Also note that Panetta didn't say what the media has decided he said. He said we think we told the truth, but I can't guarantee it and would you please investigate and figure it out for yourself?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
If she wasn't at liberty to disclose the information, if the information was misleading, or if there was no legislative avenue by which she could interact with the issue, then whether she knew torture was going on seems rather aside from the point.
That's pretty far removed from any serious culpability.
Like I said earlier, that doesn't much matter as far as the media and public are concerned. She knew we were doing bad things, and didn't speak up. Doesn't matter that she couldn't, doesn't matter that it wouldn't have done any good anyway, doesn't matter that it likely would've just made things worse, she didn't speak up about something we have retroactively decided as bad, and so fuck her with a pogostick, mirite?
I mean, really, back in 2002 70% of the population probably would've waterboarded detainees themselves if given the chance. You think Pelosi speaking up would've had any positive effect at all?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, really, back in 2002 70% of the population probably would've waterboarded detainees themselves if given the chance. You think Pelosi speaking up would've had any positive effect at all?
America! Wharrgarbl!
moniker on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
I'm currently baffled with how an affair can destroy careers now (Spitzer, Edwards) but torture just slides right off the guys who ordered it. How does that even fucking work?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited May 2009
God hates adulterers, but torturers get a divine chest bump and a "Hoo-wa!"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also note that Panetta didn't say what the media has decided he said. He said we think we told the truth, but I can't guarantee it and would you please investigate and figure it out for yourself?
It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.
I'm currently baffled with how an affair can destroy careers now (Spitzer, Edwards) but torture just slides right off the guys who ordered it. How does that even fucking work?
Affairs don't ruin all careers. Take a look at Newt's philandering, and yet he's being held up as a leading light of Republicanism.
moniker on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Also note that Panetta didn't say what the media has decided he said. He said we think we told the truth, but I can't guarantee it and would you please investigate and figure it out for yourself?
It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I keep seeing this: "Obama should have seen this coming."
OK, idealism shattering cold hard reality time- Barack Obama isn't a fucking idiot, nor are the people in his cabinet. Of course they saw this coming. This isn't that hard. He had to have known he was going to take flack for this both at home and abroad. He also had to have known that other countries would have gotten this shit out eventually anyway which would fuck him in the "coverups zomgz!" shitstorm that would surely follow- so that begs the question of WHY DID HE GO THROUGH WITH IT?
My razor points to this reason- if Obama had released them it would have likely started a chain of events that would eventually lead down the long road to some form of prosecution. In doing so he would have forfeited any opportunity to work on any of the other pressing things in his agenda- health care for example. He cannot do both.
Despite prosecution being due, both legally and morally, there's still more than enough fucking idiots in our country to muddy this entire thing up to the point that it would devour the better half of his term, while at the same time destroying his chances of accomplishing anything else. Do you think that partisan sniping roadblocks after the Clinton impeachment were bad? Just imagine what bringing an ex-president down for war crimes (rightly or wrongly!) would do. Especially given persecutionist tendencies of the Right. The confirmation bias would be utterly deafening.
The fact that they should be prosecuted and our vehement notions that this should be the case are entirely irrelevant and completely at odds with the real world of American politics. I'll bet there's plenty of Republicans who were fed up with Bush and voted for Obama that would immediately jump ship back onto the partisan bandwagon if they had even an inkling (rightly or wrongly) that the Obama admin was going to turn into a GOP bash fest (despite that's exactly what should happen). Don't like it? Blame the political fuckmuppetry that brought us to this point. Hell look at the media, can you imagine the fucking circus that would accompany a war-crime tribunal?
So now- NOW those same GOP fuckmuppets that would have turned this into a "Obama has it outz for teh b00sh adminz!" don't get to trot out that little line, while at the same time those pictures get aired anyway and further tarnish Buush & Co. while simultaneously avoiding the stigma that Obama someone has it "out" for the last admin. Does it hurt Obama's image as a reformer? Does it piss me off? Yes, but not as much as having to deal with the clownshow that would follow Obama pushing for prosecution. As a side effect, it leaves the door open for Obama to eventually prosecute anyway while fending off notions that he had it in mind all along anyway.
Don't believe? Think I'm batshit crazy? Fine, tell me then what is really the case here.
I'm sorry I'm a shitty typist, I type the way I speak.
I'm not following your logic. Obama decided not to release the pictures, even though 'of course' they all knew they would leak, because if the pictures became public the furor would force his hand into pushing for prosecutions/truth commission which will kill other legislation. So they decided not to release them. Except that when the pictures leak...they become public and so that furor demanding accountability is going to exist anyway putting the same resultant obstructionism attempting to kill other legislation which keeping them hidden was supposed to avoid.
The only difference between now and a week ago is that a week ago he had authority on the notion of being frank and open with the American public. Whereas now he has bolstered GOP talking points, tarnished his image abroad and amongst the Greenwald's, Sullivan's, and base here at home, lost control of the story/events, and didn't really gain anything out of it at all since he's still an America hating liberal socialist who cares more about terrorists than 'murrica. How is this the deft political maneuvering that you seem to suggest, Quarter?
moniker on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
How is this the deft political maneuvering that you seem to suggest, Quarter?
Because despite the meandering nature of my post, the idea that started it is still sound- Obama knew this was coming. I refuse to believe he couldn't have, so I started to rationalize ways in which the ceding of ground would work in his favor and that's all I could come up with the given evidence at hand. It's not perfect but Obama is a master of political-jitsu and that's the best I had. I have a few other suspicions such as using the possibility of prosecution as an axe above the new Afghan general's head or the possible implication of the Pakistanis or the Israelis, but there's no evidence soooooo.
Also note that Panetta didn't say what the media has decided he said. He said we think we told the truth, but I can't guarantee it and would you please investigate and figure it out for yourself?
It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values.
You tortured people!
Technically torture wasn't against their values.
Neither is lying to Congress. Its not like the CIA has traditionally been truthful. They are spies and assassins.
God hates adulterers, but torturers get a divine chest bump and a "Hoo-wa!"
Or... EIT is bad and killing babies is good! Love your arguments there Jeff. Don't hurt yourself when you get off that high horse.
If you support abortion rights respecting the autonomy of a woman's body you are required to also support the use of torture which completely strips uncharged prisoners of every conceptual facet of individual autonomy? Buh?
God hates adulterers, but torturers get a divine chest bump and a "Hoo-wa!"
Or... EIT is bad and killing babies is good! Love your arguments there Jeff. Don't hurt yourself when you get off that high horse.
If you support abortion rights respecting the autonomy of a living fetus you are required to also support the use of torture which completely strips uncharged prisoners of every conceptual facet of individual autonomy? Buh?
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
God hates adulterers, but torturers get a divine chest bump and a "Hoo-wa!"
Or... EIT is bad and killing babies is good! Love your arguments there Jeff. Don't hurt yourself when you get off that high horse.
If you support abortion rights respecting the autonomy of a living fetus you are required to also support the use of torture which completely strips uncharged prisoners of every conceptual facet of individual autonomy? Buh?
Spun that back towards ya. Now answer that.
Interesting how you completely ignore the second half of the sentence which contains the actual point in order to shift into an abortion debate. Actually, that was what you did in the first part as well. Fun!
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Only other countries have to respect international law. Didn't you read the memos, which explain that it's totally fine to use techniques that we are currently attacking other powers for using. Also, constitutional rights and doctor-patient confidentiality only apply to men.
God hates adulterers, but torturers get a divine chest bump and a "Hoo-wa!"
Or... EIT is bad and killing babies is good! Love your arguments there Jeff. Don't hurt yourself when you get off that high horse.
If you support abortion rights respecting the autonomy of a living fetus you are required to also support the use of torture which completely strips uncharged prisoners of every conceptual facet of individual autonomy? Buh?
Spun that back towards ya. Now answer that.
Interesting how you completely ignore the second half of the sentence which contains the actual point in order to shift into an abortion debate. Actually, that was what you did in the first part as well. Fun!
Besides that plants are living, as was Terry Schievo. That fact does not mean that either of them was not a vegetables.
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Read back to the quote in that post I placed, should be obvious.
Interesting fantasy you have where I believe EIT should be a partisan issue. Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country. Now they are out there and who is taking a lot of the heat? Looks like Madame Speaker Pelosi is. We warned that it would get ugly and it has. More so for Nancy and the Democrats who align themselves with her.
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Read back to the quote in that post I placed, should be obvious.
Interesting fantasy you have where I believeEIT should be a partisan issue. Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country. Now they are out there and who is taking a lot of the heat? Looks like Madame Speaker Pelosi is. We warned that it would get ugly and it has. More so for Nancy and the Democrats who align themselves with her.
I know most of us here are fluent in doublespeak, but we would appreciate it if you refrained from using it. The subject matter is torture, as waterboarding is most definitely torture.
I honestly don't give a shit if Nancy Pelosi goes down as a result of this, though I'm sure that a lot of the Democratic establishment probably does. However, if she does go down it should be because she was simply taken down in the process of bringing all the real guilty parties to justice, which seem at this point to be headed by Cheney.
Savant on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country.
You know what else was bad for the country? Authorizing torture in the first place.
EDIT: Actually this makes it sound like releasing the memos was a bad thing. It wasn't, the GOPers just don't want everyone to see actual mess they've made. Maybe all those folks supporting torture will think twice after having visual evidence thrown in their faces.
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Read back to the quote in that post I placed, should be obvious.
It really isn't. Party A has any stance on abortion which recognizes it exists; therefore it should cede the moral high ground and support torture. How does that make sense?
Interesting fantasy you have where I believe EIT should be a partisan issue.
You are framing your responses in the terms of parties. Including in this very post. How else am I supposed to take it?
Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country.
Yeah, and they were wrong. But that's neither here nor there.
Now they are out there and who is taking a lot of the heat? Looks like Madame Speaker Pelosi is.
I'd look again if I were you. Or take the 24 hour news cycle blinders off for a little bit as most people don't have the memory span of a goldfish.
We warned that it would get ugly and it has. More so for Nancy and the Democrats who align themselves with her.
Why does this sound like something out of The Godfather. That sure is a nice Constitution you have there; it would be a shame if something were to happen to it should you release certain documents. And I'm afraid I don't see how the Democrats advocating following domestic law and international treaty obligations are the ones who have the most to lose.
BTW, my last statement is not to derail the thread into an abortion debate. It's about the moral high ground when it comes to EIT. Neither party has it.
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
Read back to the quote in that post I placed, should be obvious.
Interesting fantasy you have where I believe EIT should be a partisan issue. Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country. Now they are out there and who is taking a lot of the heat? Looks like Madame Speaker Pelosi is. We warned that it would get ugly and it has. More so for Nancy and the Democrats who align themselves with her.
Nancy Pelosi was prohibited by law from speaking about what she was told in those conferences, so she, unlike Bush, decided to follow the law. It should also be noted that Bush was under no such obligation when he claimed we do not torture. Currently, she is even saying that the Bush era CIA, an organization not known for its honesty, lied to her, telling her that nobody was being waterboarded, something that the CIA has been unable to deny. The only people who believe that this is a compromised position are idiots.
There's also the fact that there is nobody credible who believes that the memos would do any harm, as shown by the fact that nobody objected beforehand, as they did for the pictures. Hell, it's starting to look like the only reason Cheny's making the rounds is because he ordered the torture so he could get a (false) confession of an Iraq-Osama link from a person who was an undisputed POW.
I'm not following your logic. Obama decided not to release the pictures, even though 'of course' they all knew they would leak, because if the pictures became public the furor would force his hand into pushing for prosecutions/truth commission which will kill other legislation. So they decided not to release them. Except that when the pictures leak...they become public and so that furor demanding accountability is going to exist anyway putting the same resultant obstructionism attempting to kill other legislation which keeping them hidden was supposed to avoid.
The only difference between now and a week ago is that a week ago he had authority on the notion of being frank and open with the American public. Whereas now he has bolstered GOP talking points, tarnished his image abroad and amongst the Greenwald's, Sullivan's, and base here at home, lost control of the story/events, and didn't really gain anything out of it at all since he's still an America hating liberal socialist who cares more about terrorists than 'murrica. How is this the deft political maneuvering that you seem to suggest, Quarter?
- The photos are gonna come out no matter what, so the question is, which way of them getting released has more benefits
- releasing the photos himself boosts his "Soft On Terror" image and gets him in more shit with the locals in the US, the GOP especially
- not releasing the photos damages his image abroad, but insulates him from GOP attacks about being a pussy terrorist lover
- his ability to pass his domestic agenda, which is what he really cares about, depends on keeping the GOP attacks to their minimum
- ergo, he doesn't release the photos
Hahahaha, that's incredibly naive. The GOP is going to do what the GOP does no matter what. And they're going to fail at it, unless there's another 9/11 level attack, regardless of anything else that happens.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Like I said earlier, that doesn't much matter as far as the media and public are concerned. She knew we were doing bad things, and didn't speak up. Doesn't matter that she couldn't, doesn't matter that it wouldn't have done any good anyway, doesn't matter that it likely would've just made things worse, she didn't speak up about something we have retroactively decided as bad, and so fuck her with a pogostick, mirite?
I mean, really, back in 2002 70% of the population probably would've waterboarded detainees themselves if given the chance. You think Pelosi speaking up would've had any positive effect at all?
America! Wharrgarbl!
You tortured people!
Affairs don't ruin all careers. Take a look at Newt's philandering, and yet he's being held up as a leading light of Republicanism.
Technically torture wasn't against their values.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's sad. And scary. But true.
Torture is, unfortunately, not seen as "universally bad", despite what we'd all like to think.
It can be. Just give me their addresses, a pair of pliers, an oily rag, and 3 weeks.
Throw in one of those toy plastic hammers that squeaks when you hit someone, and I'll have it done for you in 2 days.
OK, idealism shattering cold hard reality time- Barack Obama isn't a fucking idiot, nor are the people in his cabinet. Of course they saw this coming. This isn't that hard. He had to have known he was going to take flack for this both at home and abroad. He also had to have known that other countries would have gotten this shit out eventually anyway which would fuck him in the "coverups zomgz!" shitstorm that would surely follow- so that begs the question of WHY DID HE GO THROUGH WITH IT?
My razor points to this reason- if Obama had released them it would have likely started a chain of events that would eventually lead down the long road to some form of prosecution. In doing so he would have forfeited any opportunity to work on any of the other pressing things in his agenda- health care for example. He cannot do both.
Despite prosecution being due, both legally and morally, there's still more than enough fucking idiots in our country to muddy this entire thing up to the point that it would devour the better half of his term, while at the same time destroying his chances of accomplishing anything else. Do you think that partisan sniping roadblocks after the Clinton impeachment were bad? Just imagine what bringing an ex-president down for war crimes (rightly or wrongly!) would do. Especially given persecutionist tendencies of the Right. The confirmation bias would be utterly deafening.
The fact that they should be prosecuted and our vehement notions that this should be the case are entirely irrelevant and completely at odds with the real world of American politics. I'll bet there's plenty of Republicans who were fed up with Bush and voted for Obama that would immediately jump ship back onto the partisan bandwagon if they had even an inkling (rightly or wrongly) that the Obama admin was going to turn into a GOP bash fest (despite that's exactly what should happen). Don't like it? Blame the political fuckmuppetry that brought us to this point. Hell look at the media, can you imagine the fucking circus that would accompany a war-crime tribunal?
So now- NOW those same GOP fuckmuppets that would have turned this into a "Obama has it outz for teh b00sh adminz!" don't get to trot out that little line, while at the same time those pictures get aired anyway and further tarnish Buush & Co. while simultaneously avoiding the stigma that Obama someone has it "out" for the last admin. Does it hurt Obama's image as a reformer? Does it piss me off? Yes, but not as much as having to deal with the clownshow that would follow Obama pushing for prosecution. As a side effect, it leaves the door open for Obama to eventually prosecute anyway while fending off notions that he had it in mind all along anyway.
Don't believe? Think I'm batshit crazy? Fine, tell me then what is really the case here.
I'm sorry I'm a shitty typist, I type the way I speak.
The only difference between now and a week ago is that a week ago he had authority on the notion of being frank and open with the American public. Whereas now he has bolstered GOP talking points, tarnished his image abroad and amongst the Greenwald's, Sullivan's, and base here at home, lost control of the story/events, and didn't really gain anything out of it at all since he's still an America hating liberal socialist who cares more about terrorists than 'murrica. How is this the deft political maneuvering that you seem to suggest, Quarter?
Because despite the meandering nature of my post, the idea that started it is still sound- Obama knew this was coming. I refuse to believe he couldn't have, so I started to rationalize ways in which the ceding of ground would work in his favor and that's all I could come up with the given evidence at hand. It's not perfect but Obama is a master of political-jitsu and that's the best I had. I have a few other suspicions such as using the possibility of prosecution as an axe above the new Afghan general's head or the possible implication of the Pakistanis or the Israelis, but there's no evidence soooooo.
Neither is lying to Congress. Its not like the CIA has traditionally been truthful. They are spies and assassins.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Remember, Sex Bad, Harm Good.
Or... EIT is bad and killing babies is good! Love your arguments there Jeff. Don't hurt yourself when you get off that high horse.
Go splash some water on your face?
If you support abortion rights respecting the autonomy of a woman's body you are required to also support the use of torture which completely strips uncharged prisoners of every conceptual facet of individual autonomy? Buh?
Spun that back towards ya. Now answer that.
Interesting how you completely ignore the second half of the sentence which contains the actual point in order to shift into an abortion debate. Actually, that was what you did in the first part as well. Fun!
Then what point was there in you bringing up abortion?
Also, why do you believe that torture should be a partisan issue?
I for one am quite glad that all the people who condone torture are on the other side.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Only other countries have to respect international law. Didn't you read the memos, which explain that it's totally fine to use techniques that we are currently attacking other powers for using. Also, constitutional rights and doctor-patient confidentiality only apply to men.
Because Republicans aren't inherently evil? I mean, seriously?
People who condone torture shouldn't be on either side. When you have a pro-torture party something has gone seriously fucking wrong.
Read back to the quote in that post I placed, should be obvious.
Interesting fantasy you have where I believe EIT should be a partisan issue. Interesting how the GOP and the right wing talking heads asked for no memos to be released as they knew it was bad for the country. Now they are out there and who is taking a lot of the heat? Looks like Madame Speaker Pelosi is. We warned that it would get ugly and it has. More so for Nancy and the Democrats who align themselves with her.
I know most of us here are fluent in doublespeak, but we would appreciate it if you refrained from using it. The subject matter is torture, as waterboarding is most definitely torture.
I honestly don't give a shit if Nancy Pelosi goes down as a result of this, though I'm sure that a lot of the Democratic establishment probably does. However, if she does go down it should be because she was simply taken down in the process of bringing all the real guilty parties to justice, which seem at this point to be headed by Cheney.
You know what else was bad for the country? Authorizing torture in the first place.
EDIT: Actually this makes it sound like releasing the memos was a bad thing. It wasn't, the GOPers just don't want everyone to see actual mess they've made. Maybe all those folks supporting torture will think twice after having visual evidence thrown in their faces.
It really isn't. Party A has any stance on abortion which recognizes it exists; therefore it should cede the moral high ground and support torture. How does that make sense?
You are framing your responses in the terms of parties. Including in this very post. How else am I supposed to take it?
Yeah, and they were wrong. But that's neither here nor there.
I'd look again if I were you. Or take the 24 hour news cycle blinders off for a little bit as most people don't have the memory span of a goldfish.
Why does this sound like something out of The Godfather. That sure is a nice Constitution you have there; it would be a shame if something were to happen to it should you release certain documents. And I'm afraid I don't see how the Democrats advocating following domestic law and international treaty obligations are the ones who have the most to lose.
Nancy Pelosi was prohibited by law from speaking about what she was told in those conferences, so she, unlike Bush, decided to follow the law. It should also be noted that Bush was under no such obligation when he claimed we do not torture. Currently, she is even saying that the Bush era CIA, an organization not known for its honesty, lied to her, telling her that nobody was being waterboarded, something that the CIA has been unable to deny. The only people who believe that this is a compromised position are idiots.
There's also the fact that there is nobody credible who believes that the memos would do any harm, as shown by the fact that nobody objected beforehand, as they did for the pictures. Hell, it's starting to look like the only reason Cheny's making the rounds is because he ordered the torture so he could get a (false) confession of an Iraq-Osama link from a person who was an undisputed POW.
- The photos are gonna come out no matter what, so the question is, which way of them getting released has more benefits
- releasing the photos himself boosts his "Soft On Terror" image and gets him in more shit with the locals in the US, the GOP especially
- not releasing the photos damages his image abroad, but insulates him from GOP attacks about being a pussy terrorist lover
- his ability to pass his domestic agenda, which is what he really cares about, depends on keeping the GOP attacks to their minimum
- ergo, he doesn't release the photos
This would be the only logic I can imagine.