The Vice President of Torture

[Wes ManTooth]

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

[BCPVP]

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?

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[Jedster]

[ 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.

[Jedster]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[Jedster]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[Jedster]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.