Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometime around 2003 the definition of torture changed, I understand the reaction after 9/11 but let's not make believe this was anything but torture. When the report comes out they will see that the information gathered was rather insignificant. Liz Cheney should read the report before she calls someone a liar.
A very good example of Liz Cheney's "change the subject" tactics to avoid the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the CIA, go start a thread on it.
That wasn't the point and you know it. Obama is almost unseemly in the non-stop digs he takes at his predecessor, all the while letting his IRS, DOJ and CIA run wild. If the next Republican president starts taking the same, and deserved shots at Obama, you libs will light up the internet with your indignation at the breach of presidential decorum and etiquette.
Liz is absolutely correct in what she said. First of all, obama is despicable in almost everything he does, and saying we tortured a few people was just another part of his apology tour and shows his hatred and contempt for America.
No one was tortured, a few really, really bad guys were water boarded to attain valuable information to save American lives. obama is against anything that might save an American life. He hates America and Americans, and he hates all you tools who are ignorant enough to still support him. You are pawns who he uses and laughs at, just as does any good con man laugh at his victims. You should all have S, for sucker tattooed on your foreheads..
Now go live with yourselves...
Sometime around 2003 the definition of torture changed, I understand the reaction after 9/11 but let's not make believe this was anything but torture. When the report comes out they will see that the information gathered was rather insignificant. Liz Cheney should read the report before she calls someone a liar.
The fact that the previous administration used torture is no longer in dispute, and this upcoming report details the fact. That's why the president made his statements ahead of its release. Right wingers who claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was not torture are not going to be happy about that.
Liz knows the report is damning as well, and she is just trying to get out ahead of it and deflect as much attention away from Daddy as possible. Her problem is that most people regard her to be no less despicable than her old man, so it ain't gonna work.
That wasn't the point and you know it. Obama is almost unseemly in the non-stop digs he takes at his predecessor, all the while letting his IRS, DOJ and CIA run wild. If the next Republican president starts taking the same, and deserved shots at Obama, you libs will light up the internet with your indignation at the breach of presidential decorum and etiquette.
THIS thread is about the upcoming release of the report on the Bush Administration's use of torture, and Liz Cheney's attempts to deflect attention away from its contents. Got any comments on that?
Speaking with guest-host Monica Crowley on the Fox’s Hannity, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, called President Barack Obama a “disgrace” and “despicable” for admitting that America tortured detainees following the attack on 9/11.
Isn't it sweet how she defends her Daddy's use of torture so enthusiastically? (There definitely is something "despicable" here, Liz. Look in a mirror for a clue of what that might be.)
And talk about hypocrisy. She goes on a tirade, accusing the president of making those comments to "change the subject" from other things happening in the country, when, in fact, Obama was responding to the U.S. Senate report that is about to be released wherein the use of torture is not disputed. And she was a guest on the show to discuss that very report.
Talk about trying to change the subject--she did that very well, steering the conversation away from the disastrous report on her father's regime's use of torture as fast as her despicable little mouth could manage it.
One person's definition of torture is not the same as another person's definition of torture. Like everything else, Obama just wants his personal opinion of things to be universally adopted without discussion.
There was not clear definition regarding what was and was not torture, when Bush took office. Bush wanted to ensure that a hundred different people did not define it a hundred different ways, so he set up guidelines and defined what constituted torture.
Just because McCain or Obama disagree with Bush's definitions, after the fact, is irrelevant. If Obama wanted to redefine what torture was, that's his prerogative, but calling everyone else before him a torturer just because he disagreed with them is despicable, but it's Obama, so there is no surprise there.
Speaking with guest-host Monica Crowley on the Fox’s Hannity, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, called President Barack Obama a “disgrace” and “despicable” for admitting that America tortured detainees following the attack on 9/11.
Isn't it sweet how she defends her Daddy's use of torture so enthusiastically? (There definitely is something "despicable" here, Liz. Look in a mirror for a clue of what that might be.)
And talk about hypocrisy. She goes on a tirade, accusing the president of making those comments to "change the subject" from other things happening in the country, when, in fact, Obama was responding to the U.S. Senate report that is about to be released wherein the use of torture is not disputed. And she was a guest on the show to discuss that very report.
Talk about trying to change the subject--she did that very well, steering the conversation away from the disastrous report on her father's regime's use of torture as fast as her despicable little mouth could manage it.
Liz Cheney is an irrelevant talking head.
But the real take away is for all of us to remember that this policy of to true was widely supported and defended by conservatives at the time and many years after.
Understand when conservatives say they are for freedom, that societies that condone and do torture aren't ever free societies. Understand the conservative hypocrisy when they say they don't trust government on tax policy because that's tyranny, but conservatives at the time cheer leaded the government torturing people.
One person's definition of torture is not the same as another person's definition of torture. Like everything else, Obama just wants his personal opinion of things to be universally adopted without discussion.
There was not clear definition regarding what was and was not torture, when Bush took office. Bush wanted to ensure that a hundred different people did not define it a hundred different ways, so he set up guidelines and defined what constituted torture.
Just because McCain or Obama disagree with Bush's definitions, after the fact, is irrelevant. If Obama wanted to redefine what torture was, that's his prerogative, but calling everyone else before him a torturer just because he disagreed with them is despicable, but it's Obama, so there is no surprise there.
One person's definition of torture is not the same as another person's definition of torture. Like everything else, Obama just wants his personal opinion of things to be universally adopted without discussion.
There was not clear definition regarding what was and was not torture, when Bush took office. Bush wanted to ensure that a hundred different people did not define it a hundred different ways, so he set up guidelines and defined what constituted torture.
Just because McCain or Obama disagree with Bush's definitions, after the fact, is irrelevant. If Obama wanted to redefine what torture was, that's his prerogative, but calling everyone else before him a torturer just because he disagreed with them is despicable, but it's Obama, so there is no surprise there.
There is a perfectly well-defined definition of torture as per the Geneva Convention.
Pres. Bush had no need, nor did he have any authority to define what was and wasn't torture.
To suggest otherwise as ridiculous as Ms Cheney's statements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
