• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

This video clip sums things up pretty well:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plNIJ3BRC70"]YouTube - Krauthammer: KSM "Became A Professor" After Torture; Cheney Is Winning[/ame]
 
Not at all. The fact that he has been fighting the release of the transcriptions of those secret meetings shows he is trying to hide something, & yes....indicates guilt.
(if these were legitimate national energy meetings....& classified info was discussed....Why won't Cheney even let REPUBLICAN Senators (with security clearance) read the minutes of those meetings?)

I suggest that it is because criminal Restraint of Trade/Price Fixing tactics (felonies) were discussed with his oil company buddies, & that's what I would argue to the Magistrate.

Halleluiah!!!!... so you are going to go get BHO for hiding his BC?

You know he has sealed all of his records, so he must be guilty of something, so go get a search warrant. LMAO
 
Please explain to me whose purpose these hyper partisan efforts to impugn the members of the previous administration and CIA operatives, and how re-investigating what has already been investigated, and that which is being currently investigated by an oversight committee in private serve if not the terrorists?

Front Row Washington Blog Archive Ex-Attorney General Gonzales backs CIA prison abuse probe | Blogs |

“We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists,” Gonzales said in an interview with The Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” radio show.

“And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.”
 
It says right there, and it explains the context, it was an accidental disclosure but a disclosure none the less, thus once outed whether intentionally or not you can't be outed again. Fact of the matter is is that Cheney had absolutely 0 to do with her being outed, infact more circumstantial evidence points to Wilson than it does to Cheney being the one who first leaked the name to the press while he was trying to peddle his pack of lies about the Nigerian uranium case long since debunked, and Armitage has already come clean. Fact is Wilson and Plame are both proven liars and have 0 credibility.

No it doesn't say anything. It says anonymous sources say that her name was leaked in some unnamed document without giving the information of how and why. So all you have is a story with no source. Meanwhile we had CIA Director Hayden stating she was covert up until the day she was outed by Novak. I beg your pardon but I'd take the director of the CIA over unnamed sources anyday.

The fact of the matter is he had everything to do with it and his own chief of staff lied to the feds to block the investigation.

Plame and Wilson are not proven liars this is your unfounded opinion.

The nigerian uranium claim was used even though they were advised that it was bogus. Wilson was correct in his article.

Also the problem you seem not to understand is even though Armitage may have leaked it to Novak but you still have Libby and Rove leaking to Cooper and Miller. Armitage didn't know she was covert while Libby and Rove did. There were multiple leakers just because Armitage leaked her name first did not mean that somehow the subsequent leaks were legal. If multiple people rob a bank would you claim that somehow only the first guy should be arrested?
 
Halleluiah!!!!... so you are going to go get BHO for hiding his BC?

You know he has sealed all of his records, so he must be guilty of something, so go get a search warrant. LMAO

You "Birthers" are rely out there, aren't you.:eek::rolleyes::crazy3::neener
 
Now Megan Kelly educates another Democratic congressman on this call for an investigation:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKT7WAV9GAQ"]YouTube - Nadler Blasts Cheney's Outrageous Defense of Illegal Torture[/ame]
 

Gonzales is right, and that is why there has already been an investigation into the matter and no charges brought and why the current oversight committee is reviewing the matter to establish new guidelines.

So this begs the question; why do people like you keep pretending there is anything new here to prosecute and the fact that it will be a vast waste of tax payers money and amount to nothing but another highly partisan witch hunt to impugn political opponents in the court of public opinion and set another new low standard by Democrats in politics?
 
Gonzales is right, and that is why there has already been an investigation into the matter and no charges brought and why the current oversight committee is reviewing the matter to establish new guidelines.

So this begs the question; why do people like you keep pretending there is anything new here to prosecute and the fact that it will be a vast waste of tax payers money and amount to nothing but another highly partisan witch hunt to impugn political opponents in the court of public opinion and set another new low standard by Democrats in politics?

You really should read source material TD.

“We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists,” Gonzales said in an interview with The Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” radio show.

“And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.”

...

Gonzales said that despite the potential “chilling effect” the probe could have on CIA officers seeking intelligence during interrogations, those who went beyond permitted interrogation techniques should be investigated.

Gonzales supports this investigation.
 
You really should read source material TD.



Gonzales supports this investigation.

I think you keep missing the point which is typical of you; it doesn't matter to me what Gonzales "thinks," the investigations were already done and are currently being done.

According to Diane Feinstein, hardly a Conservative, she indicates that she doesn't understand Holder's reasons for this and wishes he could have held off at least until the oversight committee finished its review.

I am amused that people who argued that Gonzales credibility is suspect because he was complicit in the AG fiasco and terror memo now want to use him to bolster their weak arguments.

:rofl
 
I think you keep missing the point which is typical of you; it doesn't matter to me what Gonzales "thinks," the investigations were already done and are currently being done.

According to Diane Feinstein, hardly a Conservative, she indicates that she doesn't understand Holder's reasons for this and wishes he could have held off at least until the oversight committee finished its review.

I am amused that people who argued that Gonzales credibility is suspect because he was complicit in the AG fiasco and terror memo now want to use him to bolster their weak arguments.

:rofl

Says the far right conservative quoting Feinstein to bolster his weak argument.
 
Says the far right conservative quoting Feinstein to bolster his weak argument.

Nice projection; it continues to allow you to avoid facts. :2wave:

I don't need Feinstein to bolster my argument; she happens to be the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence therefore her comments had relevance. But you can pretend that it is has no merit. :doh

Chairman – Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting a comprehensive, bipartisan study of all aspects of CIA’s detention and interrogation program. This study includes how the program was created and operated, how it was briefed to the Congress and other parts of the Executive Branch, its compliance with guidance from the Department of Justice, and the information produced. The study is ongoing. We have reviewed thousands of documents on a number of high-value detainees, and will review the cases of all such detainees.

The Committee’s study will continue until we complete our work, regardless of any decision by Attorney General Holder on whether to proceed to a criminal investigation. I look forward to continued cooperation with our work from the CIA and the Administration.”


.: United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, California :: News Room :.
 
I gotta ask...

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those oefforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?
 
I gotta ask...

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those oefforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

Your scenario is highly hypothetical; HOWEVER, it will of course be Bush's fault dontchyaknow. :rofl

Putting my Librul hat on; you see, Bush weakened our image in the Arab world by invading a sovereign nation using lies and distortions (he fooled all them smarter Democrat dudes even though he is a moron) and therefore created the conditions for future attacks.

Obama was merely trying to undo the damage already put into place by Bush and did not have the time to do the necessary repairs to said damage, therefore these attacks can be directly attributed to the evil Bush who took his marching orders from Darth Cheney.

:2wave:
 
I gotta ask...

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those oefforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

No, because former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has stated how not only does "enhanced interrogation" get you less information (in both quality and quantity), but it also is not an instant way of getting information.

Graham called the hearing a "political stunt," and said Democrats were trying to judge officials who - soon after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks - "woke up one morning like most Americans and said, 'Oh my God, what's coming next.' "

Soufan countered that his personal experience showed that the harsh interrogation techniques didn't work even when there wasn't a lot of time to prevent an attack.

"Waiting 180 hours as part of the sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to wait in a ticking bomb scenario," he said.

Soufan said the harsh techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable and as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."

Ex-FBI Interrogator: Torture "Ineffective" - CBS News
 
No, because former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has stated how not only does "enhanced interrogation" get you less information (in both quality and quantity), but it also is not an instant way of getting information.
You're not asnwering the question, you're questioning the given.

Your statement, above, is therefore irrelevant, as the given supposes that the continuation of the efforts WOULD HAVE stopped the attack.

So, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?
 
You're not asnwering the question, you're questioning the given.

Your statement, above, is therefore irrelevant, as the given supposes that the continuation of the efforts WOULD HAVE stopped the attack.

So, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

But the point is is that the very logic of your question is flawed, because in fact the continuation of the efforts would never have stopped an attack.

I'm not answering your hypothetical, when it is not going to happen.
 
I gotta ask...

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those oefforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

Correlation does not equal causation. 9/11 happened because everything was completely ignored. They were given a plan to focus on Al-Qaida and scrapped it. They didn't keep us safe. Again as I asked before which specific plots were stopped because of torture?
 
You're not asnwering the question, you're questioning the given.

Your statement, above, is therefore irrelevant, as the given supposes that the continuation of the efforts WOULD HAVE stopped the attack.

So, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

Did you blame Bush Jr for creating conditions for allowing 9/11 to happen?
 
I gotta ask...

If The Obama Administration reverses/ceases the Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts under contention, and a there is terrorist attack that would have been stopped through the continuation of those oefforts, will you blame The Obama for creating the conditions that allowed said attack to happen?

Hey look, Goobie is asking loaded questions again. Once again, the premise of your question is flawed. Once again, you will accuse any one of not answering it of dodging the question, and once again, people will wonder if you think you are being somehow clever.
 
But the point is is that the very logic of your question is flawed....
No, its not. There's NO way you can argue that there will NOT be an attack because of the elimination of the Bush Adeministration policies under discussionm and so there's NO flaw is present a scenario where it happens.

So stop questioning the given (that is, doidging the issue) and answer the question.
 
No, its not. There's NO way you can argue that there will NOT be an attack because of the elimination of the Bush Adeministration policies under discussionm and so there's NO flaw is present a scenario where it happens.

So stop questioning the given (that is, doidging the issue) and answer the question.

And I was right, again.

It's a flawed premise since it requires EIT's to be more effective than conventional interrogation techniques, which is, at best, far from certain.
 
Correlation does not equal causation.
Not sure how that is relevant. The question assumes the attack would have been stopped if the policies had remained in place, and so had The Obama not removed the policies, there would have been no attack.

So, what's your asnwer?
 
And I was right, again.
It's a flawed premise...
No, its not, for the reasons I explained. Your argument is only sound (and my premise is only flawed) if there is NO chance that the elimination of thse policies would allow an attack -- and there's NO way you can argue that.

So, one more time -- please stop questioning the given and answer the question.
 
No, its not. There's NO way you can argue that there will NOT be an attack because of the elimination of the Bush Adeministration policies under discussionm and so there's NO flaw is present a scenario where it happens.

So stop questioning the given (that is, doidging the issue) and answer the question.


So when our embassy in Iraq was attacked was it because Bush stopped using those methods or because he was using them?
 
Back
Top Bottom