StrangeSox Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Why so quick to "not be sure" what Pelosi knew, but yet, anyone from tbe Bush administration has to be wrong? Track record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Track record? I could say the same thing for the current administration, and Nancy Pelosi, and others... but it would summarily be dismissed as GOP goggles. That's what I'm getting at. People make judgements all the time about GOP and when they're wrong, of course, guilty as charged! When a Democrat has it happen, it's "well, I don't really know what they really knew, so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt". Newsflash from Mr. Obvious - they are all scumsucking liars. They all knew what was happening. Now, they just want to play politics with it, which is wrong all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) Why so quick to "not be sure" what Pelosi knew, but yet, anyone from tbe Bush administration has to be wrong? With that said, I agree with your premise that they should get to the bottom of Pelosi, but they won't, it will just die off in the waning days. Because I've read the memos that say what they knew and what they did already. Hell, the former VP is damn proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) Because I've read the memos that say what they knew and what they did already. Wrong. You know now. But back then, you didn't, and I'm sure you "knew". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) Wrong. You know now. But back then, you didn't, and I'm sure you "knew". Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) Huh? Ok, I'm generalizing. Republican (XYZ) has an issue. You post the issue as fact here, from left wing blogs, etc. Democrat (ABC) has an issue. You post the issue as "I really don't know what they knew, so we better check", which inherently means you give Democrats benefits that you don't Republicans. I'm not talking about what has come out as fact, I'm talking about what is rumored or is a point of contention. That really bothers me. I've said it time and time again, there's the left view, the right view, and the truth somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) That really bothers me. I've said it time and time again, there's the left view, the right view, and the truth somewhere in the middle. Then give me the independent prosecutor and let's get to the bottom of where the truth is. (A key point here is that the CIA briefing document summaries we have seen so far are damn vague in saying exactly what Pelosi was told, BTW. Just as a small defense of myself...she has room to say the CIA is lying and without having been there or actually seeing some documentation of what she was presented, all we know is the schedule of briefings right now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) Then give me the independent prosecutor and let's get to the bottom of where the truth is. (A key point here is that the CIA briefing document summaries we have seen so far are damn vague in saying exactly what Pelosi was told, BTW. Just as a small defense of myself...she has room to say the CIA is lying and without having been there or actually seeing some documentation of what she was presented, all we know is the schedule of briefings right now). I don't have a problem with that, although I think it's a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) I don't have a problem with that, although I think it's a waste of time. What has currently been admitted to publicly is enough to charge the former vice president and likely several of the OLC memo authors with conspiring to break the law, and the vice President in particular is proud of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) What has currently been admitted to publicly is enough to charge the former vice president and likely several of the OLC memo authors with conspiring to break the law, and the vice President in particular is proud of that. Ok, induldge me on this. If the law is so "unclear", why don't they clear it up and pass a very black and white law outlawing some of these EIM's? Why is it so "unclear" in the first place? Why is it that "liberals" (and I'm not trying to paint you... I'm being serious with this line of questioning) are so quick on the trigger to say "WAR CRIMESSS"... and "they broke the law", when in fact there are several respected constitutional lawyers (who you may disagree with, yet they are well respected, so let's not go down that path) that say no laws were broken? Which then leads me back to my original question, why don't they clear the law up right here and now? (I have an answer, I just want to see what yours is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Ok, induldge me on this. If the law is so "unclear", why don't they clear it up and pass a very black and white law outlawing some of these EIM's? Why is it so "unclear" in the first place? Why is it that "liberals" (and I'm not trying to paint you... I'm being serious with this line of questioning) are so quick on the trigger to say "WAR CRIMESSS"... and "they broke the law", when in fact there are several respected constitutional lawyers (who you may disagree with, yet they are well respected, so let's not go down that path) that say no laws were broken? Which then leads me back to my original question, why don't they clear the law up right here and now? (I have an answer, I just want to see what yours is). Because if you build a better mousetrap, a better mouse will come along. Each president wants the flexibility for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) Ok, induldge me on this. If the law is so "unclear", why don't they clear it up and pass a very black and white law outlawing some of these EIM's? Why is it so "unclear" in the first place? Why is it that "liberals" (and I'm not trying to paint you... I'm being serious with this line of questioning) are so quick on the trigger to say "WAR CRIMESSS"... and "they broke the law", when in fact there are several respected constitutional lawyers (who you may disagree with, yet they are well respected, so let's not go down that path) that say no laws were broken? Which then leads me back to my original question, why don't they clear the law up right here and now? (I have an answer, I just want to see what yours is). What you clearly are trying to get me to say is that they've left the law vague enough that people can find ways around it so that everyone can B.S. their way through everything. What'd I'll actually say is that the law is simply not unclear...because the terms in the law you contend are vague have been defined in the past. Cruel, degrading, inhuman treatment, torture, whatever, those have been defined in the past. Waterboarding has been defined by U.S. courts and tribunals to be torture in the past. Slamming people's heads up against the wall has been defined to be torture in the past. You don't need specifics when the law already has defined those things. The vagueness can actually help, because it can also allow a court to make things more or less strict with time...but it is a court that must do that. Writing a memo after you've waterboarded a guy 187 times saying "oh, it's ok to do that" doesn't cut it when established precedent says exactly the opposite. It's the same argument I've made for FISA; if the President orders a man shot and he dies, you don't need to pass a law saying that it's illegal to shoot someone; the law covering murder already covers it, and shooting someone falls under the category of murder just as waterboarding someone or beating their head against the wall has been defined by the courts as torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 everything is = The administration enacting torture as a commonplace technique and the investigation to how this came about is absolutely = to documents with a letter saying they're not sure if they are reliable saying that a congressperson was briefed on the issue. How do you not see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ May 14, 2009 -> 12:24 PM) everything is = The administration enacting torture as a commonplace technique and the investigation to how this came about is absolutely = to documents with a letter saying they're not sure if they are reliable saying that a congressperson was briefed on the issue. How do you not see that? Frankly, if Pelosi was briefed and didn't take steps that she could have taken to stop the program, then she's just as guilty of conspiracy as many of the others, so I have no problem tossing her in prison for that, so feel free to think it's equal. Conspiracy is conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) Frankly, if Pelosi was briefed and didn't take steps that she could have taken to stop the program, then she's just as guilty of conspiracy as many of the others, so I have no problem tossing her in prison for that, so feel free to think it's equal. Conspiracy is conspiracy. It's reason the truth commission is needed. But no, it's not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 lol, Cheney pwned. WASHINGTON (CNN) – The CIA rejected former Vice President Dick Cheney's request to declassify records of abusive interrogations of suspected terrorists, a spokesman for the spy agency said Thursday. In a written statement, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the two documents Cheney requested are the subject of a pending lawsuit and cannot be declassified. Cheney has said he wants the documents released so there can be a more "honest debate" on the Bush administration's approval of "alternative" interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists. He argued that those techniques provided valuable intelligence that saved American lives, but critics say they amounted to the illegal torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. He's trying to cherry-pick anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) lol, Cheney pwned. He's trying to cherry-pick anyway. Worth noting...the reason why they rejected his request is that those documents are part of another FOIA case already being argued. Whether there is political motivation behind the rejection/other case, I'll leave to others do determine...but it's still entirely possible we'll see the documents at some point. Also FWIW, at least one Senator (Feingold) said during the testimony yesterday that he's seen the documents and they don't make the case Cheney claims they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) Worth noting...the reason why they rejected his request is that those documents are part of another FOIA case already being argued. Whether there is political motivation behind the rejection/other case, I'll leave to others do determine...but it's still entirely possible we'll see the documents at some point. Also FWIW, at least one Senator (Feingold) said during the testimony yesterday that he's seen the documents and they don't make the case Cheney claims they do. The bolded is where I was going with this. Cheney's version of reality is just plain fantasy. He's pretty much just making s*** up and Photoshopping facts. Edited May 14, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Worth noting...the reason why they rejected his request is that those documents are part of another FOIA case already being argued. Whether there is political motivation behind the rejection/other case, I'll leave to others do determine...but it's still entirely possible we'll see the documents at some point. Also FWIW, at least one Senator (Feingold) said during the testimony yesterday that he's seen the documents and they don't make the case Cheney claims they do. Seriously now, would you trust Feingold to be objective about whether or not it met Cheney's claims? I mean, I think Cheney is nuts, he went cuckoo on 9/11 and never came back. He's probably not got anything useful to go after, so he's probably wrong. But even if he was right, no way Feingold would admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) Seriously now, would you trust Feingold to be objective about whether or not it met Cheney's claims? You'll note I added the FWIW for exactly that purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 14, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) lol, Cheney pwned. He's trying to cherry-pick anyway. And the other side isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) And the other side isn't? I really don't care what the Democrats are arguing because they are missing the point (I've been pretty consistent on this for most of the time I've been posting about this in here, I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Anti-Ob...how/4525924.cms Some members of 'Anti-American Imperialism Forum', protesting against US President Barack Obama's "Bangalore to Buffalo" remark were arrested when they tried to forcibly enter Bank Of America, on M G road here on Wednesday. About 25 protestors of the city-based outfit, carrying placards and shouting slogans - "Down, Down Big Brother Obama", "Buffalo has buffaloes, Bangalore has brains" "Osama terrorised innocent, Obama terrorises BPO workers" - were arrested when they tried to forcibly enter Bank Of America, deputy commissioner of Police (Central Division), G Ramesh said. take THAT president Obama. "Buffalo has buffaloes" that is probably the best protest slogan i've ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Hey, Tex, WTF is up with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) Hey, Tex, WTF is up with this? A log on screen? I agree, that is messed up. Screw you, NY Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts