If the president releases the Bush torture memos, Republicans are promising to "go nuclear" and filibuster his legal appointments. Scott Horton reports on a serious threat to Obama's transparency.

Plan B will be to label any disclosure of damning information as "unAmerican" and "aiding terrorists." The minority that would believe such garbage don't vote Democrat, anyway.

"The GOP's Filibuster Hypocrisy"

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted February 19, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/

"...this anti-democratic fact about the GOP strategy - that it seeks to frustrate the will of the American majority, which rejected the Republicans and their policies in the last two U.S. elections - is rarely mentioned in the news.
"Nor is the fact that Republicans railed against even a hint of a filibuster when the Democrats were in the minority just a few years ago.
"Back then, when the Republicans controlled everything, the big story was how a threatened Democratic filibuster against, say, one of Bush's right-wing judicial nominations would be met by the Republican 'nuclear option' - using a majority-vote on a rule change to eliminate the filibuster permanently."

I say the Republicans in both Houses of Congress have now canonized the threat of filibuster all out of proportion. They use the threat constantly, as their chief obstruction tactic.

So let's have some tit for tat. The Democrats are now in power. They now have the power of the "nuclear option" of eliminating the filibuster forever. Let both sides remember that. The filibuster is being used in ways that are detrimental to American democracy. They are therefore anti-American.

Democrats -- use it!

The Republicams, by trying to prevent the release of the memos, and thus to circumvent the Will of the People, are one step from committing TREASON. Impeach them!!!

Open the stinking floodgates; what's the worst that could happen? Release the damn memos and quit tap-dancing already, so what if the GOP are 'privately' threatening to set our prez up for failure, again? That's nothing new.

As it is, treason was already committed when Bush created all those signing statements so he could circumvent the law. I say hang 'em high....by the seat of their pants anyway.

Agreed Jenifer,

Let it all out; let them filibuster; let them lose elections forever. I don't know what's in the water over at the RNC, but their political strategy is non-existent. Every time Obama hands them a gun, they shoot themselves in the foot.

Release the records and let the Republicans filibuster. Remind the American people every time a filibuster comes up that the Republicans' rationalizations for doing so are BS and they're just holding up the works for spite and be sure to include the dates every time.

They're not bluffing. The Republicans will follow through, or "stay the course" on true Bush fashion. Yes, it will delay appointments and such, but keep reminding the people of who's doing what and when they made the threat and maybe in November 2010 some of these knuckleheads in Congress will realize they "stayed the course" right over the cliff a la Wile E. Coyote.

More Than Happy, If the president don't stand up to the republican and call them out forthe hypocrites that they are then i will say he is just like the rest of the Washington slicks, they are not for the people they are for themselves, the hypocrites try and tell America that they are the ones with morals and they believe in God and if you don't think the way they do you are unpatriotic, theytalk about state rights freedom and principals and beliefs, but what they will do is go to war in a heart beat and think nothing of it, with our children, we or suppose to be a nation of peace, but you find that the neocon in the republican party care for the oil in the Muslims country and big business,

Grand Old Philibuster?

;p

Don't you love the irony of how in 2005 the Democrats were said to be unpatriotic for filibustering? And now what do the Republicans do when they're in the minority? Filibuster.

Don't you love the irony of how in 2005 the Democrats were said to be unpatriotic for filibustering?

Completely predictable. Te minority party always rattles the filibuster sabre, and the majority party always condemns it. The R or D doesn't matter.

Nah, even Ambassador Bolton was torpedo by the Dems and Chaffe, et al. Therefore, buckle up. This is not about the Memos, this is payback time. What about the noises about the 8 Attorneys that were dismissed because their time was up after 4 years.

a) Do you have any regard for the UN? I don't.

b) If the Attorneys were political appointments by the Bush Administration why not to look for a job as soon as 6 months before the elections of 2004?

Come on.

Noises and only noises. Remember that the Admninistration will be 3.8 years and will be a lot of yards to cut or run.

You would not be approved as ambassador to the UN either.

This also may fall under "be careful what you wish for"... Go ahead and filibuster... You'll wish you HAD filibuster capabilities on the next bank bailout bill, or next year's budget, or...

The complaint about Bolton was essentially that he had zero regard for the UN...

Weren't there also reports from people who worked with Bolton that cast strong doubts upon the man's character? I remember my senator crying about it.

Further, Bolton was a recess appointment, wasn't he? In other words, Bush appointed him without the advice and consent of the US Congress during a legislative break.

Evidently, the UN was considered so vital to the operation and well-being of the US that Bush felt it necessary to use emergency measures to fill such a necessary and important post.

Yah.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100436.html

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), echoing the concerns of fellow Democrats, said Bush abused a presidential power intended for narrow circumstances in order to dispatch "a seriously flawed and weakened candidate" to the United Nations.

If I remember correctly Bolton was removed from his former position, (in the state department?) he had a reputation for being cronfrontative and abusive. Bush did not like the UN. Perhaps it was less to interact with them as to try to keep the UN from interacting with us thereby intefering in the Bush business of War.

Would you check who accused the Abmassador Bolton first?

Also the good work of K. Annan and his son, et al

Sure, determined0a1, there's a summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Permanent_Representative_to_the_UN

Looks to me like he had critics on both sides of the aisle. I, personally, find this accusation VERY troubling:

John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton.

In some cases, career officials found back channels to Powell or his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who encouraged assistant secretaries to bring information directly to him. In other cases, the information was delayed for weeks or simply did not get through. The officials, who would discuss the incidents only on the condition of anonymity because some continue to deal with Bolton on other issues, cited a dozen examples of memos or information that Bolton refused to forward during his four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html

this is payback time.

How childish, Det.

This is not about the Memos, this is payback time.

I'm not so sure it's just payback ( though it's undeniably a big motive ). I'm wondering if anyone in Congress might also be named in the memos in some way and self-preservation might be a factor.

I'm wondering if anyone in Congress might also be named in the memos in some way and self-preservation might be a factor.

You know what, I don't care! If Obama himself is named, so be it. What happened under Bush/Cheney will ALWAYS be a dark chapter in American history until it is brought into the sunlight. I'd don't CARE who is to blame! Let the American people know what was OR WAS NOT done to us in the last 8 years. Let us be confident in who we are BECAUSE we know the truth.

David Jewell, If you new the have of the stuff that the Bush administration did you would be shocked, and when Mr Bush found out what Mr Cheney had done he was shocked, that is why he did not pardon Mr Libby, and Cheney is pissed, he promised Mr Libby if he kept his mouth closed he would have the president pardon him, so now he Mr Libby can't make a living because he is a convicted felon.

I expect you're right, we don't know the half, but we should. Knowing what happened will make us much more vigilent at preventing it in the future.

GNOSTIX1,You might be right a recall would be in line with her off the cuff remarks, this woman is in sighting for the over throw of the government, i thought that was treason for a member of congress to do. she might need to go back to school and learn that the proper way to over throw the government is with the vote.

There are some things that happened that kept us safe here in america that really doesnt need too be released.

Can you name anything, or are you just speculating?

The NYT did enough damage every time they reported secrets and let the terrorists know what we were planning.(treason???)

As in?

I've heard similar claims on NV but nobody has responded to requests for specifics, so IMO the claims are BS. Unless po'd you'd care to provide specifics/sources/lincs. Anything?

6: Look I for one dont give a rats a@# what Bush did

That's exactly what's wrong with the GOP today. They're willing to endorse anything -- including breaking the law -- in their quest for power. Immorality in power never leads to anything good. The GOP has drifted so far from the moral center they're not even trying to hide it. They obviously know the memos are very damaging, or there would be no reason to feel this desperate.

Government by extortion in our highest legislative body is not acceptable. We should flood their phone lines and email inboxes with protests. It's time for the US public to let our elected representatives know the days of government by dictator are over.

That's right po'd in TN, stick your head in the sand and pray for a miracle from Bush, right?

That's typical of the right-wing. Hide behind the leader and don't ask questions. It's ok for the government to keep secrets from the people, as long as they tell us it's for our safety? Fear, ignorance.

I will not trust my safety to ANYONE(Bush) or ANYTHING(Bush administration), that I cannot trust to tell me the truth, and be honest about their methods. But I guess there is just a certain segment of society who are content to be ignorant.

The problem is that we are so damn polarized as a nation, we can not consed that something is wrong. On either side.

Yes Clinton lied... There I said it. Good grief, I can not look at the man and not say "lie to me Bubba, tell me another pretty one, Ohhhh bite that lower lip and look earnest at me and tell me you did not do it."

George W. Bush lied every damn day he was in office. He brought this country to war on a lie and then tried to fix the problem by changing the name of it.

• Is it a conflict?
• A war on Terror (or a war on a feeling)
• Are we the police of the world now or just countries with oil?
• Is it a war
• Do we even care about Osama Bin Forgotten?

Well obviously no... because Bush even said so

... or was that a lie or temporary truth??

And how about that?

"Temporary Truth?????"

How many new phrases have been derived from the inconceivable from the previous 8 years?

What if those two American women are water boarded in North Korea?

Will we then call it torture and dismiss yet another one of Bush & Cheney's temporary truths?

Personally I don't think Bush wanted anything bad happen to his country, I think he loves this country, but he made haste, stupid decisions. I also think that deep down in his heart, he regrets many of his decisions. He let Cheney whisper his venom in his ear and took his bad advice. Cheney would sell his soul and his children for power. It doesn't mean I'm exonerating Bush, I blame him for being a pawn and manipulated around by Cheney Darth Vader and Co.

PO'd In TN, What if they picked you up and kept you locked up for five years and nobody new where you were, what if they were taping everything you said on the telephone, what if they bugged your house and put cameras in their would that be ok. Icould go on and on but i will stop at that.

Angie... if you were addressing me I have an answer for you.

GWB is a complex individual.

I think part of his actions was out of an belief of self glory. A sort of induced belief of God and he being set upon a thrown to "Do God's Work"

He like so many polititian of religion are phonies. They know how to find a loyal base, in so long as you follow the set musical notes (pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-male agenda, anti-homosexual... etc etc etc)

At some point you believe the hype.

I also say complex, because he was also used. He alowed it to happen, but can not take any responsibility, because he never has. He was probably pushed to take on Cheney or choose him, because he was part of Daddy's regieme. He wanted to prove daddy wrong and defend him at the same time. He let Cheney take the reigns.

How much time do you actually think GWB spent doing his job? Given the

• Time he went to bed.... never after 10pm
• Time on vacation... I can not even begin to calculate, but I think in the 8 years he took close to a year off.
• He spent an hour and half every morning in exercise.

He was a man of routine and acted like he was put out every time a crisis came up.

So to answer your question Angie M. Bishop,

I don't think he was "evil" as much as an incompetent wandering fool. And I would feel sorry for him, if it were not for the situation he put us all in.

Cheney is the evil one. And I have serious misgivings of some of the corporations that put GWB in power... and wonder how much "power" they have obtained through his office.

That is not the actions of a Liberal mind per say, as much as an open questioning mind... one that doesn't just believe rhetoric.... from anyone Angie.

po'd in TN

why release them anyway? There are some things that happened that kept us safe here in america that really doesnt need too be released. The NYT did enough damage every time they reported secrets and let the terrorists know what we were planning.(treason???)

Look I for one dont give a rats a@# what Bush did too find out what terrorists had planned. I would have done worse if I had been in hisplace I promise you that. I dont care what Obama does as long as it works.

If you had family member in the Military and they were take prisoner. I would hope that whoever took them did not believe as you do.

We were not fighting an established,uniformed military. We are fighting Terrorists,who kidnap.behead,plant roadside bombs, and blow themselves up just too kill.. You may not want too admit but there is a difference.

The U.S. becoming torturers make the problem worse, not better.

And as far as the nutball terrorists, how is torturing someone who'd blow themselves up for 72 virgins supposed to work?

It did didnt it? Become torturers let me fill you in on a little secret we were always doing it! Its nothing new just all of a sudden it was released in the media,and people couldnt believe it. I thought giving away state secrets like this was treason.

Lono... exactly so what does it matter,as long as it worked?

There is no difference between a terrorist and a coward who is willing to bury his head in the sand and allow his government to use any methods to maintain his safety.

The end does not justify the means!

So now I am a coward? Look I just believe there are some things that happen that people dont want to know. I dont bury my head I am just willing too turn it a little for some things. And in this instance yes the end dang sure justified the means.

So tell me oh brave one what would you have us do ?Talk too them nicely?

Hey our new President has said it wouldnt happen any more.So whats the worry?

I don't know you so I can not say you are. But anyone who would allow their government to conduct such policies and not say anything is.

Lono..If the memos are released and you find out that the torture did work,would you still be against it?

Guess I just have a harder heart against people who use women and kids for bombs,and then hide behind more women and kids.

You really want too know what was done too keep terrorists from attacking the U.S. again? Who cares,it worked thats all that matters.

There have been at least a dozen professional interrogators who have publicly stated that they have never seen viable information come from a tortured suspect. Look it up. If you really don't feel like searching, let me know and I'll provide you with links. One interrogator in particular wrote a book about it and had to sue the DOD to have it published because God forbid the American people would find out we were engaging in practices that were utterly useless and completely barbaric.

And lastly, winning a "war" by becoming that which we loathe the most and exhibiting practices that we once decried and rejected... well, that's not winning at all, is it? As a matter of fact, I'd say it was a huge loss for our way of life. Just my two cents...

So now I am a coward?

If you are arguing in favor of torture, and it sure seems that you are, then yes, I would say that you show signs of being a coward.

Look I just believe there are some things that happen that people dont want to know.

There are some things that weak, cowardly people don't want to know. I want to know every last action of my government since I vote to put them in power and they are funded by the tax money of myself, my friends and my family. I guess I just don't trust Daddy-Government as blindly as you do.

I dont bury my head I am just willing too turn it a little for some things. And in this instance yes the end dang sure justified the means.

That's a cowardly idea. I have far higher standards for this Nation than you do, I guess.

I do believe I did say something. I said, I dont care what you have to do just keep our country safe.

po'd in TN

I do believe I did say something. I said, I dont care what you have to do just keep our country safe.

Then you answered your own question about cowardice.

The end never justifies the means!

The worry is that when you allow government that kind of power, who decides who is the enemy? Is it the terrorists or anyone the government opposes?

You may be willing to ignore what is done in your name, I am not.

Those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither. - Ben Franklin

I am for whatever works,if it doesnt work then no dont torture. I am neither for nor against it. I dont like it but there may be a time or a place.

As far as standards for our country you may be right we should be better.But sometimes you got to get your hands dirty to get the job done right.

I dont trust the Government period for anything.I would love too know what worked.

You are all taking me the wrong way I wish we didnt have too torture and I dont know for sure we did. All I am saying is that when you are fighting an enemy like this you have to do whatever keeps your people safe. If we were fighting an established,uniformed army then no, I dont think we should tortue.But we are not fighting that type of enemy are we? If someone were going too kill your wife/husband or child would you not do whatever it took too keep them safe? If that is cowardly then so be it.

po'd in TN-

worked thats all that matters

Hilter much?

Oh, btw- It didn't work.

For some reason you keep trying to justify torture. What you or I would do is not the same as our governments action. We The People should hold the the government to a higher standard. Their are people in the country who now justify the Iraq war because the say Saddam was torturing his people. If that be the case I guess it would have been okay for another country to attack us because President Bush authorized torture.

po'd, if we have the time to drag these people all the way to Cuba, process them, and throw them in the dungeon, do you really think we're bringing them over there about a ticking time bomb? Stop being so naive!

I do believe I did say something. I said, I dont care what you have to do just keep our country safe.

So if locking all American citizens up in work camps "keeps us safe" from your imaginary enemies, then you're for it? And you wonder if people think you're a coward?

I dont trust the Government period for anything.

You seem to trust them to keep you safe. You seem to trust them to keep you safe "by any means necessary" at that. It seems, to me, that you trust your government to keep you alive. Can you not protect yourself or your family?

So if locking all American citizens up in work camps "keeps us safe" from your imaginary enemies, then you're for it? And you wonder if people think you're a coward?

I see your point. And no I would not go for that in fact I would be first to fight it!I dont like the Govt. But I hate the Terrorists that did9/11 worse. ok?So i guess I have no pity for them or their cohorts.

I can but I wont have much luck against a 747 now will I?

Since I have to go to work we will have too agree to disagree. Good day all.

"You really want too know what was done too keep terrorists from attacking the U.S. again? Who cares,it worked thats all that matters."

So stop laughing at my tinfoil hat!

I see your point. And no I would not go for that in fact I would be first to fight it!I dont like the Govt. But I hate the Terrorists that did9/11 worse. ok?So i guess I have no pity for them or their cohorts.

The problem is that most of those detained in GITMO and tortured by the US are not "cohorts" of the people who committed 9/11. If there was 100% accuracy in our investigation in the "War on Terror" then maybe some would sing a different tune, but there isn't. Americans wouldn't want our law enforcement to use torture on American citizens, so why would we allow it to be done to others? It's just a small step from one to the other.

It is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.

Even worse, because of the errors at GITMO bona fide terrorists have and will be released.

A country's citizens are responsible for the actions of their country. Just ask Germany.

po'd in TN, you would willingly change your belief in what is right and what is wrong because of fear. A man who has no moral standard except for what will keep him in his security bubble is the definition a coward.

To paraphrase a very wise man, "Those who would abandon their morals in the name of freedom have none of the former, and deserve none of the latter."

Apologies to Mr. Franklin, his own statement was a bit more elegant.

I think that's the problem PO'd. We don't know with any certainty that it was torture etc... that worked in protecting us from another attack...aside from some assertions.

No it became a banner to call for more recruits (and not on our side) if anything it sullied our military. I am sure less people want to join something that has been given a bad name.

As for Al Quida... they now how to bide their time.

Between 1993 and 2001 there were 8 years. And no one in the Republican camp counts Spain 3-11 and the UK bombings. Lynn Cheney did not even consider them American interests when she was interviewing with John Stewart.

As long as it does not happen here in our borders... Oh Well!

We as Americans have no concept of what it takes to draw members of Al Quida... and we just don't give a damn to even try. Part of it would only require looking to the day of 9-11 and imagining all of your life you grew up in that trauma.

I am for whatever works,if it doesnt work then no dont torture.

That's the problem -- one doesn't know if "torture" works or not because the information you get from torturing may or may not be accurate or reliable... In the meantime, if you're advocating torture, where do you draw the line??? I can imagine that the line is very thin and very easy to cross in the pursuit of "truth" and in the heat of the moment... And, once you've crossed that line, there are two problems... One, you find it easier with each successive interrogation to cross that line again, to where the torture now becomes commonplace and accepted practice... And two, it's not like you can look at the suspect and say "oops" if you realize you've gone too far... You can't take it back -- your actions are now in the past... And if your actions have not produced any credible information, how are you now any better than the terrorists you rail against???

Hey our new President has said it wouldnt happen any more.So whats the worry?

Every time they can make Bush look a little worse, it makes Obama look a little better.

OK just got home. I see alot decided too keep going after I left. Angie thank you for your support I know Conservatives are outnumbered on here I been around long enough too see that.And dont worry I havent changed in 20 years I wont now.

I think the answers will come out too everyones questions and we will see what really happened,and who was right. If I am wrong I will freely admit it.

I truly think this is more of a personal attack on PGWBush and VPCheney than a search for so called answers.

If you want some really warm and nice neocon friends, check Politico. There are some guys over there who start bashing Obama and the Dems around 5 am in the morning, probably even before they brush their teeth or drink the morning cofee. Hehe.

Or..you can "stand your ground" and "stay the course" or whatever...and try to be one of those 19% Americans who still love Cheney Darth Vader.

PO'D IN TN, Now you don't have to be so nasty. if they picked up all of your members and you know what members I'm talking about would you be pleased, if they classified your members as terrorist, think about it sir. even if they are .

Angie.. God Bless you, you have my support as well.

Jerry, I'm sorry but I dont know what the heck you are talking about. Or accusing me of.

Kind.. I never was a big fan of VP Cheney.I just dont believe this witch hunt the far left is on is wrong.

I never was a big fan of VP Cheney.I just dont believe this witch hunt the far left is on is wrong.

This isn't a witch hunt in any sense, we KNOW who the witches are! We just want to know what evil they have done in our name, and what land mines they've left for us to step on. Seems fair to me!

Ask their little bleeding hearts why they defend Hamas and the torture of our own American forces? Its true, they do. We owe answers for protection our own, but any other region has free reign and understanding.

Wrong Angie!

Just plain wrong... but that is part of your agenda. You have allowed yourself to become part of the brainwashed bunch who think that because we do not support an illegal action that we do not support our troops or that you would actually let it creep into your brain that we want our troops tortured.

Here is where you allowed your wandering spirit to be hyjacked by a political party....

Bush and Cheney are the ones who put those troops in harms way.

They used them and really do not care about them.

PO'd... how will you ever see the truth... if the Republican Party continues to hide it?

Don't you find it awfully convenient that the independent investigator (like Ken Star) was discontinued AFTER Clinton left office?

Or that the key attorneys were fired.

I am not going to impune your integity when you say you will admit you are wrong, I question your ability to sniff out a cover up.

exactly so what does it matter,as long as it worked?

Benito Mussolini, was loved by his people because he made the "Trains run on time"

But in the long run the if the means have to fit the end, just because we can do some thing and it will work does not mean we should. A person can walk into a gas station and kill the attendant and steal the money to pay his bills, that doesn't mean he should.

There's no imperical evidence that anything derived from torture or excessive / extreme interrogations ever did result in any significant pieces of viable intelligence.

All it led to was me and my Marines kicking down a bunch of doors , climbing through caves, and in short, spending entire deployments on wild goose chases, following up lead after lead, intel tip after intel tip, and coming up more or less empty.

In a dynamic environment like a terrorist cell, the information changes daily..sometimes hourly. A terrorist who was taken captive 3 months ago doesn't have any current intel to relate. Even if he wants to talk honestly; he only knows what was, not what is.

Torture yields a LOT of intel, but quality is MUCH more important than quantity.

Not taking sides here at the moment. After reading the article, I cannot even conclude that the author is telling the truth. He lists as his sources, "a very reliable source" and "a senior senate staffer". I have a teency weency problem with his sources. He could have made them up for all we know. It's easy to fabricate facts when your sources are non verifyiable.

While I cannot imagine that the GOP wants these memos released, there is no credible evidence that they are blackmailing the administration and making the threats the artical says they are making.

Hearsay...all of this is mere hearsay.

Each party's total willingness to believe anything that shows the opposing party in a negative light is a large part of the reason we can't come together and solve any problems. And there sits John Q. Public at home on on boards such as these willing to accept and even become angry over any and ever bogus story that comes down the pike. Because "a very reliable source" gives us the facts.

Very Good!

That makes way to much sense.

Rayne amen!

While I think we are all in agreement that "sources" both in intelligance and in the media are unreliable at times...

I put my proof in action....

Here is another question....

How have the Republican minorities acted? Has there been even a moment of non-partisanship? I agree Pelosi is being a bit haughty with the weight of the win from last November... but that comes from a country that has been surviving the previous 8 years... and quite frankly is sick of the political BS.

Something must get done in Washington! Blackmail is tiered! Partisinship is tired!

Quite frankly the bickering and the party divide is horrifyingly tiered!

Angie... I was referring to the House minority... not you sweety.

And just WOW...

This is what I meant by the whole extermination thing.

It is your way or your are going to holler and yell for the next 4 years.

Oh well... it is either bliss or the @!$%#s for you. No compromising for Angie.

No sirrrrrre Bob!

Stick a hot poker in her eye and she will never die!!!!

~ just grinning my ass off ~LOL=}

Good luck over the next 8 years! You may need to invest in some Pepto-Bismol.

Or actually find out what a real liberal is.

Here is a link to knowledge Angie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

What is that line from McCain...

" ....I will make them all famous!"

"the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names." John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul

ok... I paraphrased... thanks for the quote!

maggie - like Clinton kept us safe after the 1993 attacks - right? - cuz with your philosophy because we weren't attacked until 2001 then Clinton kept us safe for 8 years - and Bush screwed up and we were attacked - this is your thinking because you are ready to blame Obama for an attack that may or may not come but are ready to grant how Bush kept us safe since 2001 then you have to grant Clinton kept us safe for 8 years - this is how erratic your thinking is

torture does not keep a country safe - it deteriorates our very foundation because we hold other countries to a standard we are not willing to follow ourselves - that upsets our standing in the world and among our own people - don't we all scream for the blood of those holding our military hostage and torture them?

I keep hearing the same BS that bush protected us after 9/11 because there has not been a terrorist attack on US soul by foreign terrorist since then. First of all he was responsible for failing to protect the country on 9/11. There wasn't just the one PDB that warned them of an impending attack. Google "They knew but did nothing" you will find these other warnings]

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)

"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)

"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent"(June 23)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30),

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Then we hear his defenders say that there has not been an attack since 9/11. After the first WTC attack in 1993 there was not another attack on US soil for the remainder of the Clinton presidency. Clinton did not gut the constitution, launch an unnecessary war and make us one of the most hated nations on earth to do it. He did not cost us thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars to do it. Clinton has his own failings he has yet to answer for but this canard that Bush has made this country safer has to end once and for all.

I won't even go into the economy and the politization of every branch of government over the last 8 years. George W. Bush was a failure on every level. Unfortunately for our country, our world, his powerful friends and family helped him fail upwards. His presidency will set the standard for failure as long as there is an United States of America.

I remember the refrains of "No one could have predicted..." 9/11 (Rice), the financial crisis (Cheney), etc. But it was their responsibility to do just that (setting aside for the moment the fateful memo about terrorists using aircraft as weapons prior to 9/11, which they ignored).

Terrorism is about using unconventional methods and weapons, precisely because they cannot be predicted... it is guerilla warfare, against which conventional warfare fails pretty much every time, which is why it is so successful. No amount of preparedness will guarantee your safety. What amazes me is that some people think that safety can be guaranteed... it can't... but know this: As your civil rights are taken away for your own protection, they will never be returned to you... not ever... and that is a price that no one should be willing to pay for something that cannot be guaranteed.

Clinton didn't keep us safe.

6/ 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured

February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole —

1993 World Trade Center bombing

http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/lowry4.htm

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y=

maggie - those are not US soil - how many military & civilians have been killed since 9/11? - do you know? - so your argument now is off shore killings - i think during Bush's reign was more than Clintons - so now you are going into - Bush did not keep us safe because civilians have been killed in Iraq - can't have it both ways

If you're going to use a bombing is Saudi Arabia to claim Clinton didn't keep us safe since the 1993 WTC bombing, I'll use the 2004 Madrid bombings to state that Bush didn't keep us safe, either.

Don't forget the bus bombings in England! Bush failed there too!

Americans died either on this soil or other soil. I have not,and do not defend Bush,and no where in my post was his name mentioned.Since you brought up Clinton I will respond to that.I voted for the man twice. If Bush's record is opened then every President past,present,and future should be opened also. So lets drag them all out. All of them we can't pick,and choose who shouldor should not be brought up on charges.

President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to stop, catch, or kill bin Laden more than twelve times during his presidency.And on at least two occasions through Drones and Global Positioning Systems the Clinton Administration knew exactly where bin Laden was -- and refused to take him out well after knowing he was a national security threat.

http://www.alamo-girl.com/lies.htm

backpedal faster maggie - you insinuated Bush when you brought up 9/11 and whether Obama can keep us safe - insinuating that Bush did

as far as who you voted for - i could care less - that is about as provable as to how much money you give to charity - unprovable & irrelevant to the discussion

frankly all their memos should be open - they are PUBLIC servants & this is nothing but a coverup for wrong doing - IF there was no wrong doing then whats the issue?

No you read into my comment what you wanted. That's the problem with trying to read someones mind. Reread my post what I said was I wondered how everyone will react the next time we are hit by terrorist. How did you act after 911 were you outraged wanting revenge like most of America?

i wasn't the only that read your comment that way - and you backed up your position even more by your response on Clinton's failure off shore - and only backpedaled when it was shown that Bush also had off shore killings during his presidency - and being told you can't have it both ways

as for 9-11 - i was angry - i am not into the revenge mode - but i do believe in justice & if war crimes are not punished here then how can we expect the rest of the world to respect us and follow the standards we want them to

No you started it with your comment,and the rest followed suite.Your the one who brought up Clinton not me. But since you did I responded with the fact that he didn't keep us any safer,and maybe less by his policies. Would 911 have happened if he had done what he should have done back then. Who knows. It doesn't matter if it happened here or other soil we were attacked,and men ,and women lost their lives due to failed policies by both presidents. I never back peddled. There was a huge outcry for Bush to do something after 911 they didn't care what as long as he did something. Everyone can raise the outcry now that Bush was wrong but we didn't see it happening when it was going on then did we. I'm not going to defend him but I'm not going to run him to ground either with the howls that are going on right now. Two wrongs do not make a right. I like every other American has the right to question the policies of Obama,and to wonder how he will handle the next attack because there will be one sooner or later.If there is an outcry to prosecute every president that we don't like or disagree with then how many of them are going to do anything because they will be to afraid of the repercussion from the public. Obama has not taken torture off the table either.He is just going to take it case by case.Torture is a part of war,and if it saves American service men,and women,and American citizen then so be it. War is not humane,and never has been.

Peace Out

To me this is just plain noises to cover up their burundongo. I haven't read anything about the subject.

9-11 was going to happen regardless of who was president - just like the 1993 attack - the terrorists certainly were not frightened of retribution - i am not running him into the ground - but with accusations abounding - then he should have to face them as any of us would have to face criminal accusations - his former position should not shield from obeying the law

you are correct two wrongs do not make a right - because people attacked us does not give us the right to break the Geneva Convention - check it out at the link - pay attention to Article 4 #2 - as outlined who should be considered POW

where is your proof that torturing people is looked at as a part of war - according to the Geneva Convention it is not & we should be following the dictates of what we agreed to - check out article 13

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

It will be interesting to see how the next terrorist attack will be handled by this administration,and how the public will react.

Judging by the later comments, not sure what your exact critisism is... but my concern with this line is the "intresting to see"

And maggie don't know your political beliefs so much, but I get the feeling that there is an unsaid desire by some for something to happen.

Something to drive fear back into the hearts of those who have subsided due to economic issues.

I find that sad and distastfull.

People need to stop burying their heads in the sand. No I don't want another attack but if you think that it won't happen think again. I pray it doesn't but we had better be prepared if it does. Saying it won't, will not stop it,and ignoring it will not stop it either.

Nica: Do you honestly think that all countries go by the Geneva Convention,and that they are going to follow it?

I hate to say this but some people are just naive. When I was young I felt the same way as many young people do now. I have grown older,and wiser. Things are not always what they seem, or what we think they should be.

i am not naive - i know some others do not observe the Geneva Convention - but that is no reason for us to follow suit - like you said 2 wrongs do not make a right - you said that - so you are going back on what you said right there - like i said backpedal faster

IF we are attacked again then like all the other countries in the world that suffer attacks we will deal with it - as always - but torturing POWs is still not right & still goes against everything this country has stood for - being the leader in the world - not the one that says "do what i say not what i do" - with people spouting off as you it's no wonder all our allies have thrown up their hands

Well I am not going to play "interesting to see games". I will judge Obama on the actual events of real life and not postulation

No you started it with your comment,and the rest followed suite.

I wasn't parroting nica. I was posting my response to you while he (she?) was doing the same.

I know you didn't claim that Bush kept us safe, but you did challenge the notion that Clinton kept us as safe, if not safer, than Bush's war. And you did so by citing overseas attacks as support. I was merely pointing out how specious your argument was. I wasn't playing "me too" with nica and I resent your implication that I was.

Maggie...Bush had the opportunity to get bin Laden and the military might to do so (and the WORLD behind him too) but he wanted a little payback on Saddam and took the focus off of bin Laden to get it. BTW............in the 8 YEARS of Bush rule, where IS bin Laden??????? Still loose and capable of creating havoc!

President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to stop, catch, or kill bin Laden more than twelve times during his presidency.And on at least two occasions through Drones and Global Positioning Systems the Clinton Administration knew exactly where bin Laden was -- and refused to take him out well after knowing he was a national security threat.

Incorrect. Clinton had 2 opportunities to get Bin Laden from the Sundanese government, who were trying to "sell" him to us. Bush also had an opportunity, shortly before the Cole was bombed...but your "sources" didn't tell you that. It would make your boy look worse.

BTW - The last part of your statement Maggie was total B.S. You made the whole drone thing up and you know it...

If you have to tell lies or half the story to make your point, then maybe your point isn't worth making? Hmmmm?

Maggie, if God forbid there would be such a thing as a "next terrorist attack" I believe Obama will go straight for their necks, wherever they are, and not just use the tragic event to trigger wars of his choice. Contrary to some people's perceptions, Libs can kick major a@@ as well, if not better. Strategy: 1. Schmooze them till they get dizzy, make them think there's no threat or there's less threat. 2. Kick them in the groin when they least expect.

BLIZZY: Your wrong.

From The Sunday Times

September 4, 2005

Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding

PREVIOUSLY unseen footage of Osama Bin Laden taken by a CIA spy drone reveals how close the Americans came to killing the Al-Qaeda leader two years before the September 11 attacks.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article562390.ece

Yes... Clinton missed an opportunity.

Here is the glaring question maggie... Are you listening???

What the hell were we doing in Iraq... When Osama was in Afghanistan and now Pakistan?

Wasn't talking to you dragonwoman for one.For the other just to get it on the record which I know none of you care about. I didn't vote for Bush. I don't like Bush. I have never liked Bush. I don't know what we were doing in Iraq,but since we were a tyrant was brought down that was murdering as many as 50,000 people mostly women,and children. We removed the world of a very evil dictator.

A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers.

But hey you all think that was ok,and It's more important to go after Bush for the breaking the rules of the Geneva convention. Where is your outrage of the human rights violations that were going on in Iraq?

so Maggie - with your thinking - IF Bush did torture POWS and was inhumane some other country can invade us because he was a tyrant - IS that the precedence you want to set? - the Geneva Convention is very important and we need to follow the humane treatment of others because we are supposed to be better than the tyrants & terrorists of the world - WE are supposed to follow the rules so when others don't then we have a JUST reason for using military force AND have some backup - because none of that took place under Bush - most of the world (our allies) are suspicious of every move we make - thus not being behind us fully with the N Korea issue - GET IT? - we cannot afford to use your childish mentality of "they did it so we can too" AND i'll let someone else ask you if you know HOW many women & children have been killed since we invaded Iraq

Maggie - I stand corrected and apologize.

I did notice, however, you chose not to argue the fact that Bush had the same opportunity to get his hands on Bin Laden but didn't because we couldn't tie anything he'd done to us yet.

Should we have assassinated him? Yes. But without a real reason why, we would've gotten a lot of strife from the international community; more so than now. The purpose of strategic intelligence is to give information not necessarily predict the future. So laying the blame of 9/11 on either Bush or Clinton isn't really fair...but both missed the opportunity to get the guy who would later kill a lot of innocent people.

The only thing missed by Saddam was his ability to keep Al Queida out of Iraq.

It was a lie just the same.

Don't care much if you were talking to me... You are talking on the Vine... not a private conversation... You know?

Do you hold outrage for the otrosities in:

• China
• North Korea
• Darfur
• Mexico

and the hundreds of other places in the world.... Are we to execute every evil dictator? Do we impugn our integrity in the process Maggie?

But hey you all think that was ok,and It's more important to go after Bush for the breaking the rules of the Geneva convention. Where is your outrage of the human rights violations that were going on in Iraq?

Sorry, I was more concerned with ACTUAL genocide in Darfur.

maggiemay,

When you're getting information from a site that is self-described as "the cyber notepad" of the "unofficial archivist of the most active conservative political forum on the Internet," which then provides a broken link to said archivist, well, it becomes difficult to take it seriously. For example, in the DSL "Lies and Deceptions" Part 1, DSL references Creators Syndicate whose website is quoted on DSL with the following:

Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable." There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer.

Have you looked at the contributors to Creators Syndicate? In their own words:

Creators Syndicate now represents over 200 of the most talented writers and artists in the world, including Robert Novak, Mike Luckovich, Bill O'Reilly...

Anyone who can put forward those two names (emphasis was mine) as credible writers has little or no plausibility in my book.

Bill Clinton, when he took little or no action against al-Qaeda, was criticized by Republicans for lack of initiative. When he did take action against al-Qaeda, Clinton was criticized for wagging the dog due to the Lewinsky debacle. The man had no hope of having Republican cooperation on anything—even though he had a Republican in his cabinet—because their sole goal was to take him down. And they pretty much did. So, if you want to put forth information regarding Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden, it needs to come from a nonpartisan source. Otherwise, it's tainted.

All that said, I do not profess to be an expert on the Clinton administration or Clinton's actions or inactions concerning Osama bin Laden. What I do know is that he took the threat seriously, he listened closely to his advisors, including Richard Clarke, and he forfeited an opportunity to bomb in Afghanistan because the administration determined that the possibility (because that's all it was—a possibility) to get bin Laden or his cohorts was not great enough to incur the considerable collateral damage (dead Afghan civilians) that would have been the result (and thereby could have created a foreign relations problem internationally).

You should also remember that in the time period you are discussing, al-Qaeda was a new threat, one that appeared during the Clinton years with the bombing of the WTC in 1993. I don't believe anyone truly understood the threat or the al-Qaeda organization or their goals. It was a menace the likes of which we had not seen before. But some in the Clinton administration caught on very quickly, namely, Richard Clarke, who is a counterterrorism expert. From Online News Hour:

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, let's just look at the facts. Within days, within three days of the administration beginning, I wrote to Condoleezza Rice asking for an urgent -- underlined "urgent" -- meeting of the so-called Principals Committee. Now, that's the Cabinet-level members of the NSC: secretary of defense, secretary of state, CIA director, attorney general.

Instead of having that meeting, they had a meeting on February 1st on Iraq. And, in fact, I wasn't given a Cabinet-level NSC Principals meeting on terrorism until September 4th. Now, contrast that to December 1999, when we had similar intelligence that there was an impending al-Qaida attack, and President Clinton ordered his national security adviser to meet every day or every other day with the attorney general, the FBI director, and the secretary of defense, all of whom left those meetings every day, went back to their departments and shook the departments to do anything and everything they could to stop the al-Qaida attacks.

Regarding Iraq and its mad dictator, that was not our business. If it were, we should be in Darfur right now and how many other places in the world? What about the police in eastern Europe who are complicit in the human trafficking of countless children and women? Should we intervene there as well? Where's the cut-off?

Truth is, we are in Iraq under false pretenses. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy (something we're losing right here at home) or liberating people. We probably could've had bin Laden at Tora Bora, but our then-commander-in-chief elected not to listen to his generals. Why not? I don't think we'll ever know the actual agenda on any of these things, particularly now that Republicans are working so belligerently to keep the actions of a secretive administration secret—and not in a Communist country but in the greatest country in the world!

"What do they have to hide? "

Funny........that was the parroting from the right when the "Patriot Act" was passed. If you have nothing to hide, why worry? Hmmmmmmmmm

And while your are at it tell them it is time to RESIGN, WE the people want our country back!

If you think our hypocracy as a nation began with the Bush administration, you need to reach quite a bit further back than that.

Recommended Reading: War Is A Racket, by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired. Start there, then begin mining through the freely-available National Security Archive at George Washington University. Also read pretty much anything written by Howard Zinn.

Blizzy,

Don't forget..we hung Afghanistan out to dry after they defeated the Russians for us. We recanted on all of the offers of aid, and turned our backs on them. They fought our war by proxy, which did a lot of damage to their country and infrastructure. We told them we would help them rebuild, and abandoned them. That was a catalyst to many of the events today.

Oh no - I'm definitely not saying that our hypocrisy started with Bush. I'd say it all started with Truman, and just got worse from there with every successor.

There is a side of me - to be totally straight here - that would prefer if the U.S. learned how to better maintain activities like this from a covert standpoint. I recognize that sometimes we have to go a little bit further in order to protect our soil...it's just a really slippery slope.

Part of me would prefer our actions show our values, not just well placed words on the podeum. The other part of me would like to see a world that fears us. Striking a balance is what the U.S. should be all about. The GOP seems intent on the latter, the DNC on the former...till we find common ground we all lose.

Blizzy, I 'd agree - the problem is with satellites and news broadcasters screaming 'freedom of the press' covert operations are almost impossible.

my uncle was a SEAL during the Gulf War. He got out afterwards because the news media lost all discretion regarding Spec OPs and would constantly film them on ops (the thrill of the embedded journalist) which had the potential to place not only them but their families in danger.

Some people got a thrill watching CNN's night vision footage during first Gulf war. I wasn't one of them. Regular people only saw lights in the sky as they were firing the weapons...useless "entertainment". While people were dying in the process.

It's a lot different when you realize that that light is actually a 22 mm anti aircraft shell designed to punch 4 inch holes through aircraft aluminum (and you for that matter) flying at over 1800 feet per second.

People thought it was so cool to watch the cruise missile footage. How cool was it for the people on the receiving end ?

Rose, serial killers don't seek to gain anything from their victims. Only that they die.

It's not the same ...

aj- this isn't about 'punishing' anyone. It is about living up the standards of freedom and justice we claim to base our country on. And if you really think that holding people in this country accountable for torture makes us look weak, then I feel sorry for you. I for one think it makes a look like we're willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Trying to sweep hypocritical behavior under the rug is what makes us look weak. Abandoning our ideals in the face of danger makes us look weak. I also don't think there could possibly be a larger target painted on our heads than there already is. These people hate us- for a myriad of reasons- and releasing 'torture memos' isn't going to suddenly inflame bin Laden into launching another attack. Trust me when I say that the next terror attack has been in the works since Sept. 12, 2001. And one last thing- I absolutely whole heartedly believe that we SHOULD provide every right this great nation has to offer to the people we're detaining- that is what makes this country great. If we're willing to abandon our ideals at the first sign of inconvenience, than they aren't really ideals, are they?

Our ideals were lost. I am trying to look forward during a time of war, with our men and woman overseas, and I am concerned for their safety. I do not believe that there is a statue of limitations on alleged war crimes, I would want our soldiers home safely before this pandora's box is sliced wide open. Freedom and justice is not what are soldiers will encounter on foreign soil while we try to work things out here on who is guilty and who is not.

I see your point, but to assume we can take care of this when our troops are back home is to assume they'll actually be home any time in the near future. I think most realistic people understand we're going to have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq well after Obama leaves office. And as I said before, I really don't think those in the Muslim world that wish us or our troops harm have been idly waiting for something like this... This changes nothing for those fighting these wars on ground... but it will hopefully change some things regarding our perception in the rest of the word. We don't need to be seen as country that refuses to take responsibilty for its mistakes... I think we've played that role for far too long already.

aj, iIdidn't think of it in those terms. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Perhaps that is why Obama, as Commander in Chief of these very troops, appears to be opting out of involvement in this issue. Besides it really is an issue for the Department of Justice, and equal branch.

I meant actual combat troops on the ground. What outcome are you expecting? Let's say Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gates, Powell, a percentage of pentagon officials and military officials are all brought up on charges of war crimes, are you hoping "the world" will be grateful? Do we charge the young army reservist who was following an order? Do we charge the officer who walked the alleged terrorist into the interrogation as an accessory? Where would we stop? Do you really think that our 535 members of congress are neutral enough to even carry out a lunch order? I do not believe what has happened should be excused, but I do wonder at what cost should it be pursued.

Do we charge the young army reservist who was following an order?

My own perspective is that those who gave illegal orders should be prosecuted fully, the higher up the food chain the higher the degree of responsibility. Also prosecutions should exist for those who could have and should have known what was going on under their commands but plead 'ignorance'.

Sounds like "racketeering" to me! Don't people do serious time in jail for that? Really do wish they would...

These @!$%#s should be charged and prosecuted under RICO statutes!