State of the Union by Carl Moore

?fh=cbccbc924058576f9c372093ec3af40d

Comments (24) Jump to Comments Form

  1. Jor-El

    Jor-El said, 4 months ago

    [This post is in context with a comment by FLS which has since been deleted.]

    The intriguing aspect of the Pelosi-CIA story is that Pelosi doesn’t blame the CIA directly. She blames the Bush Administration.

    At issue, of course, is a 2002 briefing where the CIA reported that they had used waterboarding techniques while interrogating a terrorist prisoner.

    Pelosi, who was at the meeting, said waterboarding was not discussed.

    The next day she amended her statement by saying that the technique was discussed, but the CIA denied using it.

    Her recall of the briefing has been corroborated by some, but contradicted by others who attended the meeting.

    We do know that the CIA has a history of lying to presidents and Congress, but Obama’s CIA Director Leon Panetta was caught in a sticky situation of having to defend his Agency from Pelosi’s charges.

    In a written statement to the Agency Panetta said:

    “There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

    Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

    My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

    We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

    Quietly, Panetta was telling Pelosi to shut-up.

    There is a truth to be revealed, but even Obama is opposed to the creation of a Truth Commission.

    Panetta and the president both understand that valuable information was gleaned through the use of waterboarding including intelligence of planned terror attacks in the United States.

    Obama is aware that those attacks were thwarted because of enhanced interrogation procedures.

    I think the issue is to what degree a president will assume responsibilty for protecting the country.

    We can argue public policy on a whole host of issues, but the bottom line is that the president’s most vital duty is to defend this nation.

    If a terrorist is aware that a ‘dirty bomb’ is planted somewhere in New York City, the president needs to know that information.

  2. hank197857

    hank197857Genius_badge said, 4 months ago

    you people are amazing.

  3. jukeofurl

    jukeofurlGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    Ohhhhhhhh t w I t!

  4. SQUIDBREAKER

    SQUIDBREAKER said, 4 months ago

    Ah, the revealing of a ‘hate speech’ criminal. David Letterman.

  5. mroberts88

    mroberts88 said, 4 months ago

    FLS, it sounds to me like Pelosi is blaming Bush, and cant get her story straight.

  6. HectorPriam

    HectorPriam said, 4 months ago

    Dave wouldn’t dare make any jokes about Obama’s daughters. OMG!!! That would be ……RACISM!

  7. Jor-El

    Jor-El said, 4 months ago

    @hank197857:

    Thank you for your service to our country.

  8. BirishB

    BirishB said, 4 months ago

    “We can argue public policy on a whole host of issues, but the bottom line is that the president’s most vital duty is to defend this nation.

    If a terrorist is aware that a ‘dirty bomb’ is planted somewhere in New York City, the president needs to know that information.”

    I have a lot of trouble with that statement and the attempted justification of torture, especially coming from a conservative perspective.

    This nation has never been about torture. This country has stood strictly against torture since its inception. The laws of our land dictate that torture is unconstitutional; outside our borders, the United States has always abided by the Geneva Convention. Whether or not terrorists are classified as criminals or enemy combatants is immaterial; the spirit of this nation has NEVER SUPPORTED TORTURE.

    There can be no compromise in this most American value.

    The conservative mindset should be to preserve those values that are American. How, then, can the conservative mindset justify the use of torture?

    In fact, the use of torture in any context introduces a new policy based on something that contradicts our past. This, on the face of it, is contradictory to the idea of conservatism. It is, instead, a grasp at political pragmatism. It is also political convenience.

    Even on a level of political pragmatism, however, torture fails the test because the ends do not justify the means … not when the end means sacrificing our American values.

    You give away the values of this nation and we are left with nothing. I thought that was what conservatives fought for.

  9. GJ_Jehosaphat

    GJ_JehosaphatGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    BirishB - All I can say is AMEN to your Thought-Full comment Re: “…what conservtives fought for.” (The Full Comment in front of the last phrase).

  10. Tigger

    TiggerGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    How about poking fun at Obama?

  11. jmworacle

    jmworacle said, 4 months ago

    The reason why David Letterman knows how quickly a certain New York Yankee operates in the bedroom is that his wife made him watch while they went at it……..

  12. Jor-El

    Jor-El said, 4 months ago

    @BirishB:

    I think there was a lot of inference that was not implied.

    The Geneva Convention and the United Nations define acts of torture by “specific intent”.

    Waterboarding has generally been used to cause physical pain and suffering, or even death.

    U.S. Navy SEALS undergo waterboarding as part of their “captive resistance training”.

    This is a very grey legal argument that is difficult to explain, and even harder to understand.

    Are interrogation procedures ‘intended’ to cause injury and death, or is their purpose to gather information?

    Malcom Nance, an instructor at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, said:

    “Having been subjected to this technique, I can say it is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training (or interrogations) for a very short period.”

    (Just as it was applied on captive terrorists.)

    Again, the U.N. and Geneva Convention define an interrogation procedure as ‘torture if it is intended to cause physical harm or death’.

    It is not a fair assertion to have people believe that I condone torture.

    Where did I say that I approve of torture tactics, or that I am willing to compromise the American values that we both cherish?

    My point was hypothetical.

    If a ‘dirty bomb’ is set to detonate in New York City, how far will the president go to protect this nation?

    Let’s say Obama is given one hour to find out where the bomb is located–if you were the president, what would you do?

    Use interrogative psychological tactics? That could take days.

    The U.N. and Geneva Convention stipulate that even psychological techniques could be considered torture.

    Then, what would you do?

    Let 20 million Americans die?

    [The secondary issue is that Pelosi signed-off on the 2002 CIA briefing thus giving a green light to their procedures.

    Now, she is saying she knew nothing about them.]

  13. Jor-El

    Jor-El said, 4 months ago

    @farleftside:

    I appreciate your sense of humor, and I respect spirited and cordial debate–thank you BirishB–but I am invulnerable to petty insults (unless they’re hurled with a nugget of Kryptonite.)

    Why can’t some people have a civil discourse without being rude?

    ( I get enough of that from my 5-year-old niece when she doesn’t get her way.)

    Anyway, name-calling just belittles your argument.

    I take it FLS would let New York City–or your town– be incinerated.

  14. rlsaxion

    rlsaxion said, 4 months ago

    Jor-El, it wouldn’t matter, FLS would just blame Bush.

  15. Parson1

    Parson1 said, 4 months ago

    Does anyone actually read those long post from Jor-El?

  16. johnnydoc5

    johnnydoc5 said, 4 months ago

    I do Parson, I find them informative. I enjoy reading BirishB’s remarks to, opposing views tend to help me further understand something that the media doesn’t explain very well.

  17. shermscott

    shermscott said, 4 months ago

    I do , too. Actually I read all the posts. Some are quite humorous and some thought provoking. FLS generally has nothing to say, but I like his comics, they’re much better than his rants.

  18. sablebrush5

    sablebrush5 said, 4 months ago

    Any president, Democratic or Republican, faced with the possibility of a dirty bomb going off within an hour and killing thousands of Americans would do anything - and I mean ANYTHING - he could to prevent it. And this would include torture, even torture - unlike waterboarding - designed to cause physical harm. He would condone putting splinters under the guy’s fingernails, attachintg electrodes to his nuts, etc. to get the info neede to prevent the explosion.

    Any president who didn’t do so, would be impeached, and rightly so. Why? Because given the choice of violating The American prohibition against torture and saving thousands of innocent American lives the correct thing to do in such a situation is clearly the saving of thousands of lives.

    In the weighing of the two values - not condoning torture and saving thousands of innocent lives, can anyone honestly argue he would be doing the wrong thing to use torture?… that he should just sit back, put on his righteous, holier-than-thou aires, and let thousands of citizens die?

    C’mon, that’s not even close. In such a scenario, torture would not only be politically correct, it would be morally correct.

  19. GJ_Jehosaphat

    GJ_JehosaphatGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    sablebrush5 - Re; Last sentence, 1st paragraph (do NOT want to paste & copy repeat list of torture descriptions).

    List Sounds Medieval & Evil!!!

    Besides if there was only One Hour (& not 24 like on TV) - probably wouldn’t be enough Time to get info, figure out weapon, find expert, find equipment, find “bomb”… etc.

    Get outdoors & enjoy life! Worry more about whether or not the air U breathe or the water U drink are clean & not making U susceptible to a horrible death. That’s the “Dirty Bomb” that effects some folks in Cities/Towns/Countryside - NOW.

  20. hank197857

    hank197857Genius_badge said, 4 months ago

    jor-el,

    it is my duty, pleasure, and privilege to serve the people of the united states of america - regardless of their political persuasions. i only have one life to give. i pray that the leaders of our country will not waste it.

  21. GJ_Jehosaphat

    GJ_JehosaphatGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    IF the Supreme Court had allowed the Florida Ballot Recount (2000 Election) be completed:

    Would George W. Bush Have Been Elected?
    Would 9/11 happened?
    Would the Economy Be in such a Mess?
    Would we be fighting in Iraq?
    Would their be so Many Soldiers & Civilians Dead?

    All these “IF-s” AND/OR “Would-s”
    Would be MOOT POINTS
    IF Al Gore had come out ahead on the recount.

    Now We’ll Never Know
    What IF George W. Bush wasn’t given the Presidency in 2000.

  22. GJ_Jehosaphat

    GJ_JehosaphatGenius_badge said, 4 months ago

    Someguy53 & marktrail Imposter - Strange Bed-Fellows!

    Almost time for New Set of Comics - I’ll be Brief

    Google: Most Polluted Cities in US

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/28/pollution-ozone-air-lifestyle-health-ozone-pollution.html

    Today - Air Pollution
    Tomorrow - Water Pollution

    In Honor of a Great Radio Broadcaster - Paul Harvey
    Good Night!

  23. ChuckTrent64

    ChuckTrent64Genius_badge said, 4 months ago

    This cartoon was relevant, what? two weeks ago?

  24. BirishB

    BirishB said, 4 months ago

    I love how the doomsday scenario is used to justify torture.

    And the systemic use of waterboarding as torture is condoned because the implausible situation dictates it.

    And yet, these are entirely different scenarios.

    It is not holier-than-thou to demand that America not install policies that contradict our American values. It is, actually, wholly American to stand against torture.

    But the “doomsday clock” scenario is so implausible that it can reasonably be used to justify a policy. This is simply logical fallacy, arguing from the specific to the general.