Cheney Approved And Approves Of Torture
In an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl Dick Cheney defends torture.
KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.
KARL: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?
CHENEY: I don’t.
KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?
CHENEY: I do.
KARL: You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war.
CHENEY: I disagree with that.
Cheney disagrees with the law, with the FBI, and with the then-vice chair, and one-time chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.
According to the Times, “C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as ‘water boarding,’ in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.” Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described such tactics as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And the FBI has instructed its agents to steer clear of such coercive interrogation methods, for fear that their involvement might compromise testimony in future criminal cases.
There is an Arctic Freeze to the Mid Section and many are affected! I’d be surprised if anyone was surprised by Cheney’s answers! If they tried these tactics in the past, I am glad the FBI is steering clear now. Learning from mistakes is progress.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I’m not for ripping out finger nails or eyeballs or lighting people on fire but you have got to do more than just ask them nicely to tell you where Bin Laden is. I mean honestly.
Excuse me mister terrorist guy but we seem to be having a lot of trouble finding your leader. Can you tell us where we might find him? Oh, sure. He’s in the third cave on the left just past the camel. Never going to happen.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I don’t think the Vice President has changed. Isn’t it like a cop who is charged and convicted of having used excessive force refusing to back down and admit it was wrong. In both cases, Cheney’s and the hypothetical one I mentioned about a cop, they just don’t agree that it’s wrong. To me, that’s called abuse of power.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Durhamite,
Why do you assume that everyone you are torturing is actually a terrorist?
Reports show persuasive evidence to indicate that most detainees were innocent of any terrorist activity, and that Guantánamo has been a powerful recruitment tool for extremists.
Plus the experts agree that torture only results in false information
December 16th, 2008 at 6:54 am
A total abuse of power with a bullheaded mind.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:03 am
“KARL: You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war.
CHENEY: I disagree with that.
”
So he’s saying,even if we KNEW Saddam had no WMDs,we would have gone in?
Now how credible does that make Bush’s statement that they BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs BASED ON THE INTELLIGENCE?
Obviously,from Cheney’s assessment,even if the intelligence had said “Saddam doesnt have WMDs”,they would have gone into Iraq. So was Bush really making his decision to invade Iraq based on Intelligence Assessment?
It is easier to make a indicted murderer admit his crime than it is to make a murdering politician admit his crime,especially a murdering Republican.Responsible for 4000+ Amerian deaths, and he blames “Intelligence failure” when his own deputy says “The intelligence didnt really matter”
December 16th, 2008 at 7:04 am
The tatics used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked and saved hundreds of American lives. I know some of you libs don’t give a d_ _ _ about American soldiers or their lives and will never agree that waterboarding should be used even if it will saves lives.
“WAR IS HELL” You do what you have to do to save the American Soldiers lives and win a war. In war people are killed and places are blown up and, unfortunately, there is collateral damage and death. The is war. Live It. Learn It. But you should never Love It.
That is why the phrase “WAR IS HELL” was coined.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I am glad that the people who are sitting in their warm comfy houses safe and sound and are condemning the actions of soldiers who are trying to gain valuable information were not around during WWII. Hitler probably would have won the war.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“Excuse me mister terrorist guy but we seem to be having a lot of trouble finding your leader. Can you tell us where we might find him? Oh, sure. He’s in the third cave on the left just past the camel.”
Thanks Durham—that was funny as hell.
Sad part is some here think that will work.
Muhammad Atta was treated nice when he was released from a prison in Israel—then he flew a jet into WTC.
off to work>>>>>>>.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Karthik said,
Your logic, as usual, makes no sense. There were multiple excuses used to enter Iraq. True, the sales job on Iraq was about WMDs, but the official reason was non compliance w/ UN resolutions.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Willy,
What an offensive thing to say, Willy. Which ‘libs’ do you think don’t care about the lives of American soldiers, and what gives you that idea?
December 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am
The tatics used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked and saved hundreds of American lives. I know some of you libs don’t give a d_ _ _ about American soldiers or their lives and will never agree that waterboarding should be used even if it will saves lives.
………………………….
There is a reason that ALL of the experts say it doesn’t get reliable info.
Even the WW11 interrogators felt compelled to come out and say it doesn’t work.
As for “I know some of you libs don’t give a d_ _ _ about American soldiers”
It could be said that, “I know some of you cons don’t give a d_ _ _ about American soldiers and that the torture will lead to their being tortured if captured”.
My opinion, (and that of most intel people) is if we keep it illegal, and there IS a scenario in which it urgent and it may work, the agent would do what he had to do and take his chances with the legal system.
When it is legal, the chances for abuse outweigh everything else, so that even after the threat has passed, where does it stop? Will it be justified for more and more?
What an EVIL LIB comes to power and and decides that NRA members are ‘enemy combatants’, and must be tortured?
By the time you become the next Sadaam, it’s too late.
And T Mason, Hitler tortured, we did not.
If we had Bush/Cheney, we would have lost…They would have invaded Mexico.
Oh wait…. Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.
Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
Those Bush boys do LOVE their war profiteering!
December 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“The tactics used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked and saved hundreds of American lives.”
Unsubstantiated by any credible source.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:44 am
What is a credible source? Someone from the left?
December 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Willy, what is your definition of ending the war? I would love to hear the answer. We cannot stand as the world moral authority if we dont respect the Geneva convention. That is why we have little respect worldwide and why new terrorists emerge everyday. We say we love freedom we are the united states and we do not do what they do. And then we go around and do the same thing they do. We just use the military as a shield, which is wrong. The White House tried to blame abuses at Gitmo on the military-when it was not the militarys decision it was the WHITE HOUSE. This is why people hate this administation. They are cowards and frauds. And if you honestly think they care about the Military why dont you look up how many times McCain voted AGAISNT the veterans. You will be shocked.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Good post, Ike.
I think probably the saddest things I’ve heard neocons on the right say are, “Why do you libs hate the troops so much?” accompanied by, “Let’s keep fighting the war over there, so the terrorists don’t come over here.”
As if treating our boys and girls like meat puppets on a stick, voting down public financial support while spending trillions on private contractors, and denying them health benefits on their return home could be deemed “loving” the men and women in the American military forces.
Make no mistake, we need to hate the war to the extent we bring our troops HOME. Instead, we’re just creating more terrorist opposition.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Torture is torture and war is war: two things that should be avoided at all costs. The fact is that if we wouldn’t have gone to war, 4000 American soldiers would not be dead today. . . If you defend this unjustified war, you condone the killing of over 4000 American troops. Period.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
How do we know the tactics used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked and saved hundreds of American lives? Americans are still dying. Is that your definition of ‘worked’?
December 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you defend this unjustified war, you condone the killing of over 4000 American troops. Period.
I don’t support this war, but I certainly don’t agree with your statement. People can support the war w/o ‘condoning’ the killing of the troops. Just about everybody is against the killing of the troops, Diego.
One can be in favor of allowing BB guns to be sold w/o ‘condoning’ kids getting their eye shot out.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
DIEGO—Interesting post. What about members of the military who defend the war? Do they too “condone the ‘killing’” of 4000+ of their brothers and sisters in arms?
SARAH—I take your comment about “Let’s keep fighting the war over there, so the terrorists don’t come over here.” to be that you disagree with that sentiment. Is that correct? If so, what you offer as an alternative, because the terrorists and extremists will have to be fought, and that fighting will have to take place some where.
Unless you are for the world rolling over and accepting Sharia law. As a woman, I assume you would be against that.
IKE—For me, ending the war will come when there are zero or next to zero places that harbor and support terrorism.
Is that an attainable goal? I used to think so, but it seems too many people are NOT willing to make the tough calls and take the tough stands needed to make that happen. Too many people do not have the backbone or courage needed to stay with this for the long haul. It has only been seven years since the 11 Sep 01 attacks. It has only been 5.5 years since we went into Iraq. That isn’t really that long.
TO ALL—I see and hear many who say that the US policies and prescence the Middle East continue to aid terrorist recruitment. That may be what terrorists use as their excuse now, but what was the reason for terrorism 30-40 years ago? What was the reason behind the hostages being taken and held for over a year in Iran? What was the reason for Libya’s blowing up the Pan Am flight in ‘88?
I think it is more accurate to accept that there are some people who will commit terrorism no matter what you do, unless you completely bow down to them. I am unwilling to do that. Are you? If you are, fine, be a coward. If you are not, then you need to understand that there will be terrorism.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
HOPE—I think that overall point is that information obtained from KSM has been used to stop other plots. Stopping these plots have saved American and other lives world wide.
I agree that his information has not stopped the fighting in Iraq or Afghan, and that the bravest of the brave are still dying. And it is very, very sad.
But remember, fighting is the military’s job. It is a job members volunteer for by signing up, especially anyone who has joined after 11 Sep 01.
While I in NO way want to see and hear about military members being killed in action, I do not want to hear about another 3000+ civilians being killed on our soil by a bunch of cowards again either.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
DIEGO—Interesting post. What about members of the military who defend the war? Do they too “condone the ‘killing’” of 4000+ of their brothers and sisters in arms?
……
I hate to say it sir, but yes. That is true. We DID NOT have to be in Iraq. There were no WMDs. So we were not defending our counrty from anything when we invaded Iraq and if the invasion would have never happened, those troops would still be alive. If you are against the killing of our troops then you are against this war that has killed 4000+ of our troops. War should be the last resort to defend our nation from actual threats. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am
You are ridiculous Diego, and I’m guessing you are a kid.
By your logic, even in a ‘just’ war people are for the killing of our troops. You don’t think the war necessary, I agree, but folks who think the war was necessary are not FOR the killing of our troops.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
TRA: “SARAH—I take your comment about “Let’s keep fighting the war over there, so the terrorists don’t come over here.” to be that you disagree with that sentiment. Is that correct? If so, what you offer as an alternative, because the terrorists and extremists will have to be fought, and that fighting will have to take place some where.”
Yes, I disagree with the premise that fighting over THERE will keep terrorism down over HERE (or anywhere else in Europe). Many will be quick to say, “But nothing’s happened over here! That’s proof it’s working!”
Not necessarily. It’s just a matter of time. And it’s not as if they used TROOPS in 9/11. Just a few terrorists were all it took to maximize losses, courtesy of a few security breaches in common, everyday events and institutions.
If terrorists and extremists have to be fought, let it be a covert war. Let it be a smarter war, more creative than the one we’re fighting now. We need plants on the inside. We need to maximize diplomacy. (We should have given those Delta Force agents more support and more manpower, more autonomy and force when they were THIS CLOSE to finding and killing bin Laden. It was on 60 Minutes recently. I think this is an example of how Bush’s administration is NOT interested in stamping out terrorism).
TRA: “Unless you are for the world rolling over and accepting Sharia law. As a woman, I assume you would be against that.”
You know, TRA, I had a lot more respect for you before you puked out this “all or nothing” scenario. But I’ll offer this– The churchy dreck rolling out of the White House has been quite enough religion-as-politics for me, thanks.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ok. If not Iraq, then where should we be? Can’t say Afghanistan because we are already there. North Korea again? Iran? Syria? Turkmenistan? Uzbecistan?
Or, should we have just not done anything but lick our wounds, cry for the lost lives, and hope the terrorists left us alone?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I don’t know anyone who supports the war who wants to see troops die or get injured.
and for the record there were plenty, PLENTY of countries/organizations/groups who HATED this country, everyone in it, and everything it stands for BEFORE this war.
Our troops aren’t viewed as puppets on sticks by anyone I know. The only puppets on sticks are the rediculous folks who come on here and post talking points from either side of the aisle over and over again hoping to make some sort of valid point, when what they are saying really is…well, pointless.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
We already have plants on the inside to hear special forces tell it.Saying it is a coincidence is pretty lame. You blame everything else on bush, so how bout giving the man a little credit?
This whole “the neocons are evil little twerps who hate this country and we are the saviours with lights shining down on us” bit is pretty darn old.
I thought the war was too covert for most liberals? Aren’t they the ones who are anti-wiretap, anti-interrogation, anti-detainment, anti-pre-emptive, etc etc etc?
you can’t have it both ways.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
You are ridiculous Diego, and I’m guessing you are a kid.
By your logic, even in a ‘just’ war people are for the killing of our troops. You don’t think the war necessary, I agree, but folks who think the war was necessary are not FOR the killing of our troops.
…..
Call me ridiculous sir. It’s fine. And I might be a kid, but I have friends that are in Iraq that regret having been tricked by recruiters in what a great thing it was to get in the military. Don’t get me wrong though, I also have friends that are in the military and believe of that choice as the greatest they have ever made, but they have also come back as different people. Affected young people. As for people that defend the war, I completely respect their premise, of course. We ABSOLUTELY have to defend our nation from imminent danger; and I emphasize the word imminent. Iraq was not imminent. Maybe Afghanistan was, but not Iraq. And when choices, such as going to war, have to be made, there should be no room for mistakes. Iraq was one of those mistakes. I am not against defending the nation. I am against unjustified war. And if you defend and UNJUSTIFIED war, you indirectly, not deliberately, condone sending some of our troops to die for an unjust cause.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
SARAH—My apologies. I didn’t mean my question about Sharia law to mean I support any sort of ‘religious’ government. However, the intent of most of the extremists is to establish Islam, and particularly Sharia Law across the world. By any means necessary. Are we to sit back and allow that to happen.
You are also correct that it wasn’t troops per se that executed 11 Sep 01. However, we aren’t fighting “troops” in Iraq or Afghan either. That is why there is such a hard time deciding how they are to be handled legally. They don’t belong to an acutal national fighting force with a true chain of command uniforms. However, I think stopping the attack at LAX, on the Brooklyn Bridge, and the jets leaving London for the US are pretty proof that we are getting good information and that we are keeping the terrorists at bay.
I also must admit that you bring up a great point with regards to our tactics. This war is no longer over big open fields, but in urban areas. You are absolutely correct that we need to improve our Human intelligence capabilities. We are working on it, but after many years of neglect by various administrations, we can’t expect them to be re-established over night.
There are other cover operations on going too. You just don’t hear about them, because well, they are covert.
I had not heard about having OBL in our sights during this administration. I will have to check that out. Thanks for referencing the 60 mins piece.
I have heard of situations where the scene at a particular sight gave the impression we were just a couple of hours behind when OBL had been there.
I do recall hearing of when former President Clinton had the opportunity to make the execute call on either a sniper or a UAV to attack OBL, and he didn’t. I will need more time to get you a reference to the story though. I think it was brought up in an enterview former President Clinton gave to Chris Wallace though.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
TRA: “Ok. If not Iraq, then where should we be? Can’t say Afghanistan because we are already there. North Korea again? Iran? Syria? Turkmenistan? Uzbecistan?”
Boy, what a hard-on for war you’ve got. How about we figure out what we’ve got going on in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan before we further piss off the rest of the world? Was it not enough that we drew al Quaeda to Iraq in this unnecessary war?
TRA: “Or, should we have just not done anything but lick our wounds, cry for the lost lives, and hope the terrorists left us alone?”
Again with the ridiculous (yes, “ridiculous” is spelled with an “ri-”), sweeping generalizations and dramatics.
T: “I don’t know anyone who supports the war who wants to see troops die or get injured.”
So you see a gap between fighting a war, and troops dying and getting injured. As if the two don’t go together. Hmm.
T: “and for the record there were plenty, PLENTY of countries/organizations/groups who HATED this country, everyone in it, and everything it stands for BEFORE this war.”
So we should invade them, as well?
T: “Our troops aren’t viewed as puppets on sticks by anyone I know.”
Then you’re absolutely lying to yourself or you have an incredibly short memory. A few months ago, you found it perfectly justifiable to send more troops over there to be killed, so that we would stay “safe” over here.
On a side note, it’s amazing you big smart neocons are asking your sworn enemy, a perceived “lib,” how to prevent more American military lives from being lost, but I guess it’s par for the course, since neither of you seems to have an answer except, “Better THEY die over there, than WE die over here!”
December 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
TRA: “They don’t belong to an acutal national fighting force with a true chain of command uniforms. However, I think stopping the attack at LAX, on the Brooklyn Bridge, and the jets leaving London for the US are pretty proof that we are getting good information and that we are keeping the terrorists at bay.”
Great points, definitely. Thanks for the reminder.
TRA: “I do recall hearing of when former President Clinton had the opportunity to make the execute call on either a sniper or a UAV to attack OBL, and he didn’t. I will need more time to get you a reference to the story though. I think it was brought up in an enterview former President Clinton gave to Chris Wallace though.
I’ll try to Google it later. Hindsight, of course, is 20-20. If Bush Sr. had had it, maybe Saddam would’ve been taken out from the get-go. If Clinton had had it, he would’ve killed bin Laden.
The worrisome thing is, what future “hindsight” are we lacking right now?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Diego,
Call me ridiculous sir. It’s fine. And I might be a kid
You’ll probably grow out of this black/white world view you have, it’s pretty common amongst high school/college kids.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
You’ll probably grow out of this black/white world view you have, it’s pretty common amongst high school/college kids.
…..
Whatever do you mean this “black/white” world view I have? It isn’t about growing out of anything. It’s about knowing that war should not happen unless it absolutely has to.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
SARAH—I, in no way, have a great desire for war. It is chaotic, dirty, tiring, mentally taxing, expensive, and just down right nasty.
However, Diego gave the impression that being in Iraq was wrong. He said we did not have to be in Iraq.
I can agree with that, but I simply wanted to know if not in Iraq then where is the correct location to work at busting up the terrorist organizations? The other countries I listed were just other suggestions. I in no way think we should go start a war in those countries.
Also, there are some in this country who believe we should NOT have done anything after 11 Sep 01 other than take it. Some take it even further saying it was all our fault in the first place. I was curious if Diego held that opinion. I have since seen he does not.
I know your response was to T. Mason, but if I may…
I support this war, but I don’t want to see our military members die. However, I am grounded enough in reality to know that if there is a war, even a completely covert war as you suggest, there are going be losses of life that we dont’ want or like. Heck, as 11 Sep 01 showed, even if there isn’t a war, there will be losses of life.
I hate to admit it, but in some ways, the military members are puppets. Once the enlistment contract is signed and the oath of enlistment is taken, they are bound to follow orders. Even the four-star generals have someone they take orders from, be it the SECDEF or the POTUS or their respective services secretary.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
SARAH—”The worrisome thing is, what future “hindsight” are we lacking right now?”
That is an awesome question.
BTW, something I left out of my 1242 post. In your 1218 post you mention, paraphrasing here…’neocons looking to their sworn enemy, a perceived lib, for how to save American military lives.’
I hope you weren’t referring to yourself. I don’t see you as my sworn enemy. We have different ideas about how things should be done. That doesn’t mean we have to hate each other. We seem to both want to protect our home land and minimize the loss of our military members. Since we both agree on that, I don’t see how we can be enemies.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
However, Diego gave the impression that being in Iraq was wrong. He said we did not have to be in Iraq.
I can agree with that, but I simply wanted to know if not in Iraq then where is the correct location to work at busting up the terrorist organizations? The other countries I listed were just other suggestions. I in no way think we should go start a war in those countries.
…..
Starting war is a much more complicated (or at least should be) choice than just saying let’s go start war there. The terrorists orgs. should be taken care of where we have absolute certainty that such terrorist orgs. are located. We went to Iraq without ABSOLUTE certainty that WMDs where there, while Al-Qaeda remained in Afghanistan.
—–
Also, there are some in this country who believe we should NOT have done anything after 11 Sep 01 other than take it. Some take it even further saying it was all our fault in the first place. I was curious if Diego held that opinion. I have since seen he does not.
…..
I definitely do not believe we should not have done anything after 9/11, but I do believe that we should have gone after the people who were responsible for it, not ones we equivocably thought had WMDs. Oh, and of course it was NOT our fault.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
TRA, thanks for further illumination of your views.
As you observed, for the terrorists, it seems to be a religious war– And as we’ve seen from this blog alone, it’s difficult to reason with anyone holding extremist/radical religious beliefs, much less those who think their religious beliefs should be EVERYONE’S law.
Brute force only works to an extent, and it also makes the next generation’s martyrs, extremists, etc. Gitmo is going to enhance that in spades, by the way.
I was around 7 or 8 when I first became aware that the Middle East hated our guts. I’ve grown up watching Libya, the Russo-Afghan war, the assassination of al Sadat, etc. So, I’m very sorry, for me, 9/11 was a shock, but not a surprise. Did we deserve it? Hell, no. Was it bound to happen? Sooner or later– Hell, yes.
And instead of us reeling about, wondering “Why us?!” we should have gone about trying to figure out, “Why us.”
Our dependence on the Middle East for oil is one of the underlying reasons. Our alliance with Israel is another. Our profligate spending of the world’s resources, our Western ways, those are targets of their hate, too.
My husband thinks we’d win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis if we fixed their electricity and plumbing, and showered them with iPods and Xboxes.
I’m not sure he’s wrong.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
TRA: “I don’t see you as my sworn enemy. We have different ideas about how things should be done. That doesn’t mean we have to hate each other.”
What a refreshing departure from the usual attitude displayed by the other, frequent, neocon posters to this blog who enjoy seething “YOU LIBS” through their teeth, as they accuse us of “loving Saddam” and “hating the troops.”
December 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Cheney disagrees with the law, with the FBI, and with the then-vice chair, and one-time chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.”
NORML disagrees with the law, with the FBI, and with many high government officials on legalizing pot.
This doesn’t make them wrong either. That is one of the biggest things we mean when we talk about liberty – the fact that no citizen has to agree with the law, the FBI and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I tend to agree with your husband.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“What is a credible source? Someone from the left?”
Posted by T. Mason
At least people on the left tend to back up their statements with the facts, unlike Hannity and O’Reilly who pull shit out of thier asses and pass it off as fact.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Maybe Cheney got 4 VietNam deferments because he was afraid that if he was captured, he’d be tortured.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Cheney defered the war for the same reason Osama Bin Laden didnt get into an airplane on Sept 11, because they are out and out cowards. They can convince someone else to do their dirty work, but would never ever put themselves out on the front line. Why do you think it took 5 years with almost a month left of this horrible administration for him to sit down with the press and say what we all knew already? Because Cheney is lower than low and he loves every minute of it. Does anyone else think he is foreign mole sent here to destroy us? I think that and I also think Palin is an Arab.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
TDRO, following Bush’s logic on “shoe-throwing is a sign of democracy,” it seems Cheney views torture as part of the democratic process, as well.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“The tatics used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked and saved hundreds of American lives”
Sure there is a source. It was Jesus – but if you don’t partake of his most sacred blood and other most sacred bodily secretions you will never know what joy there is in being a racist, homophobic, born-again torturer. Can’t wait for the Rapture, they will be serving Jesus blood-flavored Kool-Aid.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
The ICE MAN cometh!
December 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sarah,
why don’t you strap on your boots and volunteer to run the military since you have all the answers to national security?
I don’t see a gap between a war and casualties. But your logic that anyone who supports a war WANTS soldiers to die has a gap as big as the grand canyon. Are you actually saying that military families and others who support this war want to see soldiers die? Good Lord.
And yes, I said months ago that better they fight over there than us being attacked here. It is moronic to argue otherwise. They aren’t puppets on a stick. Believe it or not, they actually have generals and they have been trained to do the job they are doing. And they would probably be insulted by your little jab. I know I am.
do you deny that there have been, are, and always will be countries/groups/etc who hate our guts? You ask if we should attack them? Your man Obama does, so since you support him I guess you have your answer.
so keep rolling out the insults, and acting like you have all the answers. The more you talk the more left sided, narrow-minded you sound.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ok I’m gonna ask 1st… what kind of boots do you have Sarah? If you say Uggs I’m gonna bust a gut I spent 3days of mall walking with a 12yr. to find just the right ones.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Wheres Mark when you need him…. I can see a letter from Denny asking the same ? Sorry Mark I know it’s your schtick.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I think Jake just wanted to pour some gasoline on the fire!!!!!!
December 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
With the rate you libs are going, you will have Patton apologizing for his conduct in WWII. Funny how they never show that movie anymore.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
If torture worked,d-day would have never worked during WORLD WAR II. People where caught and never gave up information. The NAZIS tried everything and it did not work. The USSR tried it and does not work. When will you folks on the right confess you are wrong. I will list something wrong from the left is you folks will fess up. You folks spin every issue.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Patton never did and was court marshall for slapping a solider. I served as well and we go by codes and conducts.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Hey Craig:
What’s up?
December 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Mark whats up brother… xmas shopping complete, I used to be the last minute guy but work is slow which opened the door to get it done. The rug cost 3hundred btw lol.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Did you find the boots?
December 16th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Yeah I did and they cost a mint…. damn kids, they’re overrated, kids not the boots.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Funny. How old are they?
December 17th, 2008 at 12:54 am
My wife gave me my gift early since we will be out of town next week. Now I’ve got to come up with something quick and the best idea I can come up with is ShamWow.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Lol wait those are cool, I just have one but she spends as 3
December 17th, 2008 at 1:09 am
I got her that ipod touch… shes gonna have a fit cause I put alot of the songs I like on it.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I think they’re cool too. And they’re made in Germany. You know the Germans make good stuff.
Anyway… I’m gonna take my NyQuil and try to get some sleep.
Good Night.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:16 am
later partner keep the letters flowing
December 17th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Willy,T Mason,and the rest of y’all who I saw posting on this topic:
I notice you skipped any reference to the lack of honesty of the Bush Administration that I pointed out earlier.
Bush says we went in based on the intelligence.
Cheney says EVEN if the intelligence had been accurate,we would have gone in(he disagreed with Karl Rove’s assessment that we would NOT have gone in had the intelligence been accurate).
When is Bush going to directly admit this to the people?when are YOU going to STOP skipping over this,and moving on to “Khalid” or whoeever you want to make the enemy,to distract attention from such blatant lack of honesty,accountability?
December 17th, 2008 at 5:56 am
karthik,
You darling Clinton has a bazillion quotes out there, some of him JUSt before he left office where he states that saddam is a threat and they have WMD’s.
Are you going to tell me that HE lied? Are you going to tell me that every country in the world who went in with us LIED to their people? I guess EVERY member of our government who voted FOR the war…including HILLARRYYYYY and Biden LIED to us? If so, they shouldn’t be serving in their positions if you accept your own darn logic.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Alright…to all those who want to say President Bush lied, particularly about WMD, I have a question. And isn’t the typical, what about the fact that all nations, and even former President Clinton declaring that Iraq had WMD. Or that Sadam himself said he had WMD.
My question is this….Shortly before we began our combat operations, there was a convoy from Iraq to Syria. There were also planes that flew from Belarus to Baghdad and back to Belarus, who just happened to offer Sadam assylum before we started combat operations. These planes carried “sensitive cargo”.
What do you think was on the planes and in the convoy?
December 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
T, go take your meds. You work in the health field, correct? You should have access to many. Then again, maybe that’s the problem.
Incidentally, thanks for your letter of recommendation to oversee our national security, but I already have a job that I’m well-paid to do, because I stick to what I know well.
By the way, “But your logic that anyone who supports a war WANTS soldiers to die has a gap as big as the grand canyon. Are you actually saying that military families and others who support this war want to see soldiers die?”
I’m saying that’s what YOU said, ultimately, when you insisted that it’s better for military men and women to be dying over THERE, to keep us safe over HERE, and you further made the same incredible statement that they were all willing to give their lives over there and knew what they were getting into when they signed up.
Sure maybe you don’t WANT them to die. But you’re certainly willing to continue an unpopular war, started on questionable pretenses, with unclear objectives, in which they’ll sacrifice their lives indefinitely.
It would, how do you say? be moronic to argue otherwise.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Hiya, Craig7120– Normally, I wear Salomons, but occasionally, I’ll wear brown suede-high heel for work, LL Bean lace-ups for hiking and pasture-walking, and black riding boots for bars.
Uggs? They make my feet sweat just lookin’ at ‘em. My sister swears by them, but the Britney Spears factor turns me off. You’re a good egg for shopping for so long!
December 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Sarah,
I never said it is better for them to be “dying” over there. I said better to fight the war over there. You took what I said out of context, as usual.
When is the last time you talked to a soldier or military family?
December 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
T, I hate to break it to you, but many people die in the fight. Since you think it’s a good fight, a strong fight, a fight that’s making us safe over here, then obviously you have no problem with that.
When is the last time you attended a funeral for a dead soldier?
December 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
It really all boils down to this critical, though subjective question: Is waterboarding torture? If you say yes, you should not support it. If you say no, you really probably should.
When the law clearly defines it as torture, I will have a problem with the government using it. Until then, i’m ok with it.
From what I know of it, if it’s done humanely (which I certainly hope it is), it’s no worse that suddenly dunking someone’s head underwater at a pool. Something anyone with an older brother has experienced. Hardly torture, just very unpleasent.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dan, watch Christopher Hitchens (a proponent of the war, by the way), change his mind on waterboarding.
By actually BEING WATERBOARDED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
The Vanity Fair article can be found at:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
December 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
T Mason:
You are totally missing the point:
“You darling Clinton has a bazillion quotes out there, some of him JUSt before he left office where he states that saddam is a threat and they have WMD’s.
Are you going to tell me that HE lied? Are you going to tell me that every country in the world who went in with us LIED to their people? I guess EVERY member of our government who voted FOR the war…including HILLARRYYYYY and Biden LIED to us? If so, they shouldn’t be serving in their positions if you accept your own darn logic”
The point was NEVER about WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE for faulty Intelligence.
The Journalist asked a Frank Question:If you could do it over,and the intelligence by some MIRACLE was accurate about the REALITY of Saddam NOT having WMDs, DESPITE all the lies from Clinton and ANYONE else:With correct intelligence,would we have gone in still?
Karl Rove said probably not.
Dick Cheney said Probably YES.
That is what I asked of the Bush Administration:Honesty about their intents.
DONT blame the intelligence if you did NOT take your decision based on the intelligence.That’s all i’m saying.And I dare you to tell me that this isnt a lie, that the decision was based on WMDs.
The Clinton’s misjudgement about WMDs did NOT cause them to decide to invade Iraq.
Bush DID decide to invade Iraq.And if he did it IRRESPECTIVE of intelligence,he ought to tell you and me that,honestly.Dont you think so?Or dont you care?
December 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Why are you blaming Dick Cheney? He wasn’t THE DECIDER Or was he!
December 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Sarah,
I attended one a year and a half ago. That soon enough for ya? I have said before, I have very close friends who are either there now, just got back, or are getting ready to leave. The consensus with them is; War is hell, it ain’t fun, we’d rather be doing something else. They respect their President (shocking to you I know), even though they may not agree with every single decision he has made. They feel that what they are doing in Iraq is important and that they are making a positive difference, ones that aren’t shown on the nightly news nearly enough. They feel that they still have work to do in Afghanistan, and YES they are willing to die there to keep us safe here. MOST DEFINATELY>
Most of them did not vote for Obama, NOR did they vote for clinton. They did not respect clinton and they are fearful that obama may make cuts that hurt the military tremendously.
that enoug info for ya?
December 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
T. MASON—I’m active duty. Couldn’t agree with your points posted at 1655 more.
I don’t like seeing my brothers and sisters in arms coming back in flag draped coffins or with horribly debilitating injuries.
However, I have a spouse and children. I’m sure there are many on this board who have spouses and children.
I much, much, much, much rather go over there to engage this enemy than to have my spouse or children….or anyone else’s spouse or children….have to face them here.
At to take it even a bit further…I don’t like the destruction that has been done in Iraq, but again, I would much, much, much rather it be over there than over here.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
War is hell and i served in a war in THE US NAVY. I remember picking up displaced people in THILAND when the north was over running the south in NAM. I agree TRA,rather there than here. I said alot of cruel things here on liberaland. I love my country and the flag. Sometimes goose bumps and chills run through me when i hear USA. However,i don,t think we should haved went into IRAQ from the very start. It drew terrorist their. Their way of thinking is different. Some other type of terror reasoning would haved fled like a pack of buffalos. Those people being misplaced from their homes from NAM is 1 of realities of war and i hope to God this madness will end 1 day.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
STEVE—Thanks for your service. I was in Guam when the Kurds were evacuated from Northern Iraq in 1996. I escorted many families through the customs process upon their arrival.
I think that drawing the terrorist to Iraq has been a good thing. Basically, by keeping them busy trying to “get us out of their land”, they don’t have as much time or as many resources to use in Europe, Asia, or here. They have much less capablity to call up sleeper cells. I’m not saying that can’t do anything, but they are certainly less capable and organized than they were.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
TRA,Steve:
Can you produce one shred of evidence that existing,committed terrorists were DRAWN to Iraq Post Iraq invasion, and not CREATED in Iraq directly after the invasion?Am not even arguing the invasion CAUSED people to turn to terror:Am asking you what basis you have to claim that USA DREW the terrorists there.
Its quite reasonable to assume there is a finite number of terrorists.But that finite number can theoretically grow(and shrink).You need a bit more evidence than repetitive propaganda to believe that the already committed terrorists (BEFORE the invasion) are indeed the ones USA is facing in Iraq.If you’re arguing that the people who turned to terror in Iraq,assuming by my hypothesis, would ANYWAY have turned to terror because they all hate USA,you’re converting this into a war between civilizations.Do you really want to have a war of civilizations:Us vs All Muslim nations?
December 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
KARTHIK—I believe that Al Qaeda In Iraq was organized and in existence well before we began combat operations.
Also, it has been widely reported and accepted that Iran and Syria both have been providing people and materiel in support of the insurgency and the terrorists.
Iran has long been against and shown hatred toward the US. As long as I can remember anyway, particularly thinking of the hostages taken in the late 70’s.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
thanks to all who have served
December 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
For a lib,i wanted to go into IRAN and not into IRAQ. The hate their is beyound being infested. That nation wants to run the middle east. I still think we fumble the ball going into IRAQ. I smell a fight with IRAN.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
You not only smell a fight with Iran, but I suspect Russia will be a problem over the next few years unfortunately.
I worry a LOT that many are going to see us as weak having a President with such minimal experience.
Just my opinion
December 17th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Not because of Obama,it,s more like coffee perking in the pot. Iran has to be dealt with. HOW! that,s on Obama. We can no longer act like JOHN WAYNE under BUSH. We can,t go around holding flowers as well. Russia under Bush remind me of the USSR. Their leader has fooled our president. Bush lost focus. Just my opinion.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“KARTHIK—I believe that Al Qaeda In Iraq was organized and in existence well before we began combat operations.”
Thanks TRA for the first REAL argument on this website on the motivation to start the Iraq war.
However,I dont see any reason for the above belief.What do you have other than belief?Dont give me that BS about intelligence reports,please.AM not arguing that the intelligence was wrong,but am arguing that even if the intelligence had been ACCURATE that Saddam did NOT have WMDs,Bush would have taken the same decision,according to his Deputy Dick Cheney.
“Also, it has been widely reported and accepted that Iran and Syria both have been providing people and materiel in support of the insurgency and the terrorists.
Iran has long been against and shown hatred toward the US. As long as I can remember anyway, particularly thinking of the hostages taken in the late 70’s.”
hmmm,I dont see any connection between that and the decision to go INTO Iraq.Their support to insurgency POST invasion is not relevant to the decision taken BEFORE invasion,to invade.If you hadnt invaded,you wouldnt be there next door to Iran,so how COULD they have attacked you?
December 19th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Karthik,
Have you read the actual intelligence reports?
December 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am
T Mason:I have heard of them.They didnt all say that Saddam had WMDs.But I repeat:This is NOT about the intelligence report.I have told you that repeatedly.Reread the interview with Cheney.
“Interviewer:Karl Rove said that had the intelligence been accurate(about the fact that Saddam didnt have WMDs),we would probably NOT have gone into Iraq.What do you think of that assessment”
Cheney:”I Disagree:Even if the intelligence had been accurate about the reality of Saddam not having WMDs,we would have gone into Iraq”.
Your argument about the intelligence does NOT hold water for THIS precise reason.Cheney’s assessment(and mine,and a LOT of Americans who are able to face this reality) is that Bush had decided to go into Iraq no matter what the intelligence said.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
[...] these high level charges being a first in US history and Cheney having recently admitted that he approved waterboarding, there is increasing speculation that there will be blanket pardons [...]
December 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
[...] practice violates our basic tenets. It’s certainly a departure from a vice president who admitted being involved in the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and who, in hindsight, doesn’t believe these tactics go too [...]
January 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am