Cheney Throws Bush Under The Bush

AAAintheBeltway said:
One of the points made by the democrats' report was a claim that no useful information was obtained. That was demonstrably false, as Cheney and several former CIA directors said. Then the report said, well, there is no way to tell if you couldn't have gotten the information by less intrusive means.

If people are plotting another 9/11, is it really a good idea to experiment and see what is the least stressful technique we could use? What if we got nothing? Wouldn't you want to go with the most certain way of getting answers if you are facing an imminent threat? If we used kid glove techniques, got no useful ino and suffered another 9/11 or worse, would Feinstein and the democrats be applauding the CIA for observing our traditional values? Doubtful.

At the end of the day, it's up to voters. I am reasonably certain if a nuclear bomb is about to go off, people want Jack Bauer doing the interrogation, not Pajama Boy.
More...

Haven't we proven time and time again that you can't win a war while trying to not soil your white gloves?
 
Not a fan of American styled, "pussy-footin' wars" since WWII.

War is nasty, horrific, Hellish business. If "things" get to that point, you should "go all in"... massive force, stomp the enemy into dirt.. total devastation as fast as possible*, then get out"! Those whose life is risked at the point of the spear deserve nothing less!

If you're not prepared for that, then don't go to war.

*not saying you have to go fully to that extent. However, it should LOOK like that's your intention... while telling the enemy all through the process that you will cease hostilities if they will. (ie, Japan, WWII. With the fire bombings of Tokyo and the nuclear bombs, we'd threatened that we would "burn Japan to a cinder" if they didn't surrender. It was a successful bluff, as we didn't have any more nuclear bombs ready to go. And we had no intention of obliterating Japan... just wanted them to stop.)

I doubt most Americans understand. America has rarely* been the aggressor in wars. We've almost always participated to STOP OTHER AGGRESSORS! In that sense, we've been rather noble about it all.

*One example, Mexico Wars. America NEEDED to take California and Texas, as we couldn't take the risk of trusting anyone else to defend the coastline to our country. (Recalling from memory, so please don't give me any BS about some point not being "technically" correct. America needed to be in control of our coastlines.)
 
Last edited:
Who defines "torture"? And in the proper application of war, a prisoner might be LUCKY to be a prisoner and subject to torture... likely he should/could have been executed already. (Could be a prisoner gets "tortured" for information, than later gets freed. Versus, many Nazi "potential prisoners" were simply executed.. as the Reich didn't want to go the bother and expense of dealing with POWs.)

Geez. Anybody in your family (and especially YOU) ever been in combat? Ever even served in the military during a time of war?
 
Last edited:
AAAintheBeltway said:
If Diane Feinstein's family was being held by ISIS and we captured one of their guys who could tell us how to rescue them, she would be demanding that the CIA put the screws to him. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they wouldn't?

I reserve a special kind of contempt for people who keep silent while others do the dirty but necessary work then come out after the threat has passed and start moralizing about how unacceptable it all was.
More...
Leftists are mighty glib with their largely untested high minded morality. Things change quickly when it gets personal.
 
jem said:
....
What Religion are you Convertibility? Do you support conversion by the sword? Do you support flying planes into builidings.

Obviously Bush and the guys were not proud of this...it was done in secret. if you think George Bush is model Christian... what is Barack Obama the model for with his drone strikes killing innocents?
More...
The above was Jem's response to Covertibility's comment that "Christianity sure hasn't changed much over the years."

Jem, the truth of Convertibility's remark, though painful to many Christians such as yourself, is self-evident. Throughout history there have been many examples of professed Christians engaging in what by any reasonable definition is torture. I don't need to mention these many incidences to you. You know them well.

The condemnations of Christianity, brought on by the actions of the Christian Church and churches, and individuals professing to be Christians, over the centuries, is far more justified than you want to admit. Many past tortures were done in the name of religion, and some were sanctioned by the organized church! Christianity has a pathetic record when it comes to torture! Equally bad are actions in wars -- flame throwers, napalm, cluster bombs, etc. -- routinely sanctioned or condoned by those professing to be Christians.

It would be nice to hear you acknowledge the obvious rather than try to deflect attention from the short comings of your own religion by pointing out that other religions are equally despicable. Your deflection of truth does not make us non-Christians any more respectful of Christianity; it has the opposite effect. What would gain some respect for your position, would be a simple acknowledgement of the false teachings of Christianity and the actions, over the centuries, of those who profess to be Christians that fly in the face of Christ's teachings.

When you say: "Do you support conversion by the sword? Do you support flying planes into builidings [sic]." you have made a transparent attempt to side-step the issue of the horrendous tortures perpetrated by confessed Christians over the centuries, including our current century, and the actions of our current President! You have made an attempt to deflect criticism by an ad hominum like attack on another equally repugnant religion. (Has it occurred to you that three of the most repugnant religions practiced today have a common root?)

According to the teachings of Christ -- I hate to be forced to lecture you on this topic, but you thoroughly deserve it! -- the Christian response to, e.g., a terrorist attack such as 911, would be to forgive your enemies, and recognize, and stop engaging in, the actions that brought on such as attack!

Of course you can quote some Bible passage that would seem to justify you as a Christian, but if you do that while sanctioning or condoning clearly non-Christian behavior, those who do understand the teachings of Christ will recognize your delusion.

It seems to me that the number of Christians in the U.S. today must be numbered in the low thousands, not in the millions as often claimed. Even though I am an atheist, I admire and respect true Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. As an atheist, I often am a better Christian in my beliefs and actions than many of you who claim to believe in God and profess to be Christians. Christianity, as it was practiced in the past and as it is now practiced, is a thoroughly hypocritical religion. Acknowledging that, and accepting truth, ought to be a first step to becoming a true Christian.
 
Last edited:
All these goddam democrats [with the exception of one from Santa Barbara] signed on to the Wars after 9-11. Now they want to offload the image of the bad side of war onto Republicans while using it as a smokescreen for how much damage they did with their takeover of the medical system. They teamed up with Big Med and rewarded their loyal inner city voters with equality of healthcare essentially, now they need to hoodwink Whites some more, maybe get their votes again in '16 or '20...
 
Pie, I hate to always be arguing with you, since you seem like a decent and intelligent person. Sp why do you take an unfair swipe at Christians?

First, you criticize horrific misconduct that took place centuries ago under the auspices of what was then the Roman Catholic Church. It hardly was representative of all Christians, then or now, and was as much a political as religious body. Anytime humans are involved in an oirganization, even a church, there will be errors, evil and mistakes. It's unfair to place the blame on religion, just like it would be unfair to blame the Holocaust or Stalin's murders on "government."

It always amuses me to see liberals read the entire code of liberalism and socialism into the New Testament. I can assure you there is not one word in there about how to respond to terrorists attempting to kill large numbers of innocents or trying to impose an alien religion on a people by force. The Old Testament, by contrast, has numerous examples of how to deal with such situations and they usually end with the phrase "they put them all to the sword."
 
I would like to see the presidential candidates asked something along the following:

If the country was in an existential war and defeat was imminent but could be averted by use of tactics banned under the laws of war, eg, banned chemical or biological weapons, would you authorize their use?

If terrorists were threatening to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in a major US city, would you authorize the use of torture to detemine its location?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top