![]() |
I don't disagree. I don't think I've stated a position. I just find that partisanship is a terrible way to determine truth, guaranteed to fail regularly, and that's important.
Also, you used the word believe, and that set me off. Why choose to believe when the facts are not present? Why not just wait for better information, or admit you can't know? As a skeptic, I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find many partisan people making extraordinary claims *constantly*, with little to no actual evidence in sight. I think that's a big mistake. Eventually they wind up in such a tight circle that it's embarrassing, as in the case of UG, whose logic is so minimal at this point that he'll have this conversation: UG: "This Democratic Party idea is dumb." Others: "Why, what makes it dumb?" UG: "Because it's from the Democrats." The radio biz takes advantage of this kind of thinking: Excited teen: "KQOR plays the very best music!" Program Director: "Why do you think that's the best music?" Excited teen: "Because it's on KQOR, duh!!!" |
Quote:
Can I invoke the classicman ACORN "guilt by association" defense? "Where there is smoke, there is fire"....and I see a hell of alot of smoke in the justification of the torture memos. I think it is important for the facts to come out in some forum. And I have said repeatedly that I dont think anyone should be prosecuted. My interest is in ensuring that such questionable practices be subject to greater oversight in the future. |
Heh, yeah as long as you do a fair post-mortem of where you went wrong if it turns out you went wrong.
|
Quote:
The fact that classicman repeatedly and only criticizes Obama says so much about how much good Obama has accomplished in only 90 days. He even closed America's overseas torture chambers that classicman said did not exist. Who should we believe? Extremists are still parroting what Limbaugh et al tells them to. So classicman posts another cheap shot. Extremists: people who will routinely lie to promote a poltical agenda. A smarter classicman would stop posting where he has nothing useful to offer - as if that was somehow supposed to be humorous. |
Based upon that logic you would have stopped posting years ago.
|
Quote:
|
I agree. We need more and better information, which is why Obama's push for more transparency in the future is a good thing.
But you remind me that Dux's post contains two internal investigations, CIA and DoJ. The first is interpreted as political: you did what the WH didn't want you to do, so we're investigating you. The second is interpreted as the result of politics: you did what the WH wanted you to do, so we're investigating you. In both cases, there is not enough information to know, yet it's the narrative pushed by the reporters that is generally accepted. http://cellar.org/2008/themoreyouknow.jpg |
Quote:
Internal reports from the DoJ OPR and the DoD and CIA IGs, in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate their respective agency policies and practices without regard to political considerations, would appear to suggest otherwise . Which is why we need full disclosure (w/o harming national security interests) in order to ensure that current oversight and transparency is adequate to prevent illegal acts or acts that are in violation of administrative policies and procedures...or to determine if greater oversight and transparency is needed. |
Quote:
|
IF waterboarding produced a positive outcome then this administration could be pressured to use it in the future if a key operative were captured. If they did not and something terrible happened, they would be blamed. Right or wrong, for political reasons (among others) this administration does NOT want a credible link.
|
Quote:
The fact remains that CIA,DoJ and DoD IGs all reported to their respective cabinet level directors/secretaries that the proposed "harsh interrogation techniues were potentially (probably) illegal...and those superior chose to ignore those reports (and in one case, CIA, investigate the IG)....and those report were either not shared with the WH or were shared and the WH chose to ignore them as well. And the fact remains that Bush/Cheney/Rice et al made repeated public pronouncements (and continue to make such pronouncements) that those harsh interrogation techniques directly resulted in protecting the country from attack..and there is no credible evidence to support that. |
Quote:
side note - How bout her majesty Nancy P claiming to know nothing of this and being quite critical till the truth again came out. She knew all about it from day one - forkin hypocrite. |
Quote:
Beyond that I agree that all relevant documents should be released...but in a structured forum like an independent commission rather than just dumping the reports in the media. And there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around....from the WH to the leaders of both parties in Congress. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.