|
Post by webrunner on Apr 21, 2009 13:55:22 GMT -7
So the short answer to my question is yes. You must be very proud of Obama right about now. As I say, that's all I need to know. I don't care if you are in favor of guns. That does not take away from the fact that you think, as Obama does, that we owe the world an apology and a handshake (lest I be accused of thread jacking).
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 21, 2009 14:04:51 GMT -7
Yeah, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by itzel on Apr 21, 2009 15:22:11 GMT -7
It looks like this member quit participating, which is a preferred option if you find yourself out of answers and resorting to personal attacks
Please remember the rules of this board everybody.
|
|
|
Post by itzel on Apr 21, 2009 15:25:08 GMT -7
Webrunner, any post that crosses the line on this board will be edited in deference to the board rules, not out of deference to a particula political stance
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 21, 2009 18:40:53 GMT -7
I always miss the good stuff don't know what happened, but if any of this had to do with the nature of that youtube I posted, I really did do it more in fun than for any other reason judging from the side that remains of this debate, it sounds like it was a heavy one, but if someone left rather than sort it out, then... oh well
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 21, 2009 21:13:05 GMT -7
Aye, Rosa, you tried to warn me (us) to settle down. The fault is not yours. Recognizing and accepting the admonition from Admin, I'll just say this. My side of the debate is up and I won't delete it. When I saw that one of his posts had been edited by the mods, I knew he'd taken a personal shot at me (though, ultimately I don't know what it was). I responded, well, as you see in this thread (subject again to modification by the mods ). In my defense, I did not think I was over the top (believe me, I can be over the top) but I can also recognize that I did not maintain the civility required for participation on this board. In the future, I will tread more carefully.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 22, 2009 3:55:30 GMT -7
Now I really wish I'd seen it my point here is that when it comes to the partisanship, it kind of defeats the purpose for someone to point fingers at others for being "too partisan" if they are doing it themselves. I don't know what happened, but I'd gather from your end that it got personal and the mods kicked in. Web, the whole point of that youtube is that both sides are being nit-picky. I think there's humor to be found when both sides get like this. I liked the way things were "labeled" for the viewer in the youtube ;D "flowers", "commie", "funny hats", and so on... just as I enjoyed the "stimulus package" label in the Obama cartoon
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 22, 2009 7:25:58 GMT -7
Actually Rosa, you have to appreciate that the mods had to step in in a thread entitled "Handshake." I do point to partisanship I see in others but I also recognize my own. To me shaking hands with Hugo Chavez is not that big a deal by itself, but couple that with the apparent cow-towing to those nations (that have already demonstrated their hatred for us) by looking to sacrifice members of our own intelligence community who were only trying to keep another 9/11 from happening. I believe Obama's making us look weak and it's drives me nuts.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 22, 2009 8:30:32 GMT -7
I'm kinda scared to pull your tail, Web, but I can't help it Valerie Plame running away.......
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 22, 2009 9:10:27 GMT -7
I'm kinda scared to pull your tail, Web, but I can't help it Valerie Plame running away....... You mean the non-covert covert agent ?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 22, 2009 9:37:46 GMT -7
I'm kinda scared to pull your tail, Web, but I can't help it Valerie Plame running away....... Aw Rosa, you have nothing to fear from me. Apparently I'm only too much for folks that dish it out but can't take it. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Valarie Plame reference. Is it that she got screwed by the CIA or that Libby was prosecuted for the leak? In either case, it's not the same thing as going after folks that wrote legal opinions and other folks that relied on them. Did you hear today that the New York Slimes reported that we had obtained high level or high quality (can't remember the exact wording) information as a result of those interrogation tactics? Information that quite probably saved lives (yes, sometimes the ends do justify the means) and now these intelligence folks have to worry about being prosecuted by this administration for doing things they were authorized to do by the prior one. It's a witch hunt, it's wrong, and it makes us look weak and self-loathing.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 23, 2009 1:44:53 GMT -7
my point is that when it's a witch hunt for your guys, then the ends somehow justify the means, but when it's a witch hunt for the other team, the ends don't justify the means?
if we are going to change the rules to our benefit while expecting the rest of the world to look away, what will happen is that the rest of the world will instead look harder
now, it's a witch hunt, they were following orders. will I go as far as brown and say that they deserve to be in jail for following orders? That this is comparable to the Nazi mentality? No, because these are different times, and although I do see some similarities in indvidual thinkers, I don't think that a broad brush paints our military or our country in that light. "We" as a country aren't after entire ethnicities or religious groups the same way the Nazis were
I think the folks who gave those orders should be tried, but that's just me. Chain of command is important here, and so is responsibility. And to be honest, we've not really discussed the Geneva accords, but I would like to think that in some way, we were still willing to live up to them
as for looking weak, Web, the only thing I can say is that we have done so much damage to our status as a fair and strong nation by playing both ends against themselves-but leaving that aside for a second, let me put it this way
the previous administration took a very strong stance, rhetorical and otherwise, toward those who opposed our means and our ideology. This administration is following a different path, the differences are noteworthy. Obama appears to be using the appearance of diplomacy in trying to follow a different course in dealing with rogue nations. I can't say that at this point, I am fully convinced it will "work", because all things being equal, he hasn't been in office for even six months
and I think we already look weak in some ways, not so in others. "Bring it on" didn't make us look like a force to be reckoned with. It made us look like we lacked direction, a clear target and the means by which that target could be eliminated
anything different than what the previous admin did is going to be perceived as "weak" particulary if the course charted veers so strongly from the hard line that was previously taken
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 23, 2009 2:04:08 GMT -7
This is off the AP
Democrats hold back on second interrogations probe By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 11 mins ago WASHINGTON
Senate Democratic leaders don't appear inclined to appoint an independent panel to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation program before the Senate Intelligence Committee completes its own probe near the end of the year.
The panel is investigating the legal underpinnings for the interrogation program as well as the value of the information it gathered. Republicans oppose the creation of a bipartisan commission for what they view as a backward-looking effort to vilify former President George W. Bush.
"One way or another there needs to be a public accounting of these troublesome policies," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid said the committee inquiry "will answer a lot of the questions the American people have."
Two Senate reports issued back to back this week were meant to answer some of those questions.
A Senate Armed Services Committee report draws a direct line between the Bush administration's approval of the CIA's harsh interrogation program and the military's abuse of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Intelligence Committee issued a newly declassified narrative of the legal guidance provided to the CIA that allowed the secret detention and interrogations to go forward.
As early as April 2002, the narrative states, the CIA sought permission to use waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — to break the resistance of a newly captured alleged terrorist, Abu Zubaydah. Permission came that July, delivered personally by the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to CIA Director George Tenet.
Whether any Bush administration officials merit prosecution for breaking anti-torture laws will be determined by Attorney General Eric Holder, who was scheduled to go to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss the Justice Department budget.
Any attempt by Democrats to gain political advantage from an investigation could be tempered by a memo from National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, who privately told employees last week that "high-value information" was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques, though he deemed them unacceptable and counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 23, 2009 6:16:05 GMT -7
Oh but screw the "high value" information right? We certainly don't want to appear to be "harsh" to anyone. It's the US that's committed the war crimes. You want people tried, Rosa? You're in luck. Your president, despite saying that he wouldn't do that on Sunday, has now said he's open to the idea. BTW did you hear where he said he wants to consider doing this outside the normal hearing process (b/c you know, sometimes that breaks down). So I guess if you worked for the previous administration , you forfeited your Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 23, 2009 6:41:57 GMT -7
Oh but screw the "high value" information right? We certainly don't want to appear to be "harsh" to anyone. It's the US that's committed the war crimes. You want people tried, Rosa? You're in luck. Your president, despite saying that he wouldn't do that on Sunday, has now said he's open to the idea. BTW did you hear where he said he wants to consider doing this outside the normal hearing process (b/c you know, sometimes that breaks down). So I guess if you worked for the previous administration , you forfeited your Constitutional rights.Boy Web for a teacher you are sometimes slow to pick up on the message. The previous administration trashed the Constitution, so they have no claim to its protections now. Get with the program or we will reserve a room for you somewhere tropical!
|
|