Cheney: ‘It’s Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I’ve Never Done That’
Cheney: ‘It’s Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I’ve Never Done That’
Since leaving office, Vice President Cheney has launched unrelenting and baseless attacks on President Obama — a stark contrast from his former boss, President Bush. Last month, he told CNN that Obama is “making some choices that…raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” referring to the President’s decisions to close Guantanamo and end torture. He then suggested Obama was deceiving the American public:
Q: Is the president of the United States trying to brazenly deceive the American people?
CHENEY: Well, I think they’ve taken liberties, if you will, with the arguments.
In an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night, Cheney continued his diatribe against the President. Echoing a frequent right-wing talking point, Cheney said Obama was “so busy apologizing for past U.S. behavior” abroad in recent weeks, and he criticized Obama’s conversations with Hugo Chavez. Some highlights from the interview:
– “But what I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth.”
– “We’ve seen a lot of decisions made, especially in this administration with respect to the war on terror, which is no longer a war on terror, it’s an overseas contingency operation.”
– “You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond. And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it’s not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard.”
But Cheney then offered a particularly puzzling assessment of his recent media appearances. “I think there is — it’s important not to personally attack the new president. I’ve never done that,” he claimed. Watch a compilation of Cheney’s attacks on Obama:
In an interview with Politico shortly after Obama’s inauguration, Cheney suggested that Obama officials were “turning the other cheek” against terrorism and were unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” on detainee policy. Cheney claimed that administration officials were “more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States.”
But apparently, none of this is “personal” in Cheney’s eyes.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You’ve got plenty to apologize for.
Here’s some advice, creep: SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:32 amIf we could only get Dick(head) to try this.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:34 amhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/playboy-journo-bets-he-ca_n_189280.html
There is a special throne in hell waiting for that man…
April 21st, 2009 at 10:35 amGo f uck yourself, Dick.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:35 amSee it’s all good because in Cheney’s world he defines the words- The Dick didn’t “personally” attack our sitting President, as in criticize his choice of tie or haircut or what he ate for lunch. In what’s left of Darth’s mind it’s a different category entirely. All good.
PLEASE SOMEONE REMOVE THE FORMER VEEP FROM MY TV.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:36 amWhy hasn’t this criminal been arrested yet?
April 21st, 2009 at 10:36 amCheney is a perfect example of man’s inhumanity to man. How we can dare call ourselves intelligent beings while continuing to allow this cretin to walk free is beyond me.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:37 amHow is Cheney not in prison already for treason in the Valerie Plame scandal?!
There must have been a clause in his deal with the devil that stated that he would remain untouchable by mortal authorities during and after his vice presidency.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:37 amCheney is only defending the decisions made during his presidency.. er… I mean…VICE presidency.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:37 amSorry DICK, but you made this personal when you chose not to stand for the swearing in of our country’s first “black” president.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:38 amI see you’ve been making your rounds on Faux Newz since.
Back not hurting anymore?
Mucking foron!
Dickard Cheeney is the most beautiful, supple vice president known to man. The rest of conservatism is Lean Cuisine when veep is in the room! Keep trucking, HUNGRY MAN!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:38 amRAISE YOUR HAND if you’d like to see Cheney spend one night in GITMO, starting with RENDITION . .
April 21st, 2009 at 10:40 amtransbate, you’ve gone from not being funny to now just being stupid.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:40 amPlease stop.
You’re only embarrassing yourself, even with you self parody.
Cheney: ‘It’s Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I’ve Never Done That’
– - This qualifies as a groveling mea culpa apology from Dick.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 amDid Stephen King create Dick Cheney? He’s that creepy.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 amCheney is a g*dd*mned f**king liar. It’s what he does best.
So is Uncle Newtie.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:43 amTo my fellow republicans who want Dick out of the way so you can “rebuild”: Watch your rhetoric. There is NOTHING to rebuild in my gorgeous party. Give credit where credit is owed (hint: the wonderful dick) or else you’re on one-way coach to Gitmo.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:43 amI would be more alarmed if Cheney was praising President Obama. The fact that Obama’s got Cheney on the verge of a stroke means he must be doing the right thing. Keep it up, Mr. President. It’s change I can believe in.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:43 amChainee: “…with respect to the war on terror, which is no longer a war on terror, it’s an overseas contingency operation.”
Oh, excuse me, Dick.
I suppose a quail hunting accident is now to be termed an upland game bird mis-identification incident.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:44 amDRxJ, nobody’s embarrassing themselves just because you want to project your status as a stubborn ass. Get off the computer for a while and cool off.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am“But what I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth.”
Yep, it is sad that we have to apologize to the entire world for all of your screw ups!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:45 amMost likely suspect
April 21st, 2009 at 10:45 amAlways points the other way
Simply ignore him
Well, if you think thatkilling 100’s of 1000’s of innocents isn’t “much to apologize for”, then I guess he’s right.
Idiot.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:45 amCheney’s trying to whitewash himself by attacking President Obama. It’s not working. The more he talks the more those skeleton bones come flying out of his treacherous mouth.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:45 amAbsolutely nothin new here. Cheney doing what he’s alwasy done best.
Lying every time he opens his foul trap.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 amWhat universe is this sick bastard living in? I guess after 8 years of never being challenged on any lie he ever uttered, Deadeye thinks he can lie with impunity now. I hope when this evil bastard finally dies that his departure is most painful and slow.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 amCheney: ‘It’s Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I’ve Never Done That’
Other great Cheneyisms:
“I was not drunk when I shot him in the face.”
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am“Waterboarding someone (183 times) is not torture.”
“Saddam Hussein poses an immediate threat to our country’s well being”
“Iraq has had continuous ties to Al Qaeda.”
And, overheard that fateful day…
“HELP ME! HELP ME! SOMEONE HIDE ME! WE’RE UNDER ATTACK! WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!!!”
What does Cheney consider to be a personal attack? It appears he’s been making his criticisms specifically about President Obama’s actions. To some, those would qualify as “personal” attacks, as opposed to criticism about our current foreign policy in general.
Maybe Cheney thinks an attack isn’t personal unless it has something to do with the way a guy flosses his teeth, or something.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:47 amCould someone please explain in simple, clear language how and why President Chavez and President Ortega are threats to the US?
April 21st, 2009 at 10:47 amGod help me, I HATE that “man.”
April 21st, 2009 at 10:48 amstateofthedivision Says:
You know, I was beginning to wonder the same thing. The man ‘thing’ Cheeeney is even creepier when he smiles. Yikes!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:50 amtransbate, hold me! You’re so strong!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:50 amDRxJ, it’s important for you to know that jealousy of our former veep will not advance any good causes you may have in mind.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:50 amIf Chainee thinks the Bush “administration” doesn’t have much to apologize for, he’s (a) mistaken; and (b) admitting that they do have something to apologize for.
We’re waiting, Dick…
April 21st, 2009 at 10:50 am“transbate” — and our liberal thinks he’s the arbiter of humor.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:51 amCheney is only relevant because the press makes him so.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:52 amYou guys talk about Dick Cheney like he is some kind of creepy old bastard; Like he is something in the toilet that won’t flush and go away; Like he is some old draft-dodger from the 1960’s who knocked up his wife Lynn in order to get a draft deferment. Like he is a Dick in every sense of the word.
Do I need to remind everyone here he was the leader of the country for at least 6 years until junior matured enough to shoulder some responsibility? Jeeeze!
I mean, same on all of you.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:52 amEmperor Palpatine is not more evil-appearing than Cheney – his every snarl, grunt, insult and breath are all like some horrific movie villian out of the feverish dreams of a George Lucas. The question is, how could Republicans have ever tolerated this guy in the slightest? It’s like they’re saying “yeah, we totally respect the opinion of Vice President Sauron. I like his policy proposals, myself.” And we’re all pointing at him with our jaws on the floor going “LOOK! EVIL VILLIAN! DON’T LISTEN TO HIM!” and they’re all like “duhh you pinko commie liberals don’t like him… so he’s our hero! All hail Vice President Sauron!”
And then they get gwumpy when we call them stupid.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:52 amWe already know that Cheney is a hypocrite and a liar. But maybe he’s coming down with Alzheimer’s, too.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:53 amStart impeachment proceedings now, President Obama.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:54 amLadies and gentlemen, the Stephen Colbert of Think Progress, Joe Sixpack!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:56 amWhere ya been Joe? Haven’t seen you here lately. Welcome back!
Cheney: ‘It’s Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I haven’t told him to go fu(k himself yet.’
April 21st, 2009 at 10:56 amWHY does this fat slob have an airtight hazmat suit in his limo, briefcase and tucked inside his underwear?
Is it that he’s just a sniveling coward?
April 21st, 2009 at 10:58 amJoe Sixpack Says:
You guys talk about Dick Cheney like he is some kind of creepy old bastard; Like he is something in the toilet that won’t flush and go away; Like he is some old draft-dodger from the 1960’s who knocked up his wife Lynn in order to get a draft deferment. Like he is a Dick in every sense of the word.
Do I need to remind everyone here he was the leader of the country for at least 6 years until junior matured enough to shoulder some responsibility? Jeeeze!
I mean, same on all of you.
**Extended applauding and whistling***
Well stated, sir!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:59 amDelusional Dick, please go to Wyoming and shoot some caged birds near your bunker.
Warped and pathetic old man.
He’s reminding me of Daniel Day Lewis in the bowling alley scene in There Will Be Blood.
-G
April 21st, 2009 at 11:00 amstateofthedivision Says:
Did Stephen King create Dick Cheney? He’s that creepy.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
___________
Nah, can’t be. Stephen King’s villains at least have some redeeming humanity.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:02 amYou don’t get the humor Translate to Gibberish. Joe Sixpack is not a troll. Do I have to translate the humor to you?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:02 amThe executive branch has been the PERFECT fit for Dick, the right platform for his compatibilities. Since it’s the action branch — from his positions as WH CoS, SecDef and Veep — there’s always something (or someone) for him to execute.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:04 amHere’s your lean mean veep, crankbait…
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/89c5b90369_cheney.jpg
Goodness, is he bowing?
LOL
P.S. This photo was taken just about the time oil hit $100.00 a barrel…
April 21st, 2009 at 11:05 amAndy Card was on Morning Joe today and when Chris Matthews pressed him on the August 6th PDB about “bin Laden determined to attack inside the US” Card simply repeated the lie Rice has told over and over again that there was no actionable intelligence in that PDB. Well, that PDB spelled out use of commercial airliners as a possible tool. Why were not the airlines and air terminals alerted to this alarming report? Is that not actionable intelligence. Bush, Cheney Rice and Card were asleep at the wheel and 3,000 Americans died.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:05 amWill this chickenshit, lying SOB Dick Cheney ever come out from under this rock of Ruppert Murdoch and his band of merry assassins and be “interviewed” by someone unbiased? I can’t wait to soon see him performing at The Hague! Oh how I can’t wait to see that.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am#41, Mr. Evil: Been in Mexico a while. And in and out of here at times, looking for a troll or two to pick on. Seems the posters here have run most of them off, or else the trolls are so depressed having Obama and dems take over that they are all busy moving to Texas in hopes the state will succeed from the union. Nice to see all the old names still here and some new ones with great posts.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:09 amWell, Mr. Evil, you presume to know how I interpreted JS’s post, yet you can’t even interpret my post. I think you should take a step back and rethink your reflexive barking.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:09 amI strongly disagree with Cheney: there is no reason whatsoever to not attack the new President personally. The new President is a neo-Marxist starting on a path of destroying a fair and just society.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:13 amDick has given more interviews in the few months since he retired than he did during his entire Presiency. The Dick spent eight years blocking the release of any document whether it was classified or not. Now Dick is requesting the release of sensitive CIA documents in the hope of justifying his authorization of torture. I tell you what Dick, you release the thousands of e-mails of yours that went mysteriously missing and then we’ll talk. F ucking traitorous criminal. As a matter of fact Dick, it doesn’t matter one wit what might be in those CIA documents and do you know why? Because TORTURE IS WAR CRIMEL, YOU AUTHORIZED IT AND YOU ARE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES! Suck on it Dick, you broke the law with wanton abandon during your eight year power and money grabbing spree for yourself and your cronies. Reckoning day will soon come be it by a US or an International court and I hope to God that you are still alive to witness the scorn of the world and the justice that fate holds for you! So don’t go dying yet Dick, we’re not through with you by a long shot you snarling repugnant piece of shit!
April 21st, 2009 at 11:14 am10hourday Says:
You must work the graveyard shift, eh?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:15 amGet some sleep.
Hey DICK, will you please please go back to that secret hiding place they kept you in for eight years, please please!
Now that he’s not kept under lock and key, we can expect the ramblings of this mad man from time to time.
Cheney = Why don’t your take your Halliburton billions and do us all a favor and move to Dubai!
http://alice.bigbig.com/
April 21st, 2009 at 11:15 amInOnTheFly Says:
“Will this chickenshit, lying SOB Dick Cheney ever come out from under this rock of Ruppert Murdoch and his band of merry assassins and be “interviewed” by someone unbiased?”
He was interviewed on CNN last month by John King. Oh, you said “unbiased”. Sorry, my bad…
April 21st, 2009 at 11:17 amDallasNE Says:
Andy Card was on Morning Joe today and when Chris Matthews pressed him on the August 6th PDB about “bin Laden determined to attack inside the US” Card simply repeated the lie Rice has told over and over again that there was no actionable intelligence in that PDB. Well, that PDB spelled out use of commercial airliners as a possible tool. Why were not the airlines and air terminals alerted to this alarming report? Is that not actionable intelligence. Bush, Cheney Rice and Card were asleep at the wheel and 3,000 Americans died.
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. How should we of acted on this intelligence?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am“How should we of acted on this intelligence?”
Andy Card was wearing a suit coat, and couldn’t roll up his sleeves and get to work.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:24 amJoe,
April 21st, 2009 at 11:25 amI think most of the trolls have either done away with themselves or been committed to mental institutions. The quality of those remaining around here has seriously declined. None of them have a working relationship with reality. Aside from the pathetic hit and run types, they are mostly Republicans who are so ashamed that they claim to be Libertarians. There are also a few drones from the Competitive Enterprise Institute who just show up to spew propaganda on climate change threads.
noseeum Says:
“How should we of acted on this intelligence?”
Andy Card was wearing a suit coat, and couldn’t roll up his sleeves and get to work.
I don’t understand your comment.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:25 amtranslate to neoconish Says:
Well, Mr. Evil, you presume to know how I interpreted JS’s post, yet you can’t even interpret my post. I think you should take a step back and rethink your reflexive barking.
Or you could step back and see that your shtick is lame and weak. No one but yourself appears to be amused, so perhaps you could take it somewhere else. Try redstate.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:26 amWell, Joe, I hope it was pleasure instead of work.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:27 amI don’t understand your comment.
So?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:27 amindependent989, at least two things that could have been done which doesn’t take any afterthought:
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 amPut the airlines on alert and if you’re Dick Cheney DO NOT issue a “stand down” order to NORAD in order to play war games with their system so soon after such a threat was announced. Oh and thirdly, coordinate the existing intel between all agencies to see if more info is allready available to you. Oh and fourthly as President of the United States maybe come back from your f ucking vacation instead of dismissing the messenger bringing you this intel by stating, “allright you did your job, that’s all”. All told 989, there was much that could have been done but doing nothing prooved disasterous to our nation…but offered quite an extraordinary opportunity for Dick Cheney and the neocons at PNAC who ironically were looking for a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to push their agenda.
independent989 Says:
DallasNE Says:
Andy Card was on Morning Joe today and when Chris Matthews pressed him on the August 6th PDB about “bin Laden determined to attack inside the US” Card simply repeated the lie Rice has told over and over again that there was no actionable intelligence in that PDB. Well, that PDB spelled out use of commercial airliners as a possible tool. Why were not the airlines and air terminals alerted to this alarming report? Is that not actionable intelligence. Bush, Cheney Rice and Card were asleep at the wheel and 3,000 Americans died.
Am I missing something or did YOU miss something:
Why were not the airlines and air terminals alerted to this alarming report?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 amindependant989 Says:
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. How should we of acted on this intelligence?
Yes you are, but I’ll bite.
First off, we should have been on high alert during that fateful month leading up to 9/11. Extremely high alert.
Second, intelligence had shown that many terrorists had wanted to fly jet airliners into major buildings or monuments (Eiffel tower. Hell, even the gunman at Columbine wrote in his journal about hijacking a plane and crashing it into the buildings of NYC. That was 1999!)
Third, there were concerns about students taking flying lessons, some of which cared little, if not at all, for landing and take off.
Finally, and most importantly, Richard Clarke was so concerned about a major terrorist attack on US soil, he made it his most importance to the incoming administration, which was ignored.
Had the administration paid attention to the previous concerns, and not try to distance itself, maybe MAYBE they would have investigated all concerns instead of vacationing, and maybe MAYBE 3000 of our countrymen would still be alive today.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 amnoseeum Says:
I don’t understand your comment.
So?
Well as long as you are intelligently engaging…
April 21st, 2009 at 11:30 amtranslate to neoconish Says:
Every time I see Cheney I take a step back and resume my reflexive barfing.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:30 amA Patriotic Anopheles Acting Says:
“Put the airlines on alert and if you’re Dick Cheney DO NOT issue a “stand down” order to NORAD in order to play war games with their system so soon after such a threat was announced.
On the very day of the attacks.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:31 amHow odd…
To quote the good Dr. Rachel Maddow;
“BULLPUCKEY!”
April 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am“Baseless attacks on Obama?” Every criticism made by Cheney has been voiced by many others. Latest polls show that nearly one half of all Americans share the concerns Cheney raises. Why the irrational childish rage by the Left in hearing any criticism of their neo-Marxist messiah?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:34 amIndependent, over the last eight years cons have acted against the intelligence (i.e. invading Iraq) but are still in remedial mode when it comes to serving as a respectful buffer of the intelligence agencies. It’s not so much the memo itself as it coupling the Bush CYA snark to the official who delivered it and his do-away with the Clinton administration’s anti-terrorism strategy.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:34 amindependent989 Says:
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. How should we of acted on this intelligence?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
___________
Beefing up security at major airport terminals, for one thing. Just the display of increased security may have prompted the hijackers to abort the operation.
They also could have shared information between the various agencies that had intelligence about suspicious men at flight training schools and suspicious money transfers and weren’t talking to each other due to bureaucratic turf battles.
And if all that still failed, they could’ve listened to Richard Clarke and focused on al-Qa’ida rather than going off and invading the wrong country.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:36 amWow! Great to see you here again Joe sixpack…Thanks for posting…Blessings
April 21st, 2009 at 11:38 amA Patriotic Anopheles Acting Says
but offered quite an extraordinary opportunity for Dick Cheney and the neocons at PNAC who ironically were looking for a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to push their agenda.
I always wondered how only on one day 4 jumbo jets totally disentigrate along with all their contents and passengers, and yet one of the alleged hijackers passports was found conveniently on the sidewalk below, completely unscathed, before the first WTC building collapsed. Sort of reminds you of a bullet that once went through two bodies and several bones only to be found the next day on a hospital gourney, also, completely unscathed.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am10hourday Says:
Why the irrational childish rage by the Left in hearing any criticism of their neo-Marxist messiah?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
__________
Any attack on Obama containing the word “neo-Marxist” is thoroughly baseless. There’s nothing remotely Marxist, communist, or even socialist about his agenda.
And please don’t whine to us about “childish rage” over Obama being criticized. There are plenty of REAL issues for which Obama can and should be criticized, and anyone who follows this board can see us on the left voicing concerns about his administration’s policies on a daily basis. There’s no need for you all to make shit up.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:40 amSomething else Cheney/Bush could have done to try to prevent 9/11/2001: Pay attention to a jihadist already in custody at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui
Zacarias Moussaoui
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation[15]. Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing’s 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[15]
Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[16] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui’s personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion “Spike” Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.
FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:
If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:41 amThe nest of basters that was in control the last 8 years should be tried for high crimes and some for treason. Most all never served in the military, but they love war as long as there not on the front lines, COWARDS.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:42 am10hourday Says:
——————————————————————————–
I strongly disagree with Cheney: there is no reason whatsoever to not attack the new President personally. The new President is a neo-Marxist starting on a path of destroying a fair and just society.
Whack! Whack! Whack!
Sorry fellow TPers, it doesn’t seem to be getting through.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:42 am10secondhandpiss;
April 21st, 2009 at 11:42 amyou, snoozepup, & translate have been sniffing dog butts at your circle jerk again, haven’t you?
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
And besides, we’ve tried unbridled capitalism and proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it doesn’t work either!
April 21st, 2009 at 11:43 amindependent989, another way to look at it is, let’s say you’re a family man. And as we know, good fathers protect there families.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:43 amNow, it’s a midsummer day. Humidity is high. Temps are mid 90s. The barometric pressure is up. This is prime for thunderstorms and possible tornado activity.
The alerts have been made via radio, internet and television of an impending, massive storm.
But,
you refuse to listen because you don’t like technology, and are trying to distance yourself from it.
The phone rings, it’s a relative, telling you to take shelter immediately because the storm is a doozy. You say yes, you’ll take it under consideration, and then you take you children to the beach???
Now, how is this not your fault (for not paying attention)?
Mr. Evil Says:
I always wondered how only on one day 4 jumbo jets totally disentigrate along with all their contents and passengers, and yet one of the alleged hijackers passports was found conveniently on the sidewalk below, completely unscathed, before the first WTC building collapsed.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am
_____________
In terms of pure physics, I think it’s certainly possible. The planes punched through those towers rather quickly, raining cockpit debris out the other side of the building. The fuel tanks are all behind the cockpit, so it’s possible for a passport in the pocket of one of the hijackers to have been ejected before the fireball even started.
Highly improbable? Sure. Extremely convenient? Definitely. But not impossible.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:46 amchiroptera toasterhead
“..anyone who follows this board can see us on the left voicing concerns about his administration’s policies on a daily basis..”
Now here is something made up! Show one example of this.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:46 amDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
independant989 Says:
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. How should we of acted on this intelligence?
Yes you are, but I’ll bite.
First off, we should have been on high alert during that fateful month leading up to 9/11. Extremely high alert.
What in the memo indicates that we should have been on Extremely High alert? Isn’t the action of being on Extremely high alert only used for short periods of time, since, it would seem, vast resources need to be used to keep watch on and react to every possible threat or Quasi threat? Is there any data to show how many memo’s are/were received on a daily/weekly basis that were like this one. The info would seem to be pretty general. Not sure how a high alert would have helped. What happens when you go on high alert? What are the actions during that high alert that would have kept these sh*tbags from getting on the planes and carrying out their missions?
Second, intelligence had shown that many terrorists had wanted to fly jet airliners into major buildings or monuments (Eiffel tower. Hell, even the gunman at Columbine wrote in his journal about hijacking a plane and crashing it into the buildings of NYC. That was 1999!)
So how do you keep that from happening? What should the government have done in the 90’s and early 2000’s to keep this from happening?
Third, there were concerns about students taking flying lessons, some of which cared little, if not at all, for landing and take off.
Who had the concerns? The instructors? Gov officials? If Gov, what would you have had the Gov do? Go interrogate the guys who wanted to learn how to fly but did not express as much concern for landing? Can you imagine how the ACLU would react? Big bad US hassling some more defenseless little Brown people trying to improve their lives by learning a new skill.
Finally, and most importantly, Richard Clarke was so concerned about a major terrorist attack on US soil, he made it his most importance to the incoming administration, which was ignored.
Was he concerned by actionable intelligence? If so why did he not go to the papers and say here is my evidence. You all need to understand and ask the gov to take action. If not actionable, then what would you have the gov do?
Had the administration paid attention to the previous concerns, and not try to distance itself, maybe MAYBE they would have investigated all concerns instead of vacationing, and maybe MAYBE 3000 of our countrymen would still be alive today.
I believe this to be a simplistic statement. Was the gov on vacation from 8/16 – 9/11?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am10hourday, is that how much you jerk off near your computer whilst listening to Oxybreath?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:48 amBecause, you’ve brought nothing to the post of significance (and facts).
Nothing.
Spoken from the real Axis of Evil. Ever wonder how and what Cheney would do if one of his grand kids was kidnapped and tortured by a terrorist. Just thinking about that as he is so proud of his conduct and murdering people. It’s so easy to do things to others and justify it while never wanting it done to your love ones. Chaney and Bush had Satan on their side for 8 years, Obama/Biden have God on their side, let’s see how this works out. Yes I know the Christians who say they have followed God were clueless to it really being Satan but Chavez picked the smell up right away.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:49 amAgain, someone please remind me how to tell the difference between “ordinary” pathos and serious mental illness.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:50 amA dick by any other name is still a dick.
FCUK OFF AND DIE, NOW, YOU TRAITOROUS, OLD, DYING PIECE OF SHIT.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am10hourday Says:
Now here is something made up! Show one example of this.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
_____________
Try looking at EVERY THREAD about Obama “looking forward rather than backward,” and pledging not to prosecute CIA agents for torture.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:51 amWTF does “if you will” mean anyway? I think it means “I’m a belligerent jackass trying to sound like a reasonable person.”
April 21st, 2009 at 11:53 amWas the gov on vacation from 8/16 – 9/11?
Obviously, but still waiting for their “official excuse”.
Remember the Botchco Admin NEVER apologized for letting down so many good Americans on 9/11.
NEVER.
So I shall NEVER FORGET to damn them to hell for their unabashed friendship with the Saudi terrorists.
NEVER.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:53 amindependent989,
April 21st, 2009 at 11:53 amyour rebuttal was countered before you even posted. Please read toasterhead’s. Mine was generalized, his was specific.
This quote from Thucydides was posted on TN Coates’ site in response to the torture scandal. This strikes me as the epitome of the Cheney Doctrine: “Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected.”
April 21st, 2009 at 11:54 amJackie Says:
Spoken from the real Axis of Evil. Ever wonder how and what Cheney would do if one of his grand kids was kidnapped and tortured by a terrorist. Just thinking about that as he is so proud of his conduct and murdering people. It’s so easy to do things to others and justify it while never wanting it done to your love ones. Chaney and Bush had Satan on their side for 8 years, Obama/Biden have God on their side, let’s see how this works out. Yes I know the Christians who say they have followed God were clueless to it really being Satan but Chavez picked the smell up right away.
I guess the other side of that is if your child was held by kidnappers and you had one of the kidnappers in your custody that knew where your child was; is there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:55 amindependent989 Says:
I find your post addressed to DRxJapanese Beetle to be exceedingly pedantic.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:55 amYou actually provide answers to your own questions in its rambling discourse.
You seem to be independent only in the sense that you hamstring yourself with doubts and fears over a course of action.
Can you imagine how the ACLU would react?
Ooh, nice strawman since Regressive GOPers don’t give two shits for what the ACLU thinks.
NEXT TROLL PLEASE…
April 21st, 2009 at 11:56 amDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
independent989,
your rebuttal was countered before you even posted. Please read toasterhead’s. Mine was generalized, his was specific.
Which #?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:57 amindependent989 Says:
So how do you keep that from happening? What should the government have done in the 90’s and early 2000’s to keep this from happening?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
____________
Issue new contingency guidelines for pilot behavior in the event of a hijacking. Until 2001, pilots were trained to comply with hijackers demands, even allowing them access to the cockpit if they felt it would save passengers’ lives. This is because the old hijacking paradigm was to land somewhere and negotiate over demands. The possibility that the airplane itself would be used as a suicide weapon was not part of their training, despite the fact that plans for such an attack had surfaced in the Philippines in the early 1990s and been written about in Tom Clancy novels.
Oh, and locking the cockpits during flight. That would have been a tiny regulation that could’ve made a whole lot of differnece.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:59 amindependent989 Says:
I guess the other side of that is if your child was held by kidnappers and you had one of the kidnappers in your custody that knew where your child was; is there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
____________
Yes, there is something I wouldn’t do.
Torture.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pmis there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
I certainly wouldn’t torture them to a point near death which would only ensure their desire for retribution in the future.
Instead, I would treat them with just enough respect to endear him/her to my plight. I would show them that there’s a better life outside illegal behavior and crime and that such upstanding behavior begets a much better life than that which the head “captors” have offered.
But I’m sure the CIA first offered any high level “enemy combatants” a high paying job within the ranks before being rebuffed, then they were tortured.
Fcuking disgusting ugly Americans.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
So how do you keep that from happening? What should the government have done in the 90’s and early 2000’s to keep this from happening?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
____________
Issue new contingency guidelines for pilot behavior in the event of a hijacking. Until 2001, pilots were trained to comply with hijackers demands, even allowing them access to the cockpit if they felt it would save passengers’ lives. This is because the old hijacking paradigm was to land somewhere and negotiate over demands. The possibility that the airplane itself would be used as a suicide weapon was not part of their training, despite the fact that plans for such an attack had surfaced in the Philippines in the early 1990s and been written about in Tom Clancy novels.
Since there was no real actionable intelligence to act upon, I am not sure why you would change the way you have handled these in the past. Everything that the Gov and Airline industry know’s is explained in your premise above. I would agree with the Gov and the Airline industry that acting on historical relevancy is a better way to create policy than by using a Tom Clancy novel.
Oh, and locking the cockpits during flight. That would have been a tiny regulation that could’ve made a whole lot of differnece.
That is fine but if protocol says that you should allow the highjacker into the cockpit if it could save lives, as you stated above, then locking the cockpit door is not a viable option.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
I guess the other side of that is if your child was held by kidnappers and you had one of the kidnappers in your custody that knew where your child was; is there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
____________
Yes, there is something I wouldn’t do.
Torture.
Then this is where you and I differ. There is nothing that I would not do to save the life of my child, knowing that she is sitting there wondering why I have not saved her yet and wondering if she will ever see us again. That P.O.S. kidnapper means nothing to me and is only a means to an end to get my daughter back.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pmindependent989 Says:
I guess the other side of that is if [... blah blah blah... blah blah blah...] you where your child was?
____________
What a silly HYPOTHETICAL. Been watching old Clint Eastwood movies again? Or Jack Bauer on “24 Hours”????
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/19/11445/8105
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge’s passing remark – “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ” – got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
“Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.
“So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
April 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pmindependent989 Says:
Since there was no real actionable intelligence to act upon, I am not sure why you would change the way you have handled these in the past. Everything that the Gov and Airline industry know’s is explained in your premise above. I would agree with the Gov and the Airline industry that acting on historical relevancy is a better way to create policy than by using a Tom Clancy novel.
That is fine but if protocol says that you should allow the highjacker into the cockpit if it could save lives, as you stated above, then locking the cockpit door is not a viable option.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
___________
And this is the textbook definition of “a failure of imagination.” Congratulations.
With a mind like that, you could work at a defense contractor – designing weapons to fight the Soviet Union!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pmDNFP Says:
is there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
I certainly wouldn’t torture them to a point near death which would only ensure their desire for retribution in the future.
Instead, I would treat them with just enough respect to endear him/her to my plight. I would show them that there’s a better life outside illegal behavior and crime and that such upstanding behavior begets a much better life than that which the head “captors” have offered.
But I’m sure the CIA first offered any high level “enemy combatants” a high paying job within the ranks before being rebuffed, then they were tortured.
Fcuking disgusting ugly Americans.
Are you serious with that sh*t? You really think that you are going to turn them into a good person who gives 2 sh*ts about you and your family? Wow, that is Scary.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pmindependent989 Says:
Then this is where you and I differ. There is nothing that I would not do to save the life of my child, knowing that she is sitting there wondering why I have not saved her yet and wondering if she will ever see us again. That P.O.S. kidnapper means nothing to me and is only a means to an end to get my daughter back.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
___________
If your daughter inherited even a small piece of your lack of humanity, then it’d be much better for society if the kidnappers put a bullet through her skull.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
independent989 Says:
I guess the other side of that is if [... blah blah blah... blah blah blah...] you where your child was?
____________
What a silly HYPOTHETICAL. Been watching old Clint Eastwood movies again? Or Jack Bauer on “24 Hours”????
Why is it silly? The point is that if you say that you never condone torture under any circumstances then you have to abide by that, even in extreme cases. If you can say honestly that you would never condone torture in any way no matter the circumstances, then fine. This is a point where you and I differ.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pmSo pinning your morals to subjective false choices is the way to go??
Oversimplification – the slipperiest slope of all.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pmindependent989 Says:
Time and again those who advocate for torture simply do not understand the arguments.
1. We who oppose torture also do not care much about the kidnapper/terrorist/prisoner, except for his basic human dignity.
2. We who oppose torture care about ourselves, about our basic human dignity, about our humanity and our future ability to live with our actions. Those of us who are religious care about our spirituality and our immortal souls. You just don’t get it: It’s about US NOT THE TERRORISTS.
3. The ends do not justify the means. Ever heard that one? Do you understand what it means?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Since there was no real actionable intelligence to act upon, I am not sure why you would change the way you have handled these in the past. Everything that the Gov and Airline industry know’s is explained in your premise above. I would agree with the Gov and the Airline industry that acting on historical relevancy is a better way to create policy than by using a Tom Clancy novel.
That is fine but if protocol says that you should allow the highjacker into the cockpit if it could save lives, as you stated above, then locking the cockpit door is not a viable option.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
___________
And this is the textbook definition of “a failure of imagination.” Congratulations.
With a mind like that, you could work at a defense contractor – designing weapons to fight the Soviet Union!
Great since the imagination is unlimited, let’s try and guard against every single thing that may happen instead of using history and actionable intelligence to create policy. With a mind like that you could begin designing the next Soviet Union!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pmindependent989 Says:
With a mind like that you could begin designing the next Soviet Union!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
_________
Thanks!
I call it “China.” :)
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Then this is where you and I differ. There is nothing that I would not do to save the life of my child, knowing that she is sitting there wondering why I have not saved her yet and wondering if she will ever see us again. That P.O.S. kidnapper means nothing to me and is only a means to an end to get my daughter back.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
___________
If your daughter inherited even a small piece of your lack of humanity, then it’d be much better for society if the kidnappers put a bullet through her skull.
And if your children inherited even a small peice of your lack of caring for your family or your F’ed up value system that put’s a kiddnappers life ahead of your own child, then your child would be better off being kidnapped by someone who might actually love and fight for them.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm“I don’t think we’ve got much to apologize for.”
You leave us with two unfinished wars, the worst economic crisis since the great depression, a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, and a shattered world image with sugar on top and you don’t think you have anything to apologize for!
A@# HOLE!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pmCZ-1 Says:
Time and again those who advocate for torture simply do not understand the arguments.
1. We who oppose torture also do not care much about the kidnapper/terrorist/prisoner, except for his basic human dignity.
Between his basic dignity and the life of my loved ones, there is no choice.
2. We who oppose torture care about ourselves, about our basic human dignity, about our humanity and our future ability to live with our actions. Those of us who are religious care about our spirituality and our immortal souls. You just don’t get it: It’s about US NOT THE TERRORISTS.
I care more about my family that counts on me in any situation more that I care about my mortal soul or spirituality or any of that mess. It’s not about US, IT’S ABOUT THOSE WHO DEPEND ON US!
3. The ends do not justify the means. Ever heard that one? Do you understand what it means?
I disagree with that statement. I believe you have to weight the ends and the means to determine what is justifiable.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
With a mind like that you could begin designing the next Soviet Union!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
_________
Thanks!
I call it “China.” :)
Good well at least you admitted it.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pmI am going to lunch. Will respond to any messages when I get back.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pmindependent989 Says:
Read the current news articles coming about the torture done in your name. Those who did the torturing are now having a difficult time living with their actions. They are literally getting sick about it. And the “actionable intelligence” from the prisoners was thought to been obtained BEFORE the harsh torture began.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pmindependent989 Says:
Why is it silly? The point is that if you say that you never condone torture under any circumstances then you have to abide by that, even in extreme cases. If you can say honestly that you would never condone torture in any way no matter the circumstances, then fine. This is a point where you and I differ.
_______
One more time, since you appear to be a bit slow…
YOU’RE TALKING PRETEND SCENARIOS. THEY DON’T EXIST.
Geez… are you as befogged as Scalia, who apparently thinks Keifer Sutherland personally saved LA from terrorists?
Don’t you think law enforcement types all over the country would be speaking up IN FAVOR of torture is they thought it was truly vital in police work?
***crickets…***
They aren’t, are they?
You live in a fantasy land. “Well, mebbe we just better start torturing people, ’cause ya NEVER KNOW when this situation might occur…”
I’d say I hope you don’t own any guns… but sadly, you’re just the type. ‘Cause you never know when Martians might invade!!!
You and the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, & Inquisition… just peas in a pod,huh?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pmindependent989 Says:
And if your children inherited even a small peice of your lack of caring for your family or your F’ed up value system that put’s a kiddnappers life ahead of your own child, then your child would be better off being kidnapped by someone who might actually love and fight for them.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
________________
And if your children inherited your thorough inability to construct a sentence, let alone put together a comprehensible dis, your child would be better off being kidnapped by an English professor and/or East Coast rap star.
PWNED
April 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pmindependent989 Says:
I am going to lunch. Will respond to any messages when I get back.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
______________
Translation: I just got served hard core by toasterhead and am off to have a good cry. I’ll be back when my eyes have dried sufficiently such that I can read my monitor! :( :( :(
April 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pmindependent989 Says:
I am going to lunch. Will respond to any messages when I get back.
___________
Let me fix that for ya…
“I am OUT TO lunch… will make put-put noises whilst playing w/ myself when I get back.”
April 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pmCZ-1 Says:
independent989 Says:
Read the current news articles coming about the torture done in your name. Those who did the torturing are now having a difficult time living with their actions. They are literally getting sick about it. And the “actionable intelligence” from the prisoners was thought to been obtained BEFORE the harsh torture began.
If there was no more info to be gained then I agree, there should be not torture. I did not say that it should be done in sport.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pmindependent989 Says:
I disagree with that statement. I believe you have to weight the ends and the means to determine what is justifiable.
Is the torture of a child acceptable under any circumstances, even to get his parent to talk?
Anyone who would say that under certain circumstances, anything is justified is a moral leper, and should be regarded as such.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pmArguing with indie is a huge waste of time. He doesn’t possess a moral compass that allows him to even debate honorably.
The fact is the Bush administration received intelligence that an attack was imminent and did nothing. And every day since 9/11 they have been spreading the propaganda that they have kept us safe so that nobody will discuss how they are responsible for their failure.
Indie has the audacity to suggest that he cares more for his own children than anybody when obviously he is incapable of basic human decency.
The fact is if somebody had my child I would be willing to do anything to get her back. BUT, at the end of it I would be willing to be held accountable for any crimes I committed to that end.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pmIf there was no more info to be gained then I agree, there should be not torture.
How the hell are you going to know if there were more info to be gained?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:37 pmThe fact is if somebody had my child I would be willing to do anything to get her back.
Define “anything,” and please respond to my last post.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pmAny information gained by torture is suspect. That’s why it’s not allowed in a court of law. People will say anything to get the torture to stop. And they will make up anything. The CIA and military have said that they spent millions of dollars and much wasted time chasing down false leads obtained by torture. Then we can’t prosecute the prisoners, we don’t have reliable intel from them, we’re stuck with having committed war crimes, and we’ve got these prisoners we can’t let go because we’ve radicalized them and they will tell their stories implicating us. It sucks all around.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pmindependent989 Says:
“Great since the imagination is unlimited, let’s try and guard against every single thing that may happen instead of using history and actionable intelligence to create policy.”
Good idea.
Your lack of imagination with regards to creative problem solving belies your screen name of “independent”.
You postulate endless “what-ifs” in your responses to the imaginative ideas of other posters, mostly with the intent of shooting down possible solutions. None of your responses include any means of precluding incidents.
George Bush and his henchmen ignored warnings because they were preoccupied with resurrecting Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars missile defense systems. Dick Cheney was at NORAD that morning playing war games trying to shoot down attacks which could come from the air.
They ignored completely the concept of trying to prevent airborne attacks from being launched in the first place.
Why?
Because preventative actions would not feed the Military/Industial/Weapons industries.
I don’t believe you to be independent at all. You are a hand-wringing fence sitter who will disparage anyone’s constructive actions, no matter what side of the fence they may be on.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pmThat way you can throw up your hands in dismay when something goes wrong and say “I told you so.”
Would you torture another child to get yours back, Shayne?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pmCheney off? Please?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pmWhen do we start crucifying the heathens?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:41 pmNo silly. See what arguing with indy does to one’s brain. I turned me into an idiot like him.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pmTe point is though if somebody did something outside the law because he was being heroic and thought he was saving the country then wouldn’t he be heroic enough to stand trial and take responsibility for his actions?
April 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm10hourday Says:
“Baseless attacks on Obama?” Every criticism made by Cheney has been voiced by many others. Latest polls show that nearly one half of all Americans share the concerns Cheney raises.
Cite these polls, please?
.
10hourday Says:
Now here is something made up! Show one example of this.
From here:
We aim to please.
.
independent989 Says:
I guess the other side of that is if your child was held by kidnappers and you had one of the kidnappers in your custody that knew where your child was; is there anything that you wouldn’t do to that kidnapper to get him to tell you where your child was?
Yeah, but what if aliens were watching you and the whole thing was a test and they would obliterate the Earth if you tortured that person, thereby destroying everyone including your kid?
Wait, but what if your kid was secretly a double agent and engineered his own kidnapping in order to get you to torture someone as the first step to becoming an elite international assassin?
Or, what if…
.
independent989 Says:
Then this is where you and I differ.
Yes: you are a bad person. Your moral relativism should not be allowed to infect public policy.
.
independent989 Says:
Are you serious with that sh*t? You really think that you are going to turn them into a good person who gives 2 sh*ts about you and your family? Wow, that is Scary.
A lot of professional interrogators have found that establishing trust provides effective results, whereas abusing detainees only sets that process back.
Let’s do your thing again: your kid’s life is on the line. Are you man enough to smile at and pretend to like one of his captors who you have in custody? If you can’t do that, then all of your “I’d do anything it takes” talk is nothing more than empty rationalizations: you just want the chance to commit brutal acts and get away with it.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:13 pm.
Cheney was for bashing the new Administration before he thought it to be a bad idea. But then again, in Cheney’s mind, it’s not bashing the new Administration when Cheney does it.
.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
And if your children inherited even a small peice of your lack of caring for your family or your F’ed up value system that put’s a kiddnappers life ahead of your own child, then your child would be better off being kidnapped by someone who might actually love and fight for them.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
________________
And if your children inherited your thorough inability to construct a sentence, let alone put together a comprehensible dis, your child would be better off being kidnapped by an English professor and/or East Coast rap star.
PWNED
Gee what a surprise, you went personal. How pathetic.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pmThis man is not simply evil. He is not getting enough oxygen to the brain. What must it be like to live or work with such a man?
This man recognizes no limit to authority, if it’s his. He sees no reason to obey the law, if he finds it inconvenient. He has nothing but contempt for people, and nothing but reverence for money and power. He is the most contemptible of human beings because he values nothing not weighed by gain. This man continues to take up space and crowd the planet with his form of corruption. I will be glad to see the back of him.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
If there was no more info to be gained then I agree, there should be not torture.
How the hell are you going to know if there were more info to be gained?
I agree, I was simply responding to the following Statement
CZ-1 @ #120 –
….the “actionable intelligence” from the prisoners was thought to been obtained BEFORE the harsh torture began.
Context chief, context.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pmAnd, that is why these people cannot now be prosecuted. Good move Cheney, you fu(king idiot.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pmbarfly Says:
independent989 Says:
I disagree with that statement. I believe you have to weight the ends and the means to determine what is justifiable.
Is the torture of a child acceptable under any circumstances, even to get his parent to talk?
I would have to say that I can not currently imagine a circumstance where it would make sense to intentionally hurt someone that is purely innocent no matter what their age.
Anyone who would say that under certain circumstances, anything is justified is a moral leper, and should be regarded as such.
I did not say that. I actually said that I would not and believe that most people would not rule out torture no matter what the circumstance. It is not always right and it is not always wrong.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:35 pmWhat part of illegal don’t you understand? I suppose you think it is ok to rob some banks, but not others. When did you right-wingers become a criminal element?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pmA lot of professional interrogators have found that establishing trust provides effective results, whereas abusing detainees only sets that process back.
Let’s do your thing again: your kid’s life is on the line. Are you man enough to smile at and pretend to like one of his captors who you have in custody?
Absolutely
If you can’t do that, then all of your “I’d do anything it takes” talk is nothing more than empty rationalizations: you just want the chance to commit brutal acts and get away with it.
Absolutely. Now if that doesn’t work what do you do. You have tried every single thing short of torture. What do you do, just walk away and say “Well guess I can have another kid.” I would appreciate an answer on this one.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pmindependent989 Says:
I did not say that. I actually said that I would not and believe that most people would not rule out torture no matter what the circumstance. It is not always right and it is not always wrong.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
__________
Torture is always wrong. There is no grey area here.
If, for example, you tortured the alleged “kidnapper” in your ridiculous scenario, you would not only make it more difficult for law enforcement to convict him, but you would also put yourself at risk of criminal charges and a civil suit. Your use of torture to save your daughter would leave her penniless and fatherless.
But that doesn’t matter, right? You “care” so much about her.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pmI think everyone who advocates torture should be thoroughly investigated. Since they obviously have no concept of illegality, who knows what crimes they are committing.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
I did not say that. I actually said that I would not and believe that most people would not rule out torture no matter what the circumstance. It is not always right and it is not always wrong.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
__________
Torture is always wrong. There is no grey area here.
If, for example, you tortured the alleged “kidnapper” in your ridiculous scenario, you would not only make it more difficult for law enforcement to convict him, but you would also put yourself at risk of criminal charges and a civil suit. Your use of torture to save your daughter would leave her penniless and fatherless.
But that doesn’t matter, right? You “care” so much about her.
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pmGreat point toasterhead. In Indy’s wet pants dream, the kidnapper would probably walk, while he would go to prison.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pmindependent989 Says:
Absolutely. Now if that doesn’t work what do you do. You have tried every single thing short of torture. What do you do, just walk away and say “Well guess I can have another kid.” I would appreciate an answer on this one.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
___________
Step 1. Call the police.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
I think everyone who advocates torture should be thoroughly investigated. Since they obviously have no concept of illegality, who knows what crimes they are committing.
Wow that is a shock!!!
April 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pmThank goodnees. Now we can go to commercial break.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Absolutely. Now if that doesn’t work what do you do. You have tried every single thing short of torture. What do you do, just walk away and say “Well guess I can have another kid.” I would appreciate an answer on this one.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
___________
Step 1. Call the police.
What is step 2?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pmindependent989 Says:
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
___________
And how is she going to stay safe with you in prison and her former “kidnappers” having been acquitted because your use of torture rendered the evidence against them inadmissible?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
___________
And how is she going to stay safe with you in prison and her former “kidnappers” having been acquitted because your use of torture rendered the evidence against them inadmissible?
How is she going to stay safe with no one knowing where she is or who has her, and the kidnappers ending up raping and killing her. Personally I and I assume she, would rather her being a pauper, living in a different state under a new name. But no you are right, rape and death is a much more suitable substitute.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pmindependent989 Says:
What is step 2?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
____________
Negotiate. Having one of the kidnappers in your custody is a hell of a bargaining chip, no? And if you have the police and a trained hostage negotiator on your side, it’s a good bet that you’ll be able to work out a deal that will keep your daughter safe.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pmchiroptera toasterhead, still waiting for your next step where you use your vast intellect and empathetic mastery to convince the kidnapper to quit his life of crime, give me back my daughter and start selling lightbulbs door to door to help pay for the 15 orphaned kittens he’s picked up off of the streets.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
What is step 2?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
____________
Negotiate. Having one of the kidnappers in your custody is a hell of a bargaining chip, no? And if you have the police and a trained hostage negotiator on your side, it’s a good bet that you’ll be able to work out a deal that will keep your daughter safe.
And if that fails, what is step 3?
April 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pmI wouldn’t be surprised if you are a criminal. You think of the law as a mere suggestion to be ignored at your discretion. It’s scary to think that an entire political party has gone rogue in respect to the law.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pmAnd if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it’s not helpful.
Not helpful to whom Dick? I’d really love an answer to that. But, I don’t have the stomach to actually watch that interview so I don’t know if the interviewer asked Dick that. I doubt it though.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pmLet’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pmIndy, take my advice and turn off the TV. It’s rotting your mind.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:03 pmCheney is living proof that you cannot rely on swamp dwellers to “drain the swamp”
April 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pmWow, this so-called independent person is really going to a lot of trouble to come up with a defensible use of torture. He must count ‘what-ifs’ when he has trouble falling asleep at night.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pmindependent989 Says:
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
I disagree with that statement. This quote fits the discussion, at least in concept:
If you give up your morals for your safety or your family’s safety, you and your family don’t deserve the benefits and safety of a moral society.
If you become the monster that you are protecting your daughter from, then you’ve lost everything and your daughter has been diminished.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
Indy, take my advice and turn off the TV. It’s rotting your mind.
You can try to distract and deflect from the discussion all you want. Your group or party or whatever you want to call it, has made an unequivocal statement “Torture is not acceptable in any situation.” I am merely putting that statement to the test. Equivocations must stand up to the extreme and the mundane alike. There is no choosing.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:07 pmmary lacewing Says:
Wow, this so-called independent person is really going to a lot of trouble to come up with a defensible use of torture. He must count ‘what-ifs’ when he has trouble falling asleep at night.
See 166 sweetheart.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pmindependent989 Says:
Let’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
You develop and follow leads. You gather clues, perform a forensic investigation, track down associations, piece together a time line, follow the money, continue legal interrogation of the prisoner, work with multiple agencies, put out a public message asking for tips (may or may not be appropriate), and on and on.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pmCZ-1 Says:
independent989 Says:
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
I disagree with that statement. This quote fits the discussion, at least in concept:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. –Benjamin Franklin
If you give up your morals for your safety or your family’s safety, you and your family don’t deserve the benefits and safety of a moral society.
If you become the monster that you are protecting your daughter from, then you’ve lost everything and your daughter has been diminished.
That is fine, if you have decided that you would rather have your child raped and killed instead of pouring a little water over someones face for a couple of seconds, then fine. You go do that, I am just saying that I believe that I would act differently.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pmCZ-1 Says:
independent989 Says:
Let’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
You develop and follow leads. You gather clues, perform a forensic investigation, track down associations, piece together a time line, follow the money, continue legal interrogation of the prisoner, work with multiple agencies, put out a public message asking for tips (may or may not be appropriate), and on and on.
Great, and while you are doing that your daughter has been raped and killed. But good luck with the investigation that has been going on for months.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pmThat’s sounds a lot like police work. Who knows, it could work. What a novel idea.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmindependent989 Says:
Let’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
____________
No, I’d just pay the ransom money.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pmWe really need to develop a new rating system to keep impressionable right-wing Republicans from viewing these types of movies and programs. It seems to make them violent and dangerously unstable.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pmindependent989 Says:
Great, and while you are doing that your daughter has been raped and killed. But good luck with the investigation that has been going on for months.
If that is the intent of the kidnappers, then chances are they will do it within a short amount of time and you will not be able to prevent it regardless. What exactly is your scenario again? How is it that you have one of the kidnappers prisoner but didn’t foil the kidnapping? Did the kidnappers issue demands for ransom or other actions? If so they will keep your daughter alive since it serves their purpose. If they know that one of their gang has been captured then they will not use any locations or resources that he may be able to tell you about. You could torture him to death, gain all the information he had, and still be no closer to getting your daughter. Then what?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pmPlus he may give you a bunch of false leads that waste your time and may be key to your daughter’s eventual demise.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pmAlso, you could waste a lot of time chasing down blind alleys.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pmOops, you beat me to it CZ.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm#
#
shoeless Chilopoda Says:
CZ-1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
independent989 Says:
Let’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
You develop and follow leads. You gather clues, perform a forensic investigation, track down associations, piece together a time line, follow the money, continue legal interrogation of the prisoner, work with multiple agencies, put out a public message asking for tips (may or may not be appropriate), and on and on.
That’s sounds a lot like police work. Who knows, it could work. What a novel idea.
See 170
April 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
Let’s cut to the chase, you have used all non-violent tools at your disposal. He is telling you and the police and everyone that you call to your aid to go to hell. Are you going to give up?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
____________
No, I’d just pay the ransom money.
Don’t want ransom. Just want to be depraved.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pmshoeless Chilopoda Says:
independent989 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Great, and while you are doing that your daughter has been raped and killed. But good luck with the investigation that has been going on for months.
We really need to develop a new rating system to keep impressionable right-wing Republicans from viewing these types of movies and programs. It seems to make them violent and dangerously unstable.
Again, see 166.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pmCZ-1 Says:
independent989 Says:
Great, and while you are doing that your daughter has been raped and killed. But good luck with the investigation that has been going on for months.
If that is the intent of the kidnappers, then chances are they will do it within a short amount of time and you will not be able to prevent it regardless. What exactly is your scenario again? How is it that you have one of the kidnappers prisoner but didn’t foil the kidnapping? Did the kidnappers issue demands for ransom or other actions? If so they will keep your daughter alive since it serves their purpose. If they know that one of their gang has been captured then they will not use any locations or resources that he may be able to tell you about. You could torture him to death, gain all the information he had, and still be no closer to getting your daughter. Then what?
You can try and change the scenario to make it more favorable, that is fine. What I am asking you is that when all hope is lost and your only option is torture, will you use it. It is a yes or no question. The who where and why are not important for this discussion. Do you truly believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful? Yes or no?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmDon’t want ransom. Just want to be depraved.
See #174
April 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmindependent989 Says:
Don’t want ransom. Just want to be depraved.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
___________
Yes, I know you do. It’s all over your posts. But let’s try to stay on topic here.
If the hypothetical kidnappers in your hypothetical situation were’t holding her for ransom, but were just holding her for the purpose of raping and killing her, then the whole situation is moot.
Unless these guys are complete morons, they would have stuffed her in a woodchipper as soon as they knew one of their own was captured. Since they don’t want anything from you, her life is of no value, particularly if they’ve left lots of DNA evidence in her orifices. Their only choice at that point is to dispose of the evidence and get out of town.
Torturing your prisoner would not save her life. It’d only compound your own misery.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pmindependent989 Says:
The who where and why are not important for this discussion. Do you truly believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful? Yes or no?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
___________
Yes. There is no scenario ever where torture is useful.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pmWhat I am asking you is that when all hope is lost and your only option is torture, will you use it.
False choice. There is always another option, but a person who believes torture is the most effective option will ignore all other options.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pmDo you truly believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful? Yes or no?
Short answer: no. Scenarios are a dime a dozen. Scenarios that actually happen or could happen are much rarer. Sitting in your chair you can probably dream up some kind of scenario where torture is the only answer. In reality, from everything I’ve read and have considered, torture seems to never be the right answer and always makes things worse.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
independent989 Says:
The who where and why are not important for this discussion. Do you truly believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful? Yes or no?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
___________
Yes. There is no scenario ever where torture is useful.
Gotcha. This is where we disagree….. obviously
April 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmHmm…I guess I should have stated my answer as
YES, I believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful.
One of those tricky yes-I-believe-no questions.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pmindependent989 Says:
Gotcha. This is where we disagree….. obviously
April 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
__________
Right. I’m a civilized human being. You’re a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. Glad you finally figured this out.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm#
barfly Says:
What I am asking you is that when all hope is lost and your only option is torture, will you use it.
False choice. There is always another option, but a person who believes torture is the most effective option will ignore all other options.
And a person who believes he can fly will jump off of the first tall building that he can get to the top of. What the hell does that have to do with anything. I did not say that it is was or had to be the most effective option. I asked is torture wrong no matter what the circumstance. This is the stance taken by your party and many here.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pmBut that doesn’t matter, right? You “care” so much about her.
Correct because she is safe. It is worth it all.
Since you’re constructing scenarios: You’ve used all the non-torture means at your disposal, and went the next step and tortured him, and gotten little for your trouble. What then?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pmCZ-1 Says:
Do you truly believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful? Yes or no?
Short answer: no. Scenarios are a dime a dozen. Scenarios that actually happen or could happen are much rarer. Sitting in your chair you can probably dream up some kind of scenario where torture is the only answer. In reality, from everything I’ve read and have considered, torture seems to never be the right answer and always makes things worse.
So your answer is no meaning that there is or is not ever a situation that could require torture?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pmCZ-1 Says:
Hmm…I guess I should have stated my answer as
YES, I believe that there is no scenario ever where torture is useful.
One of those tricky yes-I-believe-no questions.
Gotcha understood.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pmindependent989 Says:
I asked is torture wrong no matter what the circumstance. This is the stance taken by your party and many here.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
_____________
And the rest of the civilized world.
What does that make you?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pmAnd a person who believes he can fly will jump off of the first tall building that he can get to the top of.
I think he’d try a tree, or a high porch first, but in your all or nothing worldview, he MUST climb to the first life-endangering height, eh?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pmSo your answer is no meaning that there is or is not ever a situation that could require torture?
Bingo!
April 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pmThis is not surprising. The man who says that torture is not really torture is likely to claim that personal attacks are not really personal attacks.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pmThen this is where you and I differ. There is nothing that I would not do to save the life of my child, knowing that she is sitting there wondering why I have not saved her yet and wondering if she will ever see us again.
Again, the captured kidnapper has been tortured and not given you any actionable intel. Do you next threaten his child? What is the next step, after torture has failed?
April 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pmYes, you kidnap his son and crush his balls in front of him. And it’s OK because Cheney said so.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pmspaceh0gg Says:
This is not surprising. The man who says that torture is not really torture is likely to claim that personal attacks are not really personal attacks.
In a nutshell! Nail hit on head! Nice post.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pmYes, you kidnap his son and crush his balls in front of him. And it’s OK because Cheney said so.
And kiss any chance of building a rapport, that actually might free your hypothetical child? You have already killed your chances for cooperation, so the next step must be real torture, the Inquisition kind, with thumbscrews, and Iron maidens, the rack, and scourging with fire.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm——————————————————————————–
Oh sure, just like a librul. You’d try to talk. I’d show that kidnapper. If he still wouldn’t talk I kidnap all of his children and put them in boxes full of fire ants and spiders!
April 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pmLet’s say you have a daughter who is unjustly incarcerated in a foreign prison famous for its use of torture. Would you torture a prisoner in your own country if you knew that would give your daughter’s jailers the moral excuse to do what they wanted with her?
April 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pmThis Facist pig, war criminal, traitor, Chenney, argues that Torture works. Lets have this animal waterboarded so we can find out what realy happened on 9/11, what realy happened with NORAD on that day, How much he knew and how much involvment on the false flag operation of 9/11. We could also ask him to release the footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:52 pmLet me see: Dick Cheney, the man who claimed WMD in Iraq, mushroom clouds, outed Valerie Plame, and claimed last throes over and over again for eight years.
Sean Hannity who is a wingnut, plain and simple.
FAUX Noise, the official propaganda outlet of the wingnuts on the reich.
How mush should I believe?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:40 pmReading the comments on this thread simply confirms the obvious: most of you here are certifiable members of the LUNATIC LEFT.
Just when I think I’ve seen and heard the worst from you nutjobs, a post like this comes along and provides an outlet for yet more mindless screeching!
Mindless, useful IDIOTS describes the lot of you!
April 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pmJust catching up on TP and thought it was funny that the articles with the most activity are Iraqi militia gluing butt holes and (of course) Dick head Cheney talking smack about Obama. I think we know how Dick head Cheney ranks here ……
April 21st, 2009 at 11:39 pmAs long as Cheney can go on FOX he will not go away until he needs new batteries for his pace maker.
As well, as long as he has FOX he will NEVER face an aggresive confronting reporter.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 amindependent989 Says:
I actually said that I would not and believe that most people would not rule out torture no matter what the circumstance. It is not always right and it is not always wrong.
Decent human being rule it out no matter what the circumstance. It is always wrong.
.
independent989 Says:
Absolutely. Now if that doesn’t work what do you do. You have tried every single thing short of torture. What do you do, just walk away and say “Well guess I can have another kid.” I would appreciate an answer on this one.
Torture doesn’t work. So no, I haven’t tried “every single thing short” of it. I also haven’t tried using tarot cards or tea leaves. There are a million things I haven’t tried that are exactly as likely to work as torture.
.
independent989 Says:
And a person who believes he can fly will jump off of the first tall building that he can get to the top of. What the hell does that have to do with anything.
Your daughter’s life is in danger. You’ve tried everything short of jumping off of a tall building. Are you too much of a wimp to do that? To save your daughter?
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Just when I think I’ve seen and heard the worst from you nutjobs, a post like this comes along and provides an outlet for yet more mindless screeching!
Are you actually referring to your own post? I’m confused here. Perhaps you’ve got some personal issues you should work out in private.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm