Just so we all have this straight, Hanks views on the powers of the POTUS consist of:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 12:53:09 PM
I'm sure they didn't want to create anarchy in Ferguson, but they DID jump the gun, and brought much more national attention on this than what was necessary.
They didn't need to say anything.........at least until ALL OF THE EVIDENCE was in. More bad leadership.
1. The POTUS has the power and responsibility to act ONLY after all evidence is reviewed and a jury/judge has reached a verdict. S/he should in no way act to ensure the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the US Constitution at the local level under any circumstances.
2. When congress refuses to act upon an issue that is key to the future of the nation and it's citizens, S/he has the the responsibility to pander to those members of congress opposing the necessary legislation, in order to demonstrate "leadership". S/he should in no way utilize executive power, nor the executive order process under any circumstances.
(Purpose of this thread: To establish exactly just what the expectations are of a sitting POTUS according to Hank. That way, in the unlikely event a conservative republican wins the next presidential election, we can all be sure to hold that POTUS to the very same expectations ol'Hank now holds the current POTUS to).
That all good, but don't put words in my mouth I never said.
Let's be clear, I am using Ferguson for what it is, not a generality. He sent our AG to a funeral for a guy that was high, stole cigars from a store, assaulted the owner, then attacked a police officer.
THAT, is what our POTUS did.
If you want to keep records, lets not make up shit and make things into something I didn't say.
and where and when did I attack the POTUS for his executive orders?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 04:47:42 PM
and where and when did I attack the POTUS for his executive orders?
Do you not hold the very same opinion of his latest executive order surrounding immigration, as those whom you parrot endlessly herein? (Or has hell frozen over and he has done something you agree with?)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
That all good, but don't put words in my mouth I never said.
Let's be clear, I am using Ferguson for what it is, not a generality. He sent our AG to a funeral for a guy that was high, stole cigars from a store, assaulted the owner, then attacked a police officer.
THAT, is what our POTUS did.
If you want to keep records, lets not make up shit and make things into something I didn't say.
So then be clear when you answer this; What would you have said had he done nothing to quell the ongoing violence at that time?
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2014, 04:58:26 PM
Do you not hold the very same opinion of his latest executive order surrounding immigration, as those whom you parrot endlessly herein? (Or has hell frozen over and he has done something you agree with?)
So you are starting a thread, and specifically using my name as the center of an attacked based upon YOUR speculation of what I MIGHT say? wtf?
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2014, 04:58:26 PM
Do you not hold the very same opinion of his latest executive order surrounding immigration, as those whom you parrot endlessly herein? (Or has hell frozen over and he has done something you agree with?)
I haven't shared my opinion on this issue on here. Though, I have no problem sharing the fact I don't think this POTUS is a good one, because I think he is a very, very poor leader. I want to be clear on that.
So, go ahead and bash me. Make a thread and use my thoughts and opinions so you can use them against me at a later date....I okay with that. I stand behind my posts with pride.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 05:00:47 PM
So you are starting a thread, and specifically using my name as the center of an attacked based upon YOUR speculation of what I MIGHT say? wtf?
My intention is to use your words to document your expectations of a sitting POTUS. YOUR words.
Feel free to clarify or spin whatever you feel I misinterpret along the way; but if you do not then the silence will be assumed acceptance.
Now, back to your current tact- - -
If by sending the attorney general to Ferguson you assume that action to be wrongful, then why exactly is it wrong if you do not expect the POTUS to do nothing in such instances?
And again:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2014, 04:58:26 PM
Do you not hold the very same opinion of his latest executive order surrounding immigration, as those whom you parrot endlessly herein? (Or has hell frozen over and he has done something you agree with?)
And again:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2014, 04:59:30 PM
So then be clear when you answer this; What would you have said had he done nothing to quell the ongoing violence at that time?
(The questions are piling up and the people demand answers.)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 05:09:25 PM
I haven't shared my opinion on this issue on here. Though, I have no problem sharing the fact I don't think this POTUS is a good one, because I think he is a very, very poor leader. I want to be clear on that.
So, go ahead and bash me. Make a thread and use my thoughts and opinions so you can use them against me at a later date....I okay with that. I stand behind my posts with pride.
I will remind you that the rule is, clarify or spin; silence = acceptance.
And for clarity's sake surrounding my intentions: I have already admitted that the singular purpose of this thread is to establish your expectations of a sitting POTUS, and then should the conservative republicans take the office in the next election, hold them to that very same set of expectations. And just that. Now, how you interpret that as bashing is beyond me. . . It has nothing to do with you, and a lot with teaching a lesson. . .
Here's a comment that alludes to exactly what my interpretation of your opinion of the executive order on immigration is:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 21, 2014, 11:44:55 AM
No caterwauling here.......it is what it is. Just waiting for this whole fiasco to end. No need to argue about.
The above commentary being made due to the fact the conservative republicans now hold a majority in congress, and evidence of an internal expectation that congress will undo whatever this order implements. . . (Being held by Hank)
And here's the response to the Killing of OBL :
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 22, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
It was 2 1/2 years into the Obama admin before it was finally done. To think that all the intelligence that was put into place surrounding al-Qaeda during the Bush Admin had a great deal of credit for the eventual finding of Osama.........and for Obama to sit back and spike the football over it is exactly what most people would expect out of him.
And a response to the head of the CDC stating that there would have been a vaccine for Ebola had the budget cuts not prevented it:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 13, 2014, 02:01:26 PM
Here we go! Troll, this just clearly political bullshit, with the elections coming up, and the democrats are doing their normal scare tactics....it is the most pathetic bullshit.
And the response when it was pointed out the head of the CDC had made that statement:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 13, 2014, 03:11:05 PM
Well fuck yeah the man said it, he was HIRED by the Obama Administration........of course he is willing to pass the buck.......THAT is what this administration does the best....Pass the buck and point fingers....they couldn't be accountable for their own actions if their life depended upon it....this is another classic example of crooked liberal politics. :rant: and their FAILED LEADERSHIP ABILITIES!!!
And before you begin spewing about the executive order on immigration, remember what you said here:
( Funny how the conservatives did nothing about it even when presented with a bill!)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 31, 2014, 10:36:51 AM
They have had majority control in the House and Senate since 06. I know you know that.
You also know damn well, without me going into "specifics" that we are NOT better off.
According to Forbes.....we have had "The Worst Five Years Since the Great Depression" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/02/07/the-worst-five-years-since-the-great-depression/)
The Middle East is exploding...
More on Food Stamps...
Immigration is a disaster...
I really don't need to go on, but the facts are in..........we are NOT better off with Democrat Controlled politics.
It really is indeed time for some REAL .... Hope & Change.
Good luck, PH!
Don't worry ole' Hank will either ignore it, spin it, or outright fib about it.
I mean how many times have I nailed his hide to the wall here - Take No Prisoners © - Y's Arena (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?board=213.0) - and yet he STILL trots out all those old oft refuted 'opinions' just like clockwork. :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on November 25, 2014, 06:34:42 PM
Good luck, PH!
Don't worry ole' Hank will either ignore it, spin it, or outright fib about it.
I mean how many times have I nailed his hide to the wall here - Take No Prisoners © - Y's Arena (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?board=213.0) - and yet he STILL trots out all those old oft refuted 'opinions' just like clockwork. :biggrin:
Old dumbass Hawk must get Republican talking points every morning. :yes: This is the only thing he can say everyday is the Republican talking points. :yes:
Everything the man says is wrong and I have proved it over and over again. :yes: It goes to show that The Hawk doesn't know shit about anything. :sm39: :trustme:
Hey HH, I have an idea. Lets just go along with this BS and agree with everything this administration like good little these good little sheeple just because he's black so we won't be called racist and all of their other "pet" names. You know people don't dare disagree with this administration since they're perfect and know all the answers. I mean the general public is really dumb and we all need the government to take care of us so we might as well get on the bandwagon so we can be rich and have all those freebies like they think, oops I mean, they know they're gonna get if this administration could only have it's way.
Quote from: me on November 25, 2014, 07:35:27 PM
Hey HH, I have an idea. Lets just go along with this BS and agree with everything this administration like good little these good little sheeple just because he's black so we won't be called racist and all of their other "pet" names. You know people don't dare disagree with this administration since they're perfect and know all the answers. I mean the general public is really dumb and we all need the government to take care of us so we might as well get on the bandwagon so we can be rich and have all those freebies like they think, oops I mean, they know they're gonna get if this administration could only have it's way.
We should but I am simply am not going to waste any time nor will I lower myself down to their level. I have nothing to defend, rather I will just continue to speak my mind and stand firm on my beliefs. It is easy to get consumed with all the liberal be on here and since you and I are the only constant voice of reason we just need to keep plugging along a take the high road.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2014, 07:44:17 PM
We should but I am simply am not going to waste any time nor will I lower myself down to their level. I have nothing to defend, rather I will just continue to speak my mind and stand firm on my beliefs. It is easy to get consumed with all the liberal be on here and since you and I are the only constant voice of reason we just need to keep plugging along a take the high road.
Ya, you're right. I am amused at times about how gullible they really are though. I think all that double speak this administration uses is what confuses them. :wink:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2014, 05:13:24 PM
And for clarity's sake surrounding my intentions: I have already admitted that the singular purpose of this thread is to establish your expectations of a sitting POTUS, and then should the conservative republicans take the office in the next election, hold them to that very same set of expectations. And just that. Now, how you interpret that as bashing is beyond me. . . It has nothing to do with you, and a lot with teaching a lesson. . .
Okay, here is my take on this. Bashing is perhaps a wrong word to use. But saying it has NOTHING to do with me is BS. It seems to me as if you are making it a personal attack when you decide to use my name as the voice of conservatives.
I would like to point out, YOU were no different when you attacked Bush on several incidents and referred to him as Shrub and was completely disrespectful because you simply did not like him.
I do not like Obama. I have been VERY clear to explain my EXACT reasons WHY I don't like him. When I do, I get the same crap that I am a racist. That is when I quit discussing it.
Y is one that cannot get past racism for anyone's reason to not liking Obama. Same with Ex.
I am not the voice of conservatism, the republican party, the tea party or the GOP.
I am the voice of Hank. I have my own way of thinking what is best for this Nation. I didn't always agree with Bush, Mitt or Newt or who-ever it may be.......but I agree with several different people who lean to the right.
I have decided, that I will not engage in discussions when it becomes personal. With the "i can't fix stupid" comments and such. Being derogatory toward me will end my conversation. I know I have fallen into the trap of lowering myself down to Ex's level on many occasions, and I don't like myself afterwards.
The deal is, I like the way Locutus described this place as the little bar or coffee shop where friends meet up to fix the worlds problems. I like most of the people on here, and I do take it personal when you guys make personal statements........Ex knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.
So if in the future you truly want my opinion on something, be respectful to me and I will talk all day long. That is the way I would want to be treated in a coffee shop and I (in real life) always treat people with the utmost respect. I am STILL going to continue as I do, and leave my thoughts on here, and if whoever wants to respond can do whoever they want.
I merely asking you (PH) and few others on here to treat me as a friend, because I truly think of you that way.
Btw, I have no problem with you keeping track of what I say. If YOU think you are teaching me a lesson, then do it. Maybe you will, but I truly doubt it. :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2014, 08:35:58 AM
It seems to me as if you are making it a personal attack...
Same with Ex....
I know I have fallen into the trap of lowering myself down to Ex's level on many occasions, and I don't like myself afterwards...
Ex knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Aw,
you feel like
you are being personally attacked? Poor baby. Do you need a tampon?
You say you want to be treated like a friend. :haha: The is no way you could be my friend. :yes: :laugh: First of all I like my friend to be smart and Bunky you are not smart in anyway. :yes: You are a joke and don't know shit about anything. :yes: :haha: :haha: What a Buffoon! :chick:
Quote from: me on November 25, 2014, 07:35:27 PM
Hey HH, I have an idea. Lets just go along with this BS and agree with everything this administration like good little these good little sheeple just because he's black so we won't be called racist and all of their other "pet" names. You know people don't dare disagree with this administration since they're perfect and know all the answers. I mean the general public is really dumb and we all need the government to take care of us so we might as well get on the bandwagon so we can be rich and have all those freebies like they think, oops I mean, they know they're gonna get if this administration could only have it's way.
Now who is attempting to drag this onto the playground? Humm? :roll eyes:
As I said before, I just want to establish what the conservative expectations of a sitting POTUS are. . . In YOUR own words. So apparently you feel slighted because I have not thus far included your words within this topic; but fear not, for they will be included whenever you post something lucid enough. . .
Quote from: The Troll on November 26, 2014, 10:47:28 AM
You say you want to be treated like a friend. :haha: The is no way you could be my friend.
I clearly said (PH) and few others on here, so don't get your panties all stuck up your crawl.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2014, 08:35:58 AM
Okay, here is my take on this. Bashing is perhaps a wrong word to use. But saying it has NOTHING to do with me is BS. It seems to me as if you are making it a personal attack when you decide to use my name as the voice of conservatives.
When you purport to represent the conservative viewpoint, are you not assuming the point of the spear position in the message? When you parrot the propaganda of a particular viewpoint, are you not assuming a position of support of same?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2014, 08:35:58 AM
I would like to point out, YOU were no different when you attacked Bush on several incidents and referred to him as Shrub and was completely disrespectful because you simply did not like him.
"Mission Accomplished", and yet here we sit over a decade later and the mission is STILL not accomplished. . . (Enough said).
Okay Hank, here's a path we can all live with, that will avoid the stigma you profess will result from my quoting of postings that I feel are representative of your expectations of a sitting POTUS. (IE "The Conservative Expectations").
You and "Me" can both choose to take on an assignment to list those expectations, and beneath each provide specific examples surrounding how the President of the United States of America (current) has not met those expectations.
Post this in one document (complete), one from each, you and me, and I will ask the administration of this place to lock the topic and take out any extemporary notations / postings that may transpire in between.
Make no mistake, I am going to construct a list of expectations in your own words, from all of you, for the aforementioned purpose, one way or another. So. . .the ball is in your court.
You can do this easily within a word document, offline. Then once it is complete to your satisfaction, you can copy and paste it to a posting in the forum. (I do this all of the time so I know how easy it is).
You have until 1DEC2014 to complete said assignment.
Acceptance can only be signaled via a posting in this topic stating you accept. (My posting of examples will continue unless acceptance is posted by each party).
Failure to meet the deadline of 1DEC2014, after acceptance, will result in inclusion of any/all postings by either of you that exemplify the subject matter of this topic.
I am not in school and am not your student so can forget what appears to be a losing proposition no matter what is said. I will not participate in this game but will continue to give my opinion as I see it on other parts of the forum.
Quote from: me on November 26, 2014, 12:00:40 PM
I am not in school and am not your student so can forget what appears to be a losing proposition no matter what is said. I will not participate in this game but will continue to give my opinion as I see it on other parts of the forum.
So, that would be a "no" then? (No surprise there!)
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2014, 11:52:35 AM
You and "Me" can both choose to take on an assignment to list those expectations, and beneath each provide specific examples surrounding how the President of the United States of America (current) has not met those expectations.
I expect you'll get as much input from this as we do when we ask them to prove their hatred of the POTUS isn't rooted in racism by providing examples of the "policies" they claim to disagree with and why.
Quote from: me on November 26, 2014, 12:00:40 PM
I am not in school and am not your student so can forget what appears to be a losing proposition no matter what is said. I will not participate in this game but will continue to give my opinion as I see it on other parts of the forum.
Oh, look; I'm clairvoyant! :biggrin:
This is YOUR experiment. I'm not wasting anytime whatsoever on this. Do what you want. I say what I say and I stand behind it. You can copy and paste or do what ever, I really don't care. If I say something I regret, big f'ing deal.
I already stated my rules of engagement. Its up to you.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2014, 12:25:48 PM
I expect you'll get as much input from this as we do when we ask them to prove their hatred of the POTUS isn't rooted in racism by providing examples of the "policies" they claim to disagree with and why.
The only reason you say that is because you distinguish a difference where I don't making you the racist one IMO. His being a mixed race has nothing to do with my dislike of his policies anymore than my dislike of Hillary or Pelosi have anything to do with the fact that they are women. Obama would be an elitist even if he were all white and I still wouldn't like him.
Quote from: me on November 26, 2014, 01:11:39 PM
The only reason you say that is because you distinguish a difference where I don't making you the racist one IMO.
The old, "I'm rubber, you're glue," defense!
QuoteHis being a mixed race has nothing to do with my dislike of his policies anymore than my dislike of Hillary or Pelosi have anything to do with the fact that they are women. Obama would be an elitist even if he were all white and I still wouldn't like him.
Bullshit. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2014, 01:10:18 PM
This is YOUR experiment. I'm not wasting anytime whatsoever on this. Do what you want. I say what I say and I stand behind it. You can copy and paste or do what ever, I really don't care. If I say something I regret, big f'ing deal.
I already stated my rules of engagement. Its up to you.
In your words; for the record.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2014, 01:10:18 PM
This is YOUR experiment. I'm not wasting anytime whatsoever on this. Do what you want. I say what I say and I stand behind it. You can copy and paste or do what ever, I really don't care. If I say something I regret, big f'ing deal.
I already stated my rules of engagement. Its up to you.
Henry :haha: "I say what I mean and I mean what I say, I'm 100% tried and true. :haha: :haha:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 21, 2014, 04:52:31 PM
Bush made it possible for Obama to get him, it was his foreign policies that put the priorities in place to have him found.
Seriously? Here's what the Senate Report said that was released today:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1)
. . .The CIA continues to claim that coercive interrogations were crucial to capturing Osama bin-Laden, but the Senate report concludes that the most "accurate' CIA information that led to bin Laden's capture came from a detainee before the detainee was tortured.
The CIA claims that information obtained through coercion "fundamentally" changed the agency's calculations.
The Senate report insists that bin Laden could have been captured without the torture of any detainees.
The "most accurate" CIA intelligence that led to bin Laden's capture came from Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004.
While Ghul was later subjected to enhanced interrogations, the Senate report contends that Ghul provided information that led to bin Laden's courier through traditional interrogation -- before he faced anything resembling torture.. . .
In a scathing report, the Senate called out the CIA for its inhumane treatment of prisoners, and its "outright torture" of them. . . Which amounted to NOTHING. . . ZIP. . . NADA! In fact, (as I warned way back in the early days of this), the information it obtained was found to be false and of no help what so ever.
So. . . this begs the question: Where was Bush during all of this? Why did he fail to exercise leadership?
Quote from: Palehorse on December 09, 2014, 07:26:05 PM
Seriously? Here's what the Senate Report said that was released today:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1)
. . .The CIA continues to claim that coercive interrogations were crucial to capturing Osama bin-Laden, but the Senate report concludes that the most "accurate' CIA information that led to bin Laden's capture came from a detainee before the detainee was tortured.
The CIA claims that information obtained through coercion "fundamentally" changed the agency's calculations.
The Senate report insists that bin Laden could have been captured without the torture of any detainees.
The "most accurate" CIA intelligence that led to bin Laden's capture came from Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004.
While Ghul was later subjected to enhanced interrogations, the Senate report contends that Ghul provided information that led to bin Laden's courier through traditional interrogation -- before he faced anything resembling torture.. . .
In a scathing report, the Senate called out the CIA for its inhumane treatment of prisoners, and its "outright torture" of them. . . Which amounted to NOTHING. . . ZIP. . . NADA! In fact, (as I warned way back in the early days of this), the information it obtained was found to be false and of no help what so ever.
So. . . this begs the question: Where was Bush during all of this? Why did he fail to exercise leadership?
I think the Democrats have a trump card. :yes: If the Republicans try to impeach Obama the Democrats try George W. Bush and Prick Chaney for war crimes. :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 09, 2014, 07:26:05 PM
Seriously? Here's what the Senate Report said that was released today:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/?hpt=hp_t1)
. . .The CIA continues to claim that coercive interrogations were crucial to capturing Osama bin-Laden, but the Senate report concludes that the most "accurate' CIA information that led to bin Laden's capture came from a detainee before the detainee was tortured.
The CIA claims that information obtained through coercion "fundamentally" changed the agency's calculations.
The Senate report insists that bin Laden could have been captured without the torture of any detainees.
The "most accurate" CIA intelligence that led to bin Laden's capture came from Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004.
While Ghul was later subjected to enhanced interrogations, the Senate report contends that Ghul provided information that led to bin Laden's courier through traditional interrogation -- before he faced anything resembling torture.. . .
In a scathing report, the Senate called out the CIA for its inhumane treatment of prisoners, and its "outright torture" of them. . . Which amounted to NOTHING. . . ZIP. . . NADA! In fact, (as I warned way back in the early days of this), the information it obtained was found to be false and of no help what so ever.
So. . . this begs the question: Where was Bush during all of this? Why did he fail to exercise leadership?
Where was Clinton?
Quote from: me on December 09, 2014, 10:44:02 PM
Where was Clinton?
Uh, not the fucking president?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 10, 2014, 10:09:25 AM
Uh, not the fucking president?
Uh, it happened during his administration too. What about interrogation during WWII and Nam are we gonna have to go back and look at that too? There is nothing to be gained, nothing.
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 11:21:05 AM
Uh, it happened during his administration too.
Source?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 10, 2014, 12:14:09 PM
Source?
Why, so you can make fun of it and name call? I said never again and I meant it. You look it up.
Changed my mind: Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition
Share
Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
See more sharing options
December 6, 2005
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition
So start including Clinton in the war criminal category too.
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 12:23:48 PM
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically...
So start including Clinton in the war criminal category too.
LMAO! Conservatives using the ACLU as a source of information is more than just a little ironic.
That aside, if it can be proven that Clinton knowingly allowed American agents to torture people, then yes, he should also be investigated. Bush and Cheney absolutely did.
Nice try at a red herring, by the way, considering
you brought up this report and it specifically covers, "abuses and countless mistakes made between late 2001 and early 2009."
And ya'll keep talking like Bush was the only president to use interrogation methods which were shady, waterboarding was legal by the way. If yer gonna go after one go after them all. And that still has nothing to do with the timing of the release and why, after all these years, release it at all. It is political posturing at it's finest and still wrong since none of the participants were talked to. It is putting our CIA, military, and allies at risk just to try to get back at the conservatives.
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 01:39:04 PM
It is putting our CIA, military, and allies at risk just to try to get back at the conservatives.
How, exactly? Seems you were perfectly ok putting our military at risk in a war for oil; now weren't you?
And half of the committee that released this report
are conservatives.
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 11:21:05 AM
Uh, it happened during his administration too. What about interrogation during WWII and Nam are we gonna have to go back and look at that too? There is nothing to be gained, nothing.
Stop attempting to interject information outside of the scope of the report.
Here are the 2013-2014 members of the Committee:
2013-2014
Democrats
Republicans
Dianne Feinstein,
California
Chairman Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia
Vice Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV,
West Virginia Richard Burr,
North Carolina
Ron Wyden,
Oregon James E. Risch,
Idaho
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Maryland Daniel Coats,
Indiana
Mark Udall,
Colorado Marco Rubio,
Florida
Mark Warner,
Virginia Susan Collins,
Maine
Martin Heinrich,
New Mexico bullet Tom Coburn,
Oklahoma
Angus King,
Maine
and:
Harry Reid, Nevada, Ex Officio
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio
Carl Levin, Michigan, Ex Officio
James Inhofe, Oklahoma, Ex Officio
The source since it came out all jumbled and I feel republicanistic about straightening it out:
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html)
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 01:39:04 PM
And ya'll keep talking like Bush was the only president to use interrogation methods which were shady, waterboarding was legal by the way. If yer gonna go after one go after them all. And that still has nothing to do with the timing of the release and why, after all these years, release it at all. It is political posturing at it's finest and still wrong since none of the participants were talked to. It is putting our CIA, military, and allies at risk just to try to get back at the conservatives.
This sounds strangely like my 3 year old grandson when I catch him with his hands in the cookie jar and Oreo all over his face! :haha:
By the way. . . wasn't one of them thar Bush fellers the director of the CIA once upon a time? :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 10, 2014, 08:38:11 PM
This sounds strangely like my 3 year old grandson when I catch him with his hands in the cookie jar and Oreo all over his face! :haha:
By the way. . . wasn't one of them thar Bush fellers the director of the CIA once upon a time? :biggrin:
George H. Bush sure was the CIA director. He had a big hand in the way the Iran America hostages went. That is why they weren't released until Reagan was elected. Now the bastards want to run Jebfro Bush for president. :puke:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 10, 2014, 08:36:05 PM
Stop attempting to interject information outside of the scope of the report.
Here are the 2013-2014 members of the Committee:
2013-2014
Democrats
Republicans
Dianne Feinstein,
California
Chairman Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia
Vice Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV,
West Virginia Richard Burr,
North Carolina
Ron Wyden,
Oregon James E. Risch,
Idaho
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Maryland Daniel Coats,
Indiana
Mark Udall,
Colorado Marco Rubio,
Florida
Mark Warner,
Virginia Susan Collins,
Maine
Martin Heinrich,
New Mexico bullet Tom Coburn,
Oklahoma
Angus King,
Maine
and:
Harry Reid, Nevada, Ex Officio
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio
Carl Levin, Michigan, Ex Officio
James Inhofe, Oklahoma, Ex Officio
The source since it came out all jumbled and I feel republicanistic about straightening it out:
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html)
And where does that matter in the releasing and declassification of it anyway? Also why after so many years was it so important it be done? The CIA was doing their job so why throw them under the bus?
Quote from: The Troll on December 10, 2014, 09:47:34 PM
George H. Bush sure was the CIA director. He had a big hand in the way the Iran America hostages went. That is why they weren't released until Reagan was elected. Now the bastards want to run Jebfro Bush for president. :puke:
Okay dumbass! FOR THE RECORD: Bush was the CIA Director for ONE year....that was 1976. The Iran Hostage Crisis wasn't until 1979. Dufass...he had NOTHING to do with it. Try watching something other than MSNBC once in a while and maybe you would understand the truth when it happens.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2014, 07:35:50 AM
Okay dumbass! FOR THE RECORD: Bush was the CIA Director for ONE year....that was 1976. The Iran Hostage Crisis wasn't until 1979. Dufass...he had NOTHING to do with it. Try watching something other than MSNBC once in a while and maybe you would understand the truth when it happens.
I don't know if he was CIA director at the time, but he was flown over to Iran at the time of the Iran Hostage Crisis. But Dingbat, you Republican assholes who watch Fox News all of the time and get the Republican talking points every morning can't be to smart. Bunky your elevator only runs up the the first story in a 100 brain building. What a joker. :jester:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2014, 07:35:50 AM
Okay dumbass! FOR THE RECORD: Bush was the CIA Director for ONE year....that was 1976. The Iran Hostage Crisis wasn't until 1979. Dufass...he had NOTHING to do with it. Try watching something other than MSNBC once in a while and maybe you would understand the truth when it happens.
My History may be off but wasn't a Theodore Shockley (not sure I spelled last name right) the CIA director during the Iran hostage crisis?
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 11, 2014, 10:38:32 AM
My History may be off but wasn't a Theodore Shockley (not sure I spelled last name right) the CIA director during the Iran hostage crisis?
Stansfield Turner
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 11, 2014, 10:38:32 AM
My History may be off but wasn't a Theodore Shockley (not sure I spelled last name right) the CIA director during the Iran hostage crisis?
There was a Theodore Shackley, who ran the CIA's Operation Mongoose during the years U.S. officials sought to assassinate Fidel Castro... I guess he did play a role during the those years, but he quit the CIA in 79.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 11, 2014, 10:38:32 AM
My History may be off but wasn't a Theodore Shockley (not sure I spelled last name right) the CIA director during the Iran hostage crisis?
Ted Shackley was Deputy Director of Covert Operations from 1976 -1979
Quote from: Bo D on December 11, 2014, 11:30:35 AM
Stansfield Turner
Thanks Bo!!! I just knew there was a Shackley who was head of something. After all, lets just blame Bush for all that is wrong with the world.
Quote from: me on December 10, 2014, 10:33:01 PM
And where does that matter in the releasing and declassification of it anyway? Also why after so many years was it so important it be done? The CIA was doing their job so why throw them under the bus?
If it has to be explained to you then you would not understand. . . :yes:
And a point of order here; The United States Congress works for "we the people". . . And where is all this accountability talk now?
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 11, 2014, 12:44:17 PM
. . . After all, lets just blame Bush for all that is wrong with the world.
There is no statute of limitations surrounding war crimes. . . for service members and elected leadership.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 11, 2014, 06:54:14 PM
There is no statute of limitations surrounding war crimes. . . for service members and elected leadership.
I understand that but he can't be blamed for all that is wrong with the world, there is plenty of blame to go around with all of them!
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 11, 2014, 06:55:37 PM
I understand that but he can't be blamed for all that is wrong with the world, there is plenty of blame to go around with all of them!
Sorry, but specifics are required when conversing upon the broad topic of what is wrong with the world. There are some things that the Shrub is indeed responsible for, things his administration are responsible for, and still others that there are shared responsibilities over going all the way back to JFK; in my view.
Conversely, there are many things wrong in the world today that I directly attribute to religion. Which one? ALL of them. (But that's another story).
While this topic is intended to document the skewed expectations of the zealous conservative sector of politics for future use, said topic has ventured off into the area of crimes against humanity; and potentially war crimes committed on behalf of the "leader" of the free world. (This is nothing new here and has been the subject of much dialog within this forum since 2003, when the US declared war on terrorists and used it as a cover for an oil grab initiative designed to topple a dictator this country placed into power previously).
The Senates investigation documents the abhorrent abuse of human beings via the use of torture that resulted in deaths. Despite the fact that those of us with experience in such matters warned early on, and over a decade ago, that such methods were unreliable at best, and against the laws of humankind. (It's all here if you really want to read what some here have said on this matter, it is just a search away).
And as usual, conservatives herein decry the results of this investigation because it does not support their skewed world view; even when the man they hoisted as their own "savior", McCain, himself has publicly stated his staunch disagreement with what has taken place surrounding the use of torture and human abuse. (I watched his entire statement, and while it was clear to me he found the task of having to do so very disagreeable for many reasons, he did say it in no uncertain terms. The first thing I've ever heard come out of that man's pie-hole that I agreed with).
I'm betting it is just a matter of time before Sarah Putin opens her own pie-hole to spew some propaganda in support of these war crimes. (McCains VP I might add). :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 11, 2014, 07:13:25 PM
Sorry, but specifics are required when conversing upon the broad topic of what is wrong with the world. There are some things that the Shrub is indeed responsible for, things his administration are responsible for, and still others that there are shared responsibilities over going all the way back to JFK; in my view.
Conversely, there are many things wrong in the world today that I directly attribute to religion. Which one? ALL of them. (But that's another story).
While this topic is intended to document the skewed expectations of the zealous conservative sector of politics for future use, said topic has ventured off into the area of crimes against humanity; and potentially war crimes committed on behalf of the "leader" of the free world. (This is nothing new here and has been the subject of much dialog within this forum since 2003, when the US declared war on terrorists and used it as a cover for an oil grab initiative designed to topple a dictator this country placed into power previously).
The Senates investigation documents the abhorrent abuse of human beings via the use of torture that resulted in deaths. Despite the fact that those of us with experience in such matters warned early on, and over a decade ago, that such methods were unreliable at best, and against the laws of humankind. (It's all here if you really want to read what some here have said on this matter, it is just a search away).
And as usual, conservatives herein decry the results of this investigation because it does not support their skewed world view; even when the man they hoisted as their own "savior", McCain, himself has publicly stated his staunch disagreement with what has taken place surrounding the use of torture and human abuse. (I watched his entire statement, and while it was clear to me he found the task of having to do so very disagreeable for many reasons, he did say it in no uncertain terms. The first thing I've ever heard come out of that man's pie-hole that I agreed with).
I'm betting it is just a matter of time before Sarah Putin opens her own pie-hole to spew some propaganda in support of these war crimes. (McCains VP I might add). :rolleyes:
Dang, PH, you could have went all night and never mentioned that moron Sarah Palin's name. She gives women a bad name everywhere! :biggrin:
For the record:
CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday defended harsh interrogation techniques as providing "useful" information to authorities, including in the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
"It is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against Bin Laden," Brennan said.
"There were no easy answers, and whatever your views are on [enhanced interrogation techniques], our nation and in particular this agency did a lot of things right during this difficult time to keep this country strong and secured," Brennan said.
Brennan said it's "lamentable" that the Senate panel didn't conduct interviews with CIA agents -- a contrast, he said, with its handling of a report on Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, which included interviews with more than 200 officers.
His strongest criticism of the report was with its contention that the CIA misled the public and government officials -- including then-President George W. Bush. That, Brennan said, is untrue -- a stance former Vice President Dick Cheney backed up in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday night.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2014, 08:15:07 AM
For the record:
CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday defended harsh interrogation techniques as providing "useful" information to authorities, including in the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
"It is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against Bin Laden," Brennan said.
"There were no easy answers, and whatever your views are on [enhanced interrogation techniques], our nation and in particular this agency did a lot of things right during this difficult time to keep this country strong and secured," Brennan said.
Brennan said it's "lamentable" that the Senate panel didn't conduct interviews with CIA agents -- a contrast, he said, with its handling of a report on Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, which included interviews with more than 200 officers.
His strongest criticism of the report was with its contention that the CIA misled the public and government officials -- including then-President George W. Bush. That, Brennan said, is untrue -- a stance former Vice President Dick Cheney backed up in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday night.
OH! You watched Fox News Wednesday night. WOW! :liar2: :liar2: :liar2:
Quote from: The Troll on December 12, 2014, 12:43:38 PM
OH! You watched Fox News Wednesday night. WOW! :liar2: :liar2: :liar2:
Nope...it was from CNN.
Quote from: The Troll on December 12, 2014, 12:43:38 PM
OH! You watched Fox News Wednesday night. WOW! :liar2: :liar2: :liar2:
It was on all news channels, Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC,CBS, MSNBC.
Quote from: Purplelady1040 on December 12, 2014, 04:48:51 PM
It was on all news channels, Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC,CBS, MSNBC.
He only watches MSNBC, and THEY probably didn't show it, because they don't want their viewers to know the truth...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2014, 04:56:11 PM
He only watches MSNBC, and THEY probably didn't show it, because they don't want their viewers to know the truth...
Henry, you are so full of shit, your breath must smell like it. :puke: