We sure love them terrorist

[ProfJohn]

Harvey, read the following please and answer a few simple questions for me.
Same interview with text of what he said
This is the next thing said after your quote

NPR: But, as you know, some of the President's supporters have said any president needs the option. You never know what might come up. Does the president need the option? speaking as someone who's been there?

Clinton: Look, if the president needs the option, there's all kinds of things they could do. Let's take the best case, okay? You've picked up somebody you know is the number two aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know that they have an operation planned for the US and some European capitol sometime in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. That's a clear example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy either by shooting him full of some drug or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believe that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternative proposal! We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law. You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding and that finding to be submitted even afterward to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

NPR: But there would be some responsibility afterward for what was done -- is that what you're saying?

Clinton: Yes. The president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case by case basis and there'd be some review of it.

1. If Clinton is 100% against giving the President the option of torture then please explain what he means when he says "could draw a statute much more narrowly which would permit the president to make a finding and that finding to be submitted even afterward to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "
What kind of statute do we need if we are 100% against torture in any form? And what kind of finding does the President need to make? And why would he need to submit that finding to the court?
Simple question: If we totally outlaw torture then why do would the President need to make a finding and present it to a court?

2. "The president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case by case basis and there'd be some review of it. "
Simple question 2, take responsibility for WHAT? Not torturing the prisoners?

Based on the two quotes above it is clear to me that Clinton thinks the President should be given the authority to authorize someone "to beat it out of somebody or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them," (his own words)

Just for fun, here is even more evidence to back up my point of view.

If they really believe when the time comes that the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of somebody or put a drug in their body and talk it out of them, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or some other court on the same circumstances we do with wiretaps: post facto.

If he is 100% against torture then why does he again talk about the court again?

FIY the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the place they go when the NSA wants to secretly wire tap the phones of terrorists and the like. It's been around since the 1970s as well.

Even more FIY the Clinton administration captured suspected terrorists, kidnapped them actually, and turned them over to Egypt knowing full well that they would most likely be tortured. In fact some of them were never seen again.
From Wikipedia-

The first known individual to be subjected to rendition under this order was Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt's most wanted terrorists, who was arrested with the help of US intelligence by Croatian police in Zagreb in September 1995. He was interrogated by US agents on a ship in the Adriatic Sea and was then sent back to Egypt. He disappeared while in custody, and is suspected by human rights activists of having been executed without a trial.

 

[wiin]

The visit was necessary. After all, they helped democrats win the election. To visit and give them thanks is the rite thing to do.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

 

[Jhhnn]

The visit was necessary. After all, they helped democrats win the election. To visit and give them thanks is the rite thing to do.

Heh. The dishonesty, incompetence and greed of the current crop of Republicans is what handed the election to the Democrats.

Maybe Pelosi can arrange a trip to Iran, as well, leave the wingnuts sputtering and muttering... possibly catatonic as their denial implodes on them...

Before it's over, they'll be trying to compare her to Hanoi Jane...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do us a favor, if you can't at least try to act like a mature adult then go some place else to post your comments.

I guess 'acting like a mature adult' is subjective?

Personally, I think saying "suck a d*ck" is more mature than trolling all over P&N.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. The dishonesty, incompetence and greed of the current crop of Republicans is what handed the election to the Democrats.

Agreed. Unfortunately for them, they are repeating the cycle of dishonesty, incompetence, and greed. Which will make Pelosi's tenure as Speaker a rather short stint, and Democratic control of Congress likewise.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do us a favor, if you can't at least try to act like a mature adult then go some place else to post your comments.

I guess 'acting like a mature adult' is subjective?

Personally, I think saying "suck a d*ck" is more mature than trolling all over P&N.

eh...just because PJ gets some of his news from sources you dont like doesnt make it wrong. Can you show me where he has twisted or misrepresented anything? I didnt think you could. Geez attacking someone for posting something YOU disagree with makes YOU a troll...

 

[Gaard]

Just for the sake of argument, PJ did twist or misrepresent the facts. Would that change your mind?

 

[Jhhnn]

Agreed. Unfortunately for them, they are repeating the cycle of dishonesty, incompetence, and greed. Which will make Pelosi's tenure as Speaker a rather short stint, and Democratic control of Congress likewise.

Heh. Dems haven't been in power in congress for 3 months, and the attributions from the rightwing are already flying- mostly false attributions. Dems will have to screw up terribly for the electorate to turn back to repubs, whose record speaks for itself.

The Baker commission recommended dialogue, and they aren't exactly touchy feely libs, at all. Bush chose to ignore that- Pelosi hasn't. With any luck at all, Neocon policy will get tossed onto the trash heap of history, where it belongs, provided their desperation can be contained to the mess they've already created, rather than the one they want to achieve...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Just for the sake of argument, PJ did twist or misrepresent the facts. Would that change your mind?

A quote perhaps? Contrasted with what you believe is the truth?

 

[Thump553]

Actually one of the few bright spots in GWB's international diplomacy is that he HAS engaged Syria-quietly and reasonably effectively. Quietness is important for several reasons (1) Syria has some extremely bad policies and we don't want anyone to think USA supports those and (2) Syria is the sort of place that will have actual useable info on the real bad guy terrorists and isn't reluctant to (discretely) use that info to help the USA if it will help Syria. This is one area where smart diplomacy can't be extremely effective, dump diplomacy can be a diaster.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Pelosi visiting Syria. People are confusing maintaining dialog with endorsement.

 

[wiin]

Kerry did the same thing during the Vietnam war. Kerry was having a dialoge with the other side. And the result? The Killing Field. The democrats approach is going to lead to The Killing Field ll. Democrats are forever working for the other side.

Originally posted by: Thump553
Actually one of the few bright spots in GWB's international diplomacy is that he HAS engaged Syria-quietly and reasonably effectively. Quietness is important for several reasons (1) Syria has some extremely bad policies and we don't want anyone to think USA supports those and (2) Syria is the sort of place that will have actual useable info on the real bad guy terrorists and isn't reluctant to (discretely) use that info to help the USA if it will help Syria. This is one area where smart diplomacy can't be extremely effective, dump diplomacy can be a diaster.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Pelosi visiting Syria. People are confusing maintaining dialog with endorsement.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice bit of revisionist history, wiin. The North Vietnamese didn't create the Cambodian killing fields, the Cambodians did it to themselves, after the US destabilized their govt, installed Lon Nol as our puppet. Ultimately, the Khymer Rouge was run out of power by the Vietnamese via an invasion... too bad they didn't act sooner.

Thinking for yourself is good, but doing so effectively requires practice, and discipline. Stick with the usual talking points, it's safer that way... It takes a professional propagandist to not trip over all of the contradictions inherent in the rightwing's version of reality...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice bit of revisionist history, wiin. The North Vietnamese didn't create the Cambodian killing fields, the Cambodians did it to themselves, after the US destabilized their govt, installed Lon Nol as our puppet. Ultimately, the Khymer Rouge was run out of power by the Vietnamese via an invasion... too bad they didn't act sooner.

Thinking for yourself is good, but doing so effectively requires practice, and discipline. Stick with the usual talking points, it's safer that way... It takes a professional propagandist to not trip over all of the contradictions inherent in the rightwing's version of reality...

lol I was thinking the same thing hehe

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: wiin
Kerry did the same thing during the Vietnam war. Kerry was having a dialoge with the other side. And the result? The Killing Field. The democrats approach is going to lead to The Killing Field ll. Democrats are forever working for the other side.

If there was even a shred of truth to this the Swift Boaters would have gone crazy with this story during the 2004 election. Sure sounds like a tinfoil hat story.

There are laws about who can negotiate for the US/purport to represent the US in dealing with foriegn powers. There is nothing wrong with Pelosi going to Syria on a fact finding mission, especially given this administration's near total inability to present a straight story on the facts about anything.

PS-if you knew anything at all about the Cambodian killing fields, you would know that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (which had nothing to do with Kerry or the US) was the main thing that stopped Pol Pot's killing regime.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

What's next? Maybe you'll take a deep breath or five and explain how bad it is that THRE Republican Representatives will also be visiting Damascus. :shocked:

Lawmakers Visit Syria to Discuss Ties

Monday April 2, 2007 12:16 AM

By ALBERT AJI

Associated Press Writer

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon.''

"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue,'' the statement said. "We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War,'' it added.

Syria's official news agency said Assad discussed U.S.-Syria relations and the latest developments in the Middle East with the representatives.

Despite the poor relationship between the two countries stemming from disagreements over Iraq and suspected Syrian support for militant groups, there have been recent calls in the U.S. to engage Syria.

Earlier this year, a bipartisan U.S. commission initially proposed by Wolf recommended the Bush administration launch new diplomatic initiatives with both Syria and Iran, something it has refused to do.

The congressional delegation met earlier in the day with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, who expressed Syria's desire to bring security and stability to the Middle East and called for dialogue with the U.S., SANA reported.

He said discussions between the two countries could produce "common stands conducive to putting an end to current crises in the region.''

The visit came ahead of one on Tuesday by the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking politician to visit Damascus since relations began souring in 2003.

Pelosi, heading a congressional delegation, is on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East that includes visits to Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Her trip comes as the Democratic majority in Congress is locked in a battle with President George W. Bush over strategy in Iraq.

Washington and Damascus have not been on friendly terms in recent years. Washington has accused Syria of allowing Islamic militants to cross its border into Iraq, supporting Palestinian militants and funneling arms to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Relations deteriorated significantly in early 2005 when Washington withdrew its Syrian ambassador to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a Beirut truck bombing that his supporters blamed on Syria. Syria has denied involvement.

The U.S. delegation traveled to Jordan after their talks with Syrian officials.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Thump553
There are laws about who can negotiate for the US/purport to represent the US in dealing with foriegn powers. There is nothing wrong with Pelosi going to Syria on a fact finding mission, especially given this administration's near total inability to present a straight story on the facts about anything.

No offense, but are you suggesting that we should take Pelosi's word at face value versus intelligence data? I think I'll put my faith in our intelligency community over Pelosi any day of the week, despite their failures of the past.

Also, something about Pelosi and 'fact finding mission' being in the same sentence made me shiver just a little bit.

 

[tomywishbone]

"No offense, but are you suggesting that we should take Pelosi's word at face value versus intelligence data? I think I'll put my faith in our intelligency community over Pelosi any day of the week, despite their failures of the past...."

:laugh: Funniest post in 6 months.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No offense, but are you suggesting that we should take Pelosi's word at face value versus intelligence data? I think I'll put my faith in our intelligency community over Pelosi any day of the week, despite their failures of the past.

Sure. We'll rely on them to find that thar yellow cake uranium in Niger and all them WMD's in Iraq, and while we're at it, we'll trust 'em to capture Osama. It's a SLAM DUNK!

Buahahahaha! :laugh:

 

[johnnobts]

are you suggesting that we should take Pelosi's word at face value versus intelligence data? I think I'll put my faith in our intelligency community over Pelosi any day of the week, despite their failures of the past.

_________________

First, never trust a liberal. Second, never trust someone who has to bribe her own party members to sign off on her legislation. Tom Delay was the Hammer, and Pelosi is the Briber. Did you see all that crap pork she crammed into the war bill just to get the votes necessary to pull it off (only a margin of 6 votes children, at the cost of BILLIONS of dollars). The silver lining here is that Pelosi will fail, utterly and undeniably. And we Republicans love to see the Neo-Libs squirm when the American people actually take notice as to just how absurd their policy proposals are.

And yes, I take military intelligence, Central Intelligence, and Foreign Intelligense (the yellow cake uranium was revealed by the Brits, and they STILL maintain it to be true, and I certainly trust them more than Joe Wilson) over partisan hacks any day of the week.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sure. We'll rely on them to find that thar yellow cake uranium in Niger and all them WMD's in Iraq, and while we're at it, we'll trust 'em to capture Osama. It's a SLAM DUNK!
Buahahahaha! :laugh:

Don't blame our intelligence community for Joseph Wilson's failures. :laugh:

I take it you seriously put faith in Pelosi. That's scary indeed.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't blame our intelligence community for George Bush's failures. :laugh:
I take it you seriously put faith in Pelosi. That's scary indeed.

No scarier than faith in GWB & Cheney.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with our intelligence agencies, Pabster, is that the Bushies are running the show, filtering and interpreting findings to suit their own purposes. We don't get to hear what the Intelligence people have to say, only what the Bush Admin wants us to hear...

With their recent purge of the CIA, they're going further than that, populating the policy making jobs with their own loyalists, kinda like Brownie at FEMA... If filtering can occur further down the chain of command, then accountability decreases as plausible deniability increases and greater freedom from reality sets in...

When you tell the boss something he doesn't want to hear, you get fired, and replaced with somebody who will tell him only what he wants to hear...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sure. We'll rely on them to find that thar yellow cake uranium in Niger and all them WMD's in Iraq, and while we're at it, we'll trust 'em to capture Osama. It's a SLAM DUNK!
Buahahahaha! :laugh:

Don't blame our intelligence community for Joseph Wilson's failures. :laugh:

I take it you seriously put faith in Pelosi. That's scary indeed.

This idiot cannot be for real.

 

[pg22]

I'm actually trying to get to Damascus myself in a month or so. I really hope I can get in. First I have to convince Israeli border agents not to stamp my passport.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Sure. We'll rely on them to find that thar yellow cake uranium in Niger and all them WMD's in Iraq, and while we're at it, we'll trust 'em to capture Osama. It's a SLAM DUNK!
Buahahahaha! :laugh:

Don't blame our intelligence community for Joseph Wilson's failures. :laugh:

Joseph Wilson reported the truth to the Bushwhackos that reports of Iraqi attempts to buy yellow cake Uranium from Niger were bogus. He reported it before they launched their horrific war of lies, and his only failure was getting the Bushwhackos to call of their war.

The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

To date, their failure to acknowledge the truth, let alone act on it, has cost over 3,200 American troops dead, tens of thousands more American troops wounded, many scarred and disabled for the rest of their lives, possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dead and wounded and trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will be paying off for the rest of their lives.

If you think that's something to laugh about, you're one sick puppy. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

I take it you seriously put faith in Pelosi. That's scary indeed.

How nice and convenient of you to overlook my previous post about the visit to Syria by U.S. House members, Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt. :roll:

The only faith I have in the Bushwhacko administration is that, given the opportunity to do something... ANYTHING... right, I am certain they WILL fsck it up.

It doesn't matter if Pelosi's efforts don't produce useful results. All we know for sure is, without efforts by someone other than adminstration lamers, failure is guaranteed.