The Vice President of Torture
 

That's what former CIA director Stansfield Turner calls Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney continued the administration's big lie today with the following:

"What is not legitimate, and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."

This from the man who, in December, 2001, on "Meet the Press" said "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link betwen Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When that link was later disproved, Cheney was confronted about his Meet the Press remark by Gloria Borger on CNBC. Three times Cheney told her that he never said it.

Reprehensible and dishonest indeed.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Do you really believe that politicians of any stripe who run their mouths all the time remember 1/2 of what they say?

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe that politicians of any stripe who run their mouths all the time remember 1/2 of what they say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be a justification for lying?

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Could the Left come together and figure out what "the Big Lie" is for the Bush admin? I'm growing tired of hearing every "lie" being called the "Big Lie" and can't keep em straight.

Thanks.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could the Left come together and figure out what "the Big Lie" is for the Bush admin? I'm growing tired of hearing every "lie" being called the "Big Lie" and can't keep em straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. There are just too many lies, so you blame the left for making it too confusing to track. Follow that party line --- it's always right.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Classic. There are just too many lies, so you blame the left for making it too confusing to track.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's like if I said every time someone was killed it was a Holocaust, the meaning of the word would diminish to a shadow of it's former meaning. If the Left were more selective of what they called "the Big Lie", maybe they'd be doing better in elections...

[ QUOTE ]
Follow that party line --- it's always right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I liked this part, especially since I've done nothing but float away from the party line since I arrived in college. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time I've been stereotyped by a lefty.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Classic. There are just too many lies, so you blame the left for making it too confusing to track.

[/ QUOTE ] No, it's like if I said every time someone was killed it was a Holocaust, the meaning of the word would diminish to a shadow of it's former meaning. If the Left were more selective of what they called "the Big Lie", maybe they'd be doing better in elections...

[/ QUOTE ]

"The Big Lie" is that we had a legitimate reason for going to Iraq. Since you can't convince the American people to go to war by just telling them once, there was a long string of lies which all fall under the category of "The Big Lie."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Follow that party line --- it's always right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I liked this part, especially since I've done nothing but float away from the party line since I arrived in college. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time I've been stereotyped by a lefty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really glad that your first 3 months of college have really shattered your worldview.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really glad that your first 3 months of college have really shattered your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try again (can't you lefties get anything right? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm really glad that your first 3 months of college have really shattered your worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try again (can't you lefties get anything right? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, getting your worldview shattered in three months of college is something more befitting to a lefty ^_^

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Whatever. I'm not a freshmen (as Poboy implied) and my worldview hasn't been "shattered". I think it's evolved over a few years time from staunch Republican to a conservative/libertarian. So I don't know what party line I'm supposedly following in lock step with, as Elwood suggested.

By all means, continue making assumptions about me (aimed at everyone). They make me laugh.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

A subject title and OP like this one would guess would come from Elliot Richardsn

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Getting back on topic...

This is what Turner said:
[ QUOTE ]
"I am embarrassed that the USA has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible. He (Mr Cheney) advocates torture, what else is it? I just don't understand how a man in that position can take such a stance."

[/ QUOTE ]
Would I be right to say that the ACLU advocates hate and racism because they lobbied against criminalizing such things (KKK/Nazis, etc)? Why should I give two shits about what this guy has to say?

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's like if I said every time someone was killed it was a Holocaust, the meaning of the word would diminish to a shadow of it's former meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, you can't figure out that all of the normal lies (akin to an individual death in your example) add up to the "big lie" (akin to the Holocaust in your example.) See, to make a case for something you tend to use evidence. So when Andy talks about the Big Lie and then uses examples of all the various lies told in preparation for the war, he is building a case. Each of those "little" lies are part of the "big lie."

You make the (unsupported/unsupportable) claim that all the lies are being touted as "the big lie" (even though the phrase "Big Lie" is RARELY used --- particularly on this forum) then try to make people define a term that even though it is rarely used has a fairly obvious meaning given the context of the few posts it was used in.

I can't tell if you are actually that thick or if it is some sort of a schtick.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe that politicians of any stripe who run their mouths all the time remember 1/2 of what they say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheney was not lying the midst of a political campaign. Not that lying the midst of a campaign is okay, it's just expected.

Cheney was lying in the aftermath of 9/11 to justify a war using falsehoods.

There is a big difference and especially now that he is accusing his opponents of lying, it's perfectly acceptable to hold him accountable for his own words.

Nobody -- no decent person at least -- should excuse Cheney for uttering lies that caused a nation to go to war on the basis of the fact that he is a politician.

He may be a politician, but he is a politician who has actually launched a nation into a war that it certainly does not need and may not in fact be able to win, insofaras it is quite possible that no nation could ever win the kind of conflict in which we've embroiled ourselves in Iraq.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back on topic...

This is what Turner said:
[ QUOTE ]
"I am embarrassed that the USA has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible. He (Mr Cheney) advocates torture, what else is it? I just don't understand how a man in that position can take such a stance."

[/ QUOTE ]
Would I be right to say that the ACLU advocates hate and racism because they lobbied against criminalizing such things (KKK/Nazis, etc)? Why should I give two shits about what this guy has to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be concerned about what other people say. In fact, you should hold true to your convictions. You know what you believe. You know what is true. It is well known that one of the worst possible ways to form a better, more complete understanding of the world is to listen to what other people have to say.

Case in point: Iraq. If the President hadn't listened to what other people had to say, we probably would be celebrating Iraqi liberation day now. The streets would be lined with roses praising the USA. But he listened to all those liberals like Stansfield Turner and now we are in this horrid quagmire.

Yes, you should never listen to what someone with a different viewpoint has to say.

Because if you did, you might actually learn something.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you should never listen to what someone with a different viewpoint has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this isn't the case, as I've already heard what Turner had to say (along with many other anti-war critics). I'm asking why he is someone who's opinion is more valuable than any other schmo (Something besides just "because he's a former CIA director). Way to not answer the question.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you should never listen to what someone with a different viewpoint has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this isn't the case, as I've already heard what Turner had to say (along with many other anti-war critics). I'm asking why he is someone who's opinion is more valuable than any other schmo (Something besides just "because he's a former CIA director). Way to not answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

His opinion on this topic is likely to be more valuable than Jane Halloway of 222 Wisteria Lane because he has more knowledge and experience than her. Just like I'd ask her about whether I'd be better off with a Dyson or a Oreck vacuum cleaner, I'll ask Stansfield about foreign policy. But that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, considering he's from Carter's administration, odds are that I would generally find him wrong, as I am not a fan of Carter's approach.

Similarly, I'd be more likely to listen to Jim Baker talk about the art of diplomacy than to listen to Dennis Kucinich.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you should never listen to what someone with a different viewpoint has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this isn't the case, as I've already heard what Turner had to say (along with many other anti-war critics). I'm asking why he is someone who's opinion is more valuable than any other schmo (Something besides just "because he's a former CIA director). Way to not answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

His opinion on this topic is likely to be more valuable than Jane Halloway of 222 Wisteria Lane because he has more knowledge and experience than her. Just like I'd ask her about whether I'd be better off with a Dyson or a Oreck vacuum cleaner, I'll ask Stansfield about foreign policy. But that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, considering he's from Carter's administration, odds are that I would generally find him wrong, as I am not a fan of Carter's approach.

Similarly, I'd be more likely to listen to Jim Baker talk about the art of diplomacy than to listen to Dennis Kucinich.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, this is exactly what I meant when I said "something besides he's a former CIA director". And you're still dancing around an answer. The question is not whether to "listen" to him or not. I've done that already. The question now is why should I care about his opinion? Wouldn't the opinion of a more current former CIA director carry more weight because he's probably had to deal with Saddam more than Turner has.

I mean, Ann Coulter probably has more general knowledge about foreign policy than Joe Schmo (cue the Canadians in Vietnam jokes), but that doesn't mean I should look to her for a good opinion on the subject.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you should never listen to what someone with a different viewpoint has to say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this isn't the case, as I've already heard what Turner had to say (along with many other anti-war critics). I'm asking why he is someone who's opinion is more valuable than any other schmo (Something besides just "because he's a former CIA director). Way to not answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

His opinion on this topic is likely to be more valuable than Jane Halloway of 222 Wisteria Lane because he has more knowledge and experience than her. Just like I'd ask her about whether I'd be better off with a Dyson or a Oreck vacuum cleaner, I'll ask Stansfield about foreign policy. But that doesn't mean he's right. In fact, considering he's from Carter's administration, odds are that I would generally find him wrong, as I am not a fan of Carter's approach.

Similarly, I'd be more likely to listen to Jim Baker talk about the art of diplomacy than to listen to Dennis Kucinich.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, this is exactly what I meant when I said "something besides he's a former CIA director". And you're still dancing around an answer. The question is not whether to "listen" to him or not. I've done that already. The question now is why should I care about his opinion? Wouldn't the opinion of a more current former CIA director carry more weight because he's probably had to deal with Saddam more than Turner has.

I mean, Ann Coulter probably has more general knowledge about foreign policy than Joe Schmo (cue the Canadians in Vietnam jokes), but that doesn't mean I should look to her for a good opinion on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly the fact that he was cia director alone doesn't mean you should agree with him. probably it means you should be somewhat skeptical of what he has to say. glad you're listening to him.

just like i listen to cheney but don't necessarily agree with just because he is vp.

for the record, i don't know if i agree with him that torture is bad. i mean, what would jack bauer do if he couldn't act quickly? 24 sure would suck if he couldn't pull out his bag of tricks.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
clearly the fact that he was cia director alone doesn't mean you should agree with him. probably it means you should be somewhat skeptical of what he has to say. glad you're listening to him.

just like i listen to cheney but don't necessarily agree with just because he is vp.

[/ QUOTE ]
And so we're right back where we started. I'm asking why Turner's opinion should be held with as much weight as the OP seems to hold it. Can anyone answer this?

[ QUOTE ]
for the record, i don't know if i agree with him that torture is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I agree with him either, but I think i could be convinced the other way. But it would have to be done with an argument that was a little above the level of Michael Moore which is where it seems the comments by Turner reside.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

It's very very atypical that former CIA directors or other major officials will criticize a sitting presient or vice president.

So I think OP was just trying to show that it's remarkable that very senior former officials are going on the record to take on the administration.

As I read it, his point was less that you should believe what Turner had to say and more that Cheney has so little credibility that former CIA directors were willing to accuse him of being VPs for torture. Incidentally, i think Turner meant more that Cheney was in favor of torture, rather than that he was the VP or torture.

Regardless, what Cheney is doing now is laughable. The problem these nuts have is that they think they have a PR or political problem when really what they have is a policy problem.

If they spent less time trying to argue that Democrats were the cause of all the world's problems and more time fighting terrorism and trying to end the Iraq War on positive terms, we'd all be better off.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Classic. There are just too many lies, so you blame the left for making it too confusing to track.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's like if I said every time someone was killed it was a Holocaust, the meaning of the word would diminish to a shadow of it's former meaning. If the Left were more selective of what they called "the Big Lie", maybe they'd be doing better in elections...

[ QUOTE ]
Follow that party line --- it's always right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I liked this part, especially since I've done nothing but float away from the party line since I arrived in college. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time I've been stereotyped by a lefty.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what? Why don't you just say 'to hell' with college, enlist and volunteer for duty in Iraq?

Get out there into the 'real world' and find out 'Up close & personal' how your nice, neat chickenhawk POV works.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's very very atypical that former CIA directors or other major officials will criticize a sitting presient or vice president.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this has more to do with the political climate. The precedent has already been broken by Carter and Clinton so it's not like Turner's in unchartered terroritory.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, i think Turner meant more that Cheney was in favor of torture, rather than that he was the VP or torture.

[/ QUOTE ]
Turner said exactly that; that Cheney advocates torture. I posted the quote. And if, as you said before (and my sarcasm detector is fritzy so I'm not sure how serious you were being), you don't necessarily agree that torture should be banned, you must also be advocating torture, according to Turner's logic. If this is the logic the man is using, why should anyone care what he says?

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, what Cheney is doing now is laughable. The problem these nuts have is that they think they have a PR or political problem when really what they have is a policy problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they have all three, but that could just be me.

[ QUOTE ]
If they spent less time trying to argue that Democrats were the cause of all the world's problems and more time fighting terrorism and trying to end the Iraq War on positive terms, we'd all be better off.

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize I could switch Democrats and they (the administration) and the sentence would still be applicable, right? You're engaging in exactly the behavior you're condemning the Bush admin of.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what? Why don't you just say 'to hell' with college, enlist and volunteer for duty in Iraq?

Get out there into the 'real world' and find out 'Up close & personal' how your nice, neat chickenhawk POV works.

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] you.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know what? Why don't you just say 'to hell' with college, enlist and volunteer for duty in Iraq?

Get out there into the 'real world' and find out 'Up close & personal' how your nice, neat chickenhawk POV works.

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] you.

[/ QUOTE ]

My, my, my.......

It would be so much nicer if you had a more direct way to get that anger out of your system....

.....like in fatigues and full pack with you weapon in hand going house-to-house, room-to-room in search of infidels to annihilate.

Take your bs philosophy and sell it to some other gutless dweeb who believes that they are too good to have to put their money where there mouth is.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

I'm sorry if being told by a complete stranger how to live my life makes me a little unpleasant.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If they spent less time trying to argue that Democrats were the cause of all the world's problems and more time fighting terrorism and trying to end the Iraq War on positive terms, we'd all be better off.

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize I could switch Democrats and they (the administration) and the sentence would still be applicable, right? You're engaging in exactly the behavior you're condemning the Bush admin of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um not really. I'm condemning the Bush Administration for getting us into this debacle in Iraq. I'm condemning them for having no plan to get us out of the war.

The Democrats aren't perfect. A lot of them are useless wimps. But they didn't start this war. And some of them have realized that the time has come to end the war. And that most certainly is not what I'm condemning the Bush Administration for. Clearly, I'd be the last person in the world to condemn Bush for executing a plan to get us out of Iraq.

p.s.: Yes, you understood my view on torture. Probably it makes sense to have a policy against it. But I do think rules were meant to be broken. Jack Bauer is my hero.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um not really. I'm condemning the Bush Administration for getting us into this debacle in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were specifically condemning the Bush Admin for spending time arguing that "Democrats were the cause of all the world's problems" and that they should be spending "more time fighting terrorism and trying to end the Iraq War on positive terms". Talk about the pot and the kettle! Both parties as well as the exec branch need to stop with the politiking and work on solving the problems at hand. With both sides acting the way they are, you can't blame one and ignore the other.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um not really. I'm condemning the Bush Administration for getting us into this debacle in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
You were specifically condemning the Bush Admin for spending time arguing that "Democrats were the cause of all the world's problems" and that they should be spending "more time fighting terrorism and trying to end the Iraq War on positive terms". Talk about the pot and the kettle! Both parties as well as the exec branch need to stop with the politiking and work on solving the problems at hand. With both sides acting the way they are, you can't blame one and ignore the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. This is not a case of of petty partisan politics. Not a case of a pox on both houses. Bush and his crew started a war that they weren't prepared to win. That's what I'm condemning them for. Yeah, I'm also condemning them for being lying sacks of guano and for wasting time treating their predicament as a political problem.

But the core condemnation is clearly that they got us into a war that they didn't know how to win. And they have no clue on how to get us out.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry if being told by a complete stranger how to live my life makes me a little unpleasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee....you're a 'little unpleasant'? Are you that removed from reality to understand the impact of that statement on those who have experienced a bit more difficulty that having their lives be a 'little unpleasant'?

On this forum (as on others), you are what you write.

If you're going to take a position, back it up.

Telling me to [censored] off is not the answer.

If you don't like what I have to say about what you wrote, that's just too bad.

Quite frankly I'm just simply sick and tired of folks who are all too willing to so quickly put others in harms way.

If you have the courage of your convictions, get of your ass and put it on the line.

If not, live with your own hypocrisy....but, be aware that there are others who see it for what it is.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Think what you want. I'm not here to impress people. I'm hear to talk to other people. If your response to everyone supportive of the Iraq War is "go enlist" than I guess we're done talking.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
Think what you want. I'm not here to impress people. I'm hear to talk to other people. If your response to everyone supportive of the Iraq War is "go enlist" than I guess we're done talking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about you being here to impress people?

This is not my response to EVERYONE supportive of the Iraq war....It is my response to YOU.

I believe that I made my feelings very clear regarding how I feel about YOUR thoughts on the subject, but let me try it again.

I am enraged by the detached arrogance and hypocrisy that I see in your posts.

You are entitled to feel however you wish......I am entitled to respond to how you feel with what is clearly a different point of view.

You spout your views in safe isolation......that safety has been paid for by the sweat and blood of many others. I see no recognition or understanding of that in your posts.

If you want to really discuss the war, show some true understanding of the severity of the issues that you so casually toss about.........

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

I'm sorry, but I feel no obligation to explain myself to someone I've never met and is openly hostile to me. I was actually having an interesting conversation with Jedster when you came barging in accusing me of arrogance, hypocrisy, and insensitivity to the sacrifices of our troops. I feel justified in my indignation from the flames of some stranger. This is my last response to you in this thread.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

I am starting to consider the possibility that Bush does not really have any strong opinions on foreign policy (I am not sure). You could see signs of this last week too, with Cheney being bombastic while Bush saying he understands the concerns.

Re: The Vice President of Torture
 

Yeah, I think they're liars. Big surprise, I know. Cheney again today insisted there was no attempt by the administration to create a false impression about Iraq.

The biggest surprise is that people are shocked, shocked, to find out there was manipulation of the evidence.