Hugh Conway Posted December 10, 2007 Posted December 10, 2007 Per your second point - it's not as though they had to have a quorum before speaking their mind. This wasn't a spending bill where they had to pick their battles and count their votes. They were in a closed hearing, where all they had to do was open their mouths. They didn't - so those present, which include Pelosi - are in absolutely in no position to claim the moral high ground after the fact. They were in a briefing not a hearing. The difference is substantial - at a briefing you listen. At a hearing you ask. Quote
JayB Posted December 10, 2007 Author Posted December 10, 2007 Hee hee, good old JayB. "If only the democrats had put a stop to this." If only. If only. It's not about them stopping it, it's a matter of them having the integrity required to either defend the decisions that they made *not* to oppose waterboarding, or to castigate themselves for their failure to do so. I'd respect either much more than pretending that they aren't responsible for their decisions after they turned out to be unpopular with their base. Quote
JayB Posted December 10, 2007 Author Posted December 10, 2007 Per your second point - it's not as though they had to have a quorum before speaking their mind. This wasn't a spending bill where they had to pick their battles and count their votes. They were in a closed hearing, where all they had to do was open their mouths. They didn't - so those present, which include Pelosi - are in absolutely in no position to claim the moral high ground after the fact. They were in a briefing not a hearing. The difference is substantial - at a briefing you listen. At a hearing you ask. They were clearly bound, gagged, and couldn't so much as blink to communicate their sentiments during the briefing: "Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." Quote
Hugh Conway Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 They were clearly bound, gagged, and couldn't so much as blink to communicate their sentiments during the briefing: "Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." So they had a grand total of 1 hour to digest everything being told them, formulate a concrete cohesive rational opinion and voice their objections? :lmao: If this is the sum total of your argument, have you thought about becoming a CIA analyst? :lmao: Quote
JayB Posted December 11, 2007 Author Posted December 11, 2007 Wait - I thought that they couldn't voice any objections because this was a *briefing*? Judging by the commentary issuing forth from the Democrats, this has always been a black and white issue, so by their own estimation this should have been a no brainer. The fact that it wasn't means that they are either incapable of making simple judgments regarding something that they've characterized as transparently evil and injurious to the national interest, or they are craven opportunists who are hoping to avoid responsibility for the decisions that they made. I vote for the latter of the two. Quote
mattp Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 I agree that several of them are craven opportunists, Jay, but what are you saying here? The Republicans aren't or haven't been? Are you just being provocative just to get a rise, or are you suggesting there is something wrong with stating the actual idea that we should not be torturing people? Better late than never, isn't it? Most of those on the Republican side of the aisle are STILL saying they don't want to look into it. Quote
fear_and_greed Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 I was always able to find out where my brother hid my Legos using only pliers and a blowtorch. Quote
billcoe Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 Steven King, the novelist proposed this. He thought since it wasn't a big thing, she shouldn't mind, nor would her daddy mind the chance to prove to the world how it's not torture by volunteering his child. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 (edited) to TVASH...F*#! off. That is all the response your dumbass deserves. You talk so much shit on this site and almost immediately after you enter a conversation it goes down hill. What do you do for a living since you seem to have so much real world knowledge of warfare and interrogation. Have you ever interrogated anyone? Have you ever interrogated anyone who just killed someone you were very close to? How about have you ever interrogated anyone who just killed on of your friends without laying a hand on them? I have. I didn't torture anyone. I have been a part of many interrogations. I never saw any torture. You probably don't want to hear any of that since you are so smart and experienced. Oooo. At ease, soldier. Somebody's got a big red button. Didn't think such a cool, expert cucumber such as yourself would snap so easily under my interrogation techniques. It's just a damn good thing there are guys like you here to keep the conversation on the high road. I guess my mention of the rule of law and the well documented ineffectiveness of torture really put this conversation in the sewer. Edited December 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
prole Posted December 11, 2007 Posted December 11, 2007 Wait - I thought that they couldn't voice any objections because this was a *briefing*? Judging by the commentary issuing forth from the Democrats, this has always been a black and white issue, so by their own estimation this should have been a no brainer. The fact that it wasn't means that they are either incapable of making simple judgments regarding something that they've characterized as transparently evil and injurious to the national interest, or they are craven opportunists who are hoping to avoid responsibility for the decisions that they made. I vote for the latter of the two. Whoa! Stop the presses, man. Are you trying to say that these politicians have flip-flopped on this issue? That they're some kind of...FLIP-FLOPPERS?! I am astonished. I suggest you start a blog. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Believe me contrary to what the liberal media might have you believe, the patriots out there keeping us safe are not monsters and they don't enjoy hurting people. They exhaust all other means before going there. If you go there, by definition, you're a monster, regardless of your justification. Most people on this planet that have committed similar atrocities having loving families, doggies, and kitties waiting for them at home. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) 3. These practices are already having diminishing returns due to the fact that it is widely published. The combatants now know that it may be uncomfortable, but we will not hurt them or leave any marks. Yes they read the news as well. So, in other words, our policy should be to give the impression to the international community that we will maim and kill our detainees; that we have become, in fact, the new Gestapo. Um...no thanks. What an utter disgrace to everything we supposedly stand for that would be. There was a generation of Americans who gave a whole lot of blood to fight that kind of tyranny. They deserve better than this. Not to mention that would we do to our enemies in captivity in this war will be done, with complete justification, to our captured soldiers in every war from now now. Edited December 12, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Bug Posted December 12, 2007 Posted December 12, 2007 Hee hee, good old JayB. "If only the democrats had put a stop to this." If only. If only. It's not about them stopping it, it's a matter of them having the integrity required to either defend the decisions that they made *not* to oppose waterboarding, or to castigate themselves for their failure to do so. I'd respect either much more than pretending that they aren't responsible for their decisions after they turned out to be unpopular with their base. The Republicans own the House, the Senate and the White house and the Democrats are STILL responsible for what went wrong. Democrats are really bad people with incredible powers. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.