Please show the inaccuracies that lead you doubt HuffPo and link to an accurate news source that backs up your claim about the supposed inaccuracies.
is it safe to assume that those who favor torture for the detainees would also say it's ok for al-qaeda or other enemies to torture any coalition soldier they captured?
I wonder if he is actually hurting the party though. I suspect that he's probably successful buoying conservatives even as his personal popularity goes even further down. There are a lot of conservatives who have a personal stake in their prior support for the Bush administration. As the legacy of that administration is reproached, to satisfy their cognitive dissonance, they can either get offended and take a polarized position, or else be convinced and cajoled by the de-Bushification campaign and denounce their prior support. By standing up and defending the Bush admin, even with paper-thin arguments, he gives the former Bush supporter something to hold on to. Maybe they'll stay conservative long enough for the Republicans to remake themselves and earn their vote again. But, I don't get why his daughter is doing it. That's just weird.
unfortunately, if there is another terrorist attack on obama's watch, its going to solidify these arguments and I honestly think that guys like cheney are fully expecting another attack.
And therein lies the fatal flaw of your side's position. Whether it is "OK" or "fair" for al-qaeda to torture coalition soldiers doesn't really matter -- IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Heck, it's happening to coalition JOURNALISTS. Does the name Daniel Berg ring a bell? He got his head SAWED OFF. Welcome to the real world, libs. Our enemy doesn't give a rip about what's fair. This is war, not coffee and cake time out on the veranda.
First off, we already are much much 'better' than our enemies -- and saying otherwise is a gross distortion of the efforts of our troops. We are no where near the levels of our enemy -- the restraint the US troops show is enormous. Enhanced interogation techniques being used 5 times in 5 years isn't anywhere NEAR the level of our enemies' atrocities. Your sad, disingenuous argument is hatched out of ignorance, hopefully, and not out of a deliberate intention of smearing our troops. But let's stop for a moment and assume your lies are true. What purpose does this hypothetical 'being better than our enemies' serve? All it does is weakens our defenses and provides aid and comfort to terrorists. What purpose does being nice to terrorists serve? Are they going to stop dead in their tracks and start offering our POWs thin mints and low-fat blueberry coffee cake? Heck no.
I find it pretty funny hearing Republicans defending and calling for more Dick on the political scene.
Apparently your lack of concern for our troops safety is somehow a good thing? We know that us torturing enemy combatants is responsible for American troops death. We know that from American troops on the ground who interrogated the enemy. We know that harsh interrogations methods actually STOPPED USEFUL INTEL that was coming from AZ. Without using torture we found out about KSM's role in 9-11. Once the torture started, all the useful intel we were getting stopped. You keep claiming that people want to be nice to terrorists. I know that you aren't so incredibly stupid as to believe there are only two options. It isn't torture them or be nice to them. But if being nice to them stopped U.S. troops from getting hurt, and halted additional attacks, then let's use what works. If you'd like me to let you know what other inaccuracies and mistakes you made in your post, I'll be happy to help you out with that.
if it's so effective, why was it "only used 5 times in 5 years"? i would hope that we'd want to be in the business of prohibiting future terrorists. but if you want to stoop to their level and cause more hatred for the us abroad and foster more people that want to do harm for us, then that's your problem. me? i'd prefer to improve our image around the world instead of invading countries based on lies and torturing terror suspects. i don't see how stopping something that you claim was only used 5 times in 5 years would weaken national security. i mean, no more than clearing brush on a hot august day weakens national security.
FranchiseBlade -- your argument is based on the biased information that has been selectively leaked out to the public. Cheney's request for the CIA memos to be disclosed that vindicate his position was refused by the Obama Administration. So you simply don't have the facts. You've got quite a bit of propaganda, however. Look, don't be so naive as to assume that the CIA and military wasn't doing what they thought was best to extract intel. They aren't waterboarding people for fun -- it's for a reason -- because it works.
then why did they only do it "5 times in 5 years" if it works so well? too busy clearing brush to care?
It's a testament to the incredible restraint that our military shows. You just got done equating the military's actions to those of terrorists. Now you've reversed course and are highlighting their restraint. You are all over the map, and lacking in direction. Your argument is very uninformed and comprised of incoherent outbursts. You're in over your head here.
i'm confused. if it's ok to torture terrorists, why the restraint? i mean if it's ok and it works, why only 5 times in 5 years? and those 5 times were the only times that we've prevented thousands of lives being lost and somehow not doing it those 5 times means we're all of the sudden weak on security? yeah, not buying it.
I think there is a big difference between then and now. It was ridiculous to pin it on either President.
We know that it didn't work, and we know that it cost American troops their lives. That isn't biased propaganda. That's information from first hand sources. Cheney could have released whatever memos he wanted when he was in charge. Until you can show that it works and isn't damaging to the well-being of American troops you don't have a leg to stand on. The information we have isn't from memos. That's just one tiny bit. The main data we've seen about the torture and interrogation comes from the interrogators and people who were in the field working firsthand with different techniques. There was tesimony before the Senate by the very interrogator who found out that KSM was behind 9/11. He found it out without using waterboarding. He also testified that once waterboarding started the useful intel stopped. So it's time for you to put up something credibly or do your usual disappearing act.
