What do we DO when Feinstein says things like she's saying in public? Everything we have in the news is instantly ALL over the world. The world is watching and our news is making it possible for them to see ALL of our messes here in America and, brother, we are A MESS. EVERYTHING that happens here, division like we never had before, is broadcast into Putin's bedroom TV, Iran's TV, everybody's TV. The laughter must be amazing.
How can we not be a complete laughing stock? What other countries air their dirty laundry like we do? Answer: NONE, trust me. I've lived in other countries; they don't dump their own in the mud, at least not on international subjects.
Then there is Nancy Pelosi saying that Cheney's to blame for 'enhanced interrogation' of the three people who were interrogated 'enhancedly'.
How do we walk the fine line of openness and "be QUIET, for goodness sake, our enemies are listening, you MORONS?" What do we do to fix that?
Any ideas? Is it a good idea to run ourselves down? Why is it the leftists who'll probably agree with Feinstein and Pelosi and we on the Conservative side who feel something must be done to NOT make us laughing stocks, to NOT allow us to look in SUCH disarray, to NOT make US as weak as we've become in worldview these last five years?
HELP! Please comment............I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.
Z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
What's the issue, here. Is it that the CIA told the American public )and G W Bush) that WMD in IRAQ was a slam-dunk? Of course, nobody seems to remember that this information probably came from Valerie Plame's section of the CIA. Why believe anything the CIA has to say.
On the other hand, there have been no terrorist attacks outside of a military base (Ft Hood - Muslim terror attack). Somebody must be doing something right.
Feinstein ia a liberal senator from California, has a pretty good reputation for doing her job. The problem is that she is still a Democrat with all the negative, shallow-minded baggage one would expect.
Yes, I said shallow-minded. This is the hall-mark of Democrats. Like ObamaCare, their ideas sound great in their little echo chamber, but since they cannot think more than than two hours ahead of time, their policies are usually injurious to more people than get helped. Oh, I forgot. Democrat Party policies are all about moving money to groups for votes. That has to be a positive, no?
So, is Feinstein saying that the CIA did bad things with water-boarding a few Islamic terrorists? Most of us would have executed them, anyway. She is just trying to find a sensitive button to use in the perpetual campaign against those who have real principles. Republicans.
It's all old news, but Barbara and her ilk will do anything to keep the public's mind off the disaster that ObamaCare was sure to become.
Obama-Care will kill more people than any so-called torture program used in the War on Terror. Obama Death Panels are next.
This is what the class of elected representative's do these days...when they're not pondering weighty issues such as steroid use in baseball.
My issue with waterboarding isn't that we conducted torture....it's that we made a clownish attempt to whitewash it by rebranding it as somehting more palatable.
Regarding DiFi specifically, I'm more concerned about her efforts to nullify the 2nd Amendment than her opinions on a now defunct agency program.
Bob - The agency certainly suffers from issues that I won't go into here, but much of the pre-invasion information on Iraq and alleged WMDs came from Chalabi's group...with deep ties to Tehran and the IRGC-QF.
I'd say that our complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan has done a lot more to weaken us than any open hearing on torture.
Misleading is part of what intelligence services do. Now, I’m not one of those who believe that the American people have a right to know everything the CIA is up to, but I do believe in Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies. It is right and proper for the Senate and House to ask for information, and government agencies are obliged to answer. Misleading congressional committees is never a good thing, but even with that said, there is a feeling within certain government agencies that providing any information to a member of congress is the same as giving the same information to a member of the press. In other words, politicians aren’t trustworthy. There is some justification for this concern. Still, I agree with Hayden that Feinstein is about as objective as is Barack Obama. She has her agenda and I do not think she will let the facts interfere with her foregone conclusions.
Z - That is just how our country is. We don't keep secrets from the world. In a way that is good.
Keeping secrets sometimes leads to lying and deception. We don't want that.
The fact that US officials would "condone", let alone, "confirm" torture tells the world that we're no different from the most egregious criminal regimes that the world has ever known.
All "rights" are heretofore "alienable". Notice has been served.
Now, let's target some American citizens visiting Yemen for drone assassination...
Torture? Wink-Wink, say no more...
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!
Bob, bravo. I couldn't agree with you more. Actually, however, Feinstein surprised me on this one because she's shown some sensibility of late, believe it or not.
What I find so wrong is how the media and people like Feinstein make it sound like we waterboard or otherwise 'torture' willy nilly, anybody looking Persian walking by, which is ridiculous.
THREE PEOPLE were waterboarded. THREE.
I honestly believe she was made to do this and she doesn't 100% believe it.
Ducky, Here's one more recent link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-engagement-bind-us-troops-actions-in-afgh/
You can't really have expected us to win peace for Afghanistan under these circumstances, right?
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/relief-afghanistan-largely-peaceful-landmark-election-074321230.html
Sad that our media's really not reporting this at all. REALLY sad. THIS is success.
Joe, who doesn't condone? YOU? Correct me if I'm wrong; you feel OUR rights are in jeopardy because we waterboarded 3 suspected terrorists?
Rambo...there are many liberal blogs...why is it that you and others who arrive at geeeeZ act like whatever blog you are talking about is "The Progressive" one? :-)
Good new name, however. Congratulations.
Libmann...you just crack me UP.
SOMEDAY, liberals will actually learn why Halliburton was selected...but you keep up your ridiculous accusations! :-)
Oh, and Bush Lied? Ya, so did Hillary, Israel's MOSAD, and most American senators.
I left your comment up for comic relief. You never EVER let us down! Thanks!
Sue; that's the fine line I'd like to explore here.
NO COUNTRY (hear that, Sue?) NO COUNTRY other than ours airs all our dirty laundry just to fill commercial time on TV and fill profitable websites and magazines. WE do. And the left PILES IT ON and makes it worse.
Please....
SAM, in the new America, with a WH running the IRS and CIA and forcing them to do their leftist dirty work, we have our politicians and media blabbing everything to the world, but let one CIA or IRS person testify and they don't produce the paperwork, it's redacted when they get it, lies... unbelievable.
The world has to be shaking its head....as the enemies in it shakes from laughing at us.
Joe, who doesn't condone? YOU? Correct me if I'm wrong; you feel OUR rights are in jeopardy because we waterboarded 3 suspected terrorists?
Think? No, I KNOW that they are.
It should be "illegal" to torture anyone, without exception. And should the CIA feel compelled to torture a subject, they should be prepared to face legal persecution for doing so (although it is doubtful that they would ever be 'convicted').
The ONLY thing we have for a system of "justice" is DUE PROCESS. So lets follow the "proper" Constitutional process (cruel and unusual punishments are O-U-T).
In this manner, "torture" is never 'condoned'.
And the CIA Agents can explain to a jury of their 'peers' just how "necessary" their Constitutionally illegal activities were.
It's not our enemies who are laughing matters... it's that our friends are now hanging their heads in shame for affiliating with us.
The "classical" liberal position recognizes a zone of negative liberty, of 'inalienable rights'. When you torture ANYONE, you violate this vital and CENTRAL tenet of classical liberalism.
I would say, z, that the fact there were fewer casualties than expected in an election that still went along ethnic lines backing warlords may be encouraging or it may be cold comfort.
The Globe ran an interesting column today regarding the heroin epidemic (terrible here and I imagine also in Cali) in New England and Iran's heroin problems. It suggests this is an opportunity for mutual cooperation and negotiations.
I'm sure the right would see any such effort as weakness and just ignore the fat that we've helped turn Afghanistan into one big drug lab.
Yes, if we debate torture in the open it's weakness. Well, that's one point of view.
If we spend enough on weapons and take an aggressive posture of strength, ethnic conflict in Ukraine the existed before the founding of Moscow and has festered as the countries economy has been destroyed would just disappear in the face of American strength (and, of course, economic austerity). Well, that' one way to see it.
Thersites, I completely disagree and am truly surprised at your discourse.
My family, you, my friends here, we are all worth waterboarding someone for information that could keep us safe, in my opinion.
Our enemies are laughing at the thought that we wouldn't. Let's see...they cut off hands, tongues and heads ... "waterboarding"? :-)
And, obviously, I understand your concerns but I believe they're misplaced in this situation.
I don't like hurting anybody for any reason, but this seems worth it to me.
Thersites - "When you torture ANYONE, you violate this vital and CENTRAL tenet of classical liberalism."
Well stated. I would add also, that torture is against our own laws [18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C], as well as historically being of dubious value.
I don't believe that a single CIA agent would EVER get convicted of torture for waterboarding a real terrorist.
But I also believe that every CIA agent who DOES torture a suspect should be put on trial for his life/liberty for having done so.
In this way, no CIA agent will ever waterboard a suspect for "trivial" reasons. He'll have to "justify" his reasons for doing so to the jury, at his own personal peril.
ps - If I personally had a suspected terrorist in custody whom I believe was withholding possibly life-saving information, I'd torture him in a second and gladly go before a jury of my peers for having done so.
a prior authorizations of torture need to be taken COMPLETELY off the table, if we are to maintain anything even "close" to a classically liberal society.
fyi - On classical liberalism
Is it time to make the patriot's wager and start to admit what today's liberalism truly is?
Only time will tell.
*shakes head*
@CI "but much of the pre-invasion information on Iraq and alleged WMDs came from Chalabi's group...with deep ties to Tehran and the IRGC-QF."
That's certainly even more of an indictment of the CIA. We can never forget the "slam-dunk" statement from George Tenet, then the CIA head.
So, I stand corrected. Or, is it augmented.
@Ducky "I'd say that our complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan has done a lot more to weaken us than any open hearing on torture."
Our complete failure in Afghanistan and Iraq are directly attributable to Barack Obama. Period. The war in Iraq was won, and the Afghan war was won, but Obama telegraphed our retreat, and thus gave the hard won ground to the terrorists.
Barack Obama has done more to re-institute Al Queda than any other person in the world.
Are you of the opinion that the USA should have done nothing about the world-wide threat of Islamic extremism? What would you have done? Call the NYPD?
Bob - Yes, banking on Chalabi was a poor decision by the agency.
But I'll disagree with you on Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost Afghanistan in 2002, when we declined to pursue al Qaeda and instead embarked on a poor balance of COIN and nation building. It was further lost when we robbed needed resources to invade Iraq.
The Iraq war was never won. Once the previous Administration entered into ultimately failed SOFA negotiations, and announced a withdrawal date....what is now ISIL, as well as the Shia militia's.....went to ground and allowed US forces to depart.
Duckys here said...
I would say, z, that the fact there were fewer casualties than expected in an election that still went along ethnic lines backing warlords may be encouraging or it may be cold comfort.
Z: I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T SEE ALL THE INFORMATION.
The Globe ran an interesting column today regarding the heroin epidemic (terrible here and I imagine also in Cali) in New England and Iran's heroin problems. It suggests this is an opportunity for mutual cooperation and negotiations.
I'm sure the right would see any such effort as weakness and just ignore the fat that we've helped turn Afghanistan into one big drug lab.
SO YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES WOULDN'T BE HAPPY TO DEAL WITH IRAN REGARDING THE HEROIN PROBLEM? WHY, BECAUSE WE'RE OUT BUYING AND DON'T WANT TO CUT THE SUPPLY (OOPS...SORRY, THAT'S DEMOCRATS)
I PERSONALLY THINK DEALING WITH THEM ON THIS IS AN EXCELLENT WAY TO GET TALKS STARTED ON EVERY POINT. BUT, I'M AFRAID WE'D JUST PROMISE THEM GAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF THEY 'PRETTY PRETTTY PLEASE STOP THE HEROIN FLOW'...BECAUSE DEMS ARE IN CHARGE.
Yes, if we debate torture in the open it's weakness. Well, that's one point of view.
I'M SOO SORRY, DUCKY. I THOUGHT YOU'D ACTUALLY LIVED IN AN ARAB COUNTRY. YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT THEIR RESPECT FOR ANY SHOW OF WEAKNESS, DID YOU. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK OUR DEBATING IT AND TRYING TO GET RID OF IT ISN'T A SHOWING OF WEAKNESS, YOU'RE WRONG.
If we spend enough on weapons and take an aggressive posture of strength, ethnic conflict in Ukraine the existed before the founding of Moscow and has festered as the countries economy has been destroyed would just disappear in the face of American strength (and, of course, economic austerity). Well, that' one way to see it
WHO SAID THAT? NO, YOU'RE WRONG. THAT'S WHY SO MANY OF US DIDN'T WANT TO GO INTO BOZNIA, HERZEGOVINA, ETC.....ALBANIA, ETC...THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF WARRING AND A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT TAKES US THERE?
Thersites, FJ, etc...
I couldn't disagree with you more and I'm the last person who'd want to torture for torture sake. I don't know anybody but our enemies who WOULD, frankly.
What would you suggest instead? Keep the steak off their dinner that night? just serve halal mashed potatoes and string beans with no meat? Give them pork instead? Maybe they'll talk? What's your idea?
I'm giving you a hard time, sorry...but I KNOW you can handle it!
Or OFF with your HEAD :-)
Mrs. Z:
Time to take a well deserved break? Looks like they're getting to you?
krabby...no breaks from me, thanks.
Nobody's getting to me. I'm the same ol' passionate blogger I've always been so I wonder at your remark, but I thank you for caring :-)
Mrs. Z:
That's all I meant. I was not being disparaging at all.
chaio
thanks, Krabby!
hope to see you here soon....
by the way, if you thought my comment sounded defensive, maybe I AM letting things get to me!
CI: I don't think SOFA was part of the primary military or follow-on operations against guerrilla forces in Iraq. The fact remains that we won the fight, but yielded to the home based pressure to surrender our hard gotten gains.
Agreed, nation building was a mistake, but that is an easy observation after the fact. What was an obvious bad move before the fact was Obama's mission to get ALL military out as soon as possible. That decision and action is having a negative effect in our dealings with IRAN.
Without any forces in the region, we have no influence on the Iranians, and I have a hard time understanding why this was not one of our goals in just being in Iraq.
What we did in Afghanistan was OK, but was once again screwed up by Obama. We need a presence there, and now we will not have it. The Taliban were run out of the country, and Osama Bin Laden was marginalized to the extent that not even his death made any difference in the war on terror.
We may have wanted out of those countries, altogether, and we may have problems with dealing with corrupt leaders, but there are still reasons to have a military presence there.
It may be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I would rather see us with a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to bracket Iran. Now, we are no threat to that regime.
z, why does debating whether we are a civilized society that does not use torture a weakness?
And where did you get them meme about Arabs and weakness, Patai?
Seems to me it applies to any state or people.
Odd that you bring up Bosnia. That has been reasonably successful.
"The laughter must be amazing."
That's what I'm sayin, no what um sayin?
We've been a banana country since Jan 22, 2009. It's getting worse.
Bob, with great respect for you, I have to take issue with the idea that "we [obama adminsitration, TSA, etc] must be doing something right.
I still maintain the Boston bombings showed just how incompetent event security is in the USA.
It is my belief, including those bozos, that the only people in the USA trying to perpetrate a terrorist incident are mostly incompetent moslem individuals incapable of igniting some Propane tanks inside a car 99 time out of 100.
If we had serious/competent/martyr type terror people here we'd be seeing stuff all over the place. Malls etc. ala Mumbai or Bali
PS, the dems and the media are pouring the republicans are evil meme gearing up for the next election. All it is.
Torture....... You folks realize the TSA can strip and body cavity search you on the road without giving a reason. Please.
I'd rather be water boarded for an equal length of time.
Keep torture illegal and let us "Jessups" keep BOTH our consciences clear AND a healthy respect for the Constitution/ Law.
In other words, Z, there are no easy answers that can be written down to cover every circumstance.
Sometimes, we need to rely on the integrity inherent in individuals AND in "the system". But for THAT to occur, the system itself must have "integrity". But when the system situationally authorizes torture, the integrity of individuals is no longer possible, for the "system" itself becomes corrupted.
...but if you'd prefer to live in a society where vigilantes are given free reign to save your world, go right ahead. As for me, I prefer to hold Batman as responsible for his own actions, as I would theJoker.
tHERSITES, TERROISTS do not have integrity. They are dunked in water, knowing that we will not kill them...it's a big horrid long gulp of water, holding one's breath; enough to get them to squeal. That's fine with me, pal.
Ducky...what? there is no 'meme' on Arabs and weakness? I'm sorry, I really DID think you'd lived somewhere in Arabia, and it's so well known (and you can't bs me on this one, this is something I know about) that weakness is pounced on. A slight show of worry or disarray is weakness. No matter what you say, trust me.
It's a weakness because NONE of our enemies debate ANYTHING in public. GET IT, DUCKY? They don't allow it; they don't admit it. Our enemies are laughing their BUTTS off and, if the left understood this, MAYBE they'd back down on the America-hating ...ya think?
Thersites. our CIA wasn't developed to be "vigilantes".
Go Huskies !!
@Kid : "I still maintain the Boston bombings showed just how incompetent event security is in the USA."
No offense taken, Kid.
I agree with you, but what I meant is that we haven't seen any more airplanes crashing into buildings, bombs going off in malls, and many of the other acts of terrorism we see around the world. It may be that we've been lucky, and I could believe that. But, I also think that somewhere, somehow, all this sneaky stuff we do has put a kink into some terrorist plan. I have no proof, just an unsupported belief.
Bob - "I don't think SOFA was part of the primary military or follow-on operations against guerrilla forces in Iraq. The fact remains that we won the fight, but yielded to the home based pressure to surrender our hard gotten gains."
This doesn't jive with the timeline. First, the SOFA negotiations began with the insurgency still in high gear. But when you say that Obama 'lost the war' and that we yielded to pressure......remember that the SOFA negotiations began and the withdrawl date set, during the previous Administration.
"What was an obvious bad move before the fact was Obama's mission to get ALL military out as soon as possible. That decision and action is having a negative effect in our dealings with IRAN."
That case can certainly be made, as the move comes with risk. But equal risk is incurred by keeping forces in a nation where we do not have the primary tenet of COIN - a legitimate host government. How long should we expend American blood to prop a corrupt regime, while handicapping our ability to destroy al Qaeda?
Regarding Iran, fears of not having forces in the region [and taking continued casualties] must be tempered with the fact that our invasion of Iraq removed the regional counterweight to Iranian power in the gulf, and gave them a friendly neighbor.
Regarding the original topic, I am entertained by characterizations of waterboarding, by those who have not gone throught the Resistance Lab in SERE.
Thersites. our CIA wasn't developed to be "vigilantes".
Whatever you say, Harvey. Or should I call you "Mr. Wayne?"
...the "late" "Mr. Wayne" (from Dark Knight Rises)? ;)
Many wish that CIA agents could become Superheroes and protect America from every conceivable threat. I propose that we continue to "bound them" (limited government) by Law, and be satisfied with their remaining mere "mortal" heroes.
There will be further "tragedies" as a result. But to expect (and/or "authorize") MORE, would be tantamount to selling their soul's, and our own, into darkness. A kiss from the rose on our own graves.
Exeunt the fool
Bob, you certainly could be right. Just expressing my opinion.
I know we can detect the heck out of radioactive material for example so that one is we are doing something right. I have to believe that having no martyrs showing up at malls on shooting sprees is not the result of anything we doing. So we're both right.
Post a Comment