with their special decision making abilities on 9/11 and the Anhrax attack there after.
After that he protected us by painting target bullseyes on our soldiers and sending into Iraq..
March 16th, 2009 at 2:39 amMr. Chaney, give it up already! You and your buddy George have tried to scare this country for the last eight years, that threat has literally worn very thin. In case you don’t know, you don’t run the country any longer, so just go back to where you were counting all of the proceeds you made from the “so called war” and consider yourself lucky that you aren’t in a prison somewhere.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:39 amI believe that now that the Terrorists-in-Chief, Bush and Cheney, are gone, there will be no more attacks.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:02 amHere again, we have the OLD regime touting the same lines they used when they were in office.
It is like they WANT someone to attack America, just so they can say they were right.
They all needs to crawl back into their holes and stay there.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:42 amThey’re back to the drawing board orchestrating their next staged terrorist attack. BushCheney Terrorist Co. no one locks them up they’ll be back!
March 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pmHe is the scum layer on the bottom of a cesspool that has never once been cleaned out.
I’ve heard that when Cheney’s not on camera he doesn’t walk on two feet; he actually slithers about.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pmCheney was in charge of Air Defense on 911.
Figures.
911=Inside Job
March 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pmThe plans of evil men will find futility.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pmhere is my response to this story, in a comic strip!
http://www.jeremywinslife.com/2009/03/17/cheneys-vengeance/
March 17th, 2009 at 1:14 amSpeaking of Barack Obama: LONG LIVE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!
Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:
I know it may be hard to believe.
However, it is absolutely true that Ronald Wilson Reagan committed horrible, racist, hate crimes during his presidency.
A lot of people know about Reagan’s infamy.
And a lot of people will know about Reagan’s infamy—even until the end of human existence: they’ll find out.
Numbers 32:23: “Be sure your sins will find you out.”
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. And there are thousands of copies in very many countries around the world.)
March 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm_________________
‘If only there could be a BAN against invention that bottled up memories like scent so they never faded & they never got stale.’ (Once again, please consider an illustrative analogy: like scent that is held in or restrained or inhibited or suppressed or bottled up.) It came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.