PDA

View Full Version : Frontline: "Bush's War"


jAZ
03-27-2008, 01:41 PM
Amazing documentary... MUST Watch for everyone.

So much interesting information that might have been reported elsewhere (in books and long-form reporting), but that we (general public) don't really know.

I think everyone (supporters of the war and detractors) will find it valuable viewing.

I get the sense that the title is a bit of a misnomer as the 1st half suggests it was more accurately "Cheney's War".

(Edit: The second half of this could likely be called Rumsfeld's War.)

Still watching the 2nd half on TIVO, but you can watch the whole thing online at the link here (you can also watch the trailer below)...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

From the horror of 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq; the truth about WMD to the rise of an insurgency; the scandal of Abu Ghraib to the strategy of the surge -- for seven years, FRONTLINE has revealed the defining stories of the war on terror in meticulous detail, and the political dramas that played out at the highest levels of power and influence.

Now, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the full saga unfolds in the two-part FRONTLINE special Bush's War. Veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk draws on one of the richest archives in broadcast journalism -- more than 40 FRONTLINE reports on Iraq and the war on terror. Combined with fresh reporting and new interviews, Bush's War will be the definitive documentary analysis of one of the most challenging periods in the nation's history.

"Parts of this history have been told before," Kirk says. "But no one has laid out the entire narrative to reveal in one epic story the scope and detail of how this war began and how it has been fought, both on the ground and deep inside the government."

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/maOZwxVA3X4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/maOZwxVA3X4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

whoman69
03-27-2008, 02:48 PM
Neocons conspicuously silent.

Carlota69
03-27-2008, 03:03 PM
Awesome! Thanks for the heads up:)

jAZ
03-27-2008, 03:10 PM
It's 4.5 hours long. So clear some time.

Boyceofsummer
03-27-2008, 04:10 PM
from the impending disaster. They obviously new their reputations would be on the line. As happened later, the generals that did take over were unqualified or unprepared. If the Neo-Cons didn’t hear what they wanted they found someone who would or made-up stories to tell America. What a pitiful lot this administration is as is anyone still defending them.

http://http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Braincase
03-27-2008, 05:10 PM
/NeoConOn "Why do you hate America?"/NeoConOff

Logical
03-27-2008, 05:14 PM
It's 4.5 hours long. So clear some time.
I don't think I can stand to watch it on the Internet for that long. Is it going to be rebroadcast on PBS?

jAZ
03-27-2008, 05:18 PM
I don't think I can stand to watch it on the Internet for that long. Is it going to be rebroadcast on PBS?

Frontline: Bush's War
Sunday, March 30, 12:00pm
Part 1 of 2. A history of the Iraq War.

Frontline: Bush's War
Sunday, March 30, 2:30pm
Conclusion. A history of the Iraq War.

(That's San Diego time)

Logical
03-27-2008, 06:34 PM
Frontline: Bush's War
Sunday, March 30, 12:00pm
Part 1 of 2. A history of the Iraq War.

Frontline: Bush's War
Sunday, March 30, 2:30pm
Conclusion. A history of the Iraq War.

(That's San Diego time)Thanks I will set up my DVR

a1na2
03-27-2008, 06:42 PM
You guys must really be hard up for entertainment.

Your boy didn't get the job done and so you need to place blame. This is just a recurring thread with a different title.

You guys really need to get a life ....... ya know?

Jenson71
03-27-2008, 06:45 PM
Does it support my view of the war? If not, I'm not going to bother watching it. What does Keith Olberman think of it?

a1na2
03-27-2008, 06:48 PM
Does it support my view of the war? If not, I'm not going to bother watching it. What does Keith Olberman think of it?

It doesn't matter what your view of the war is, the title tells all. All you have to do is determine which side of the truth you reside on and then decide.

Deberg_1990
03-27-2008, 06:51 PM
Just a quick question for the Dems...

If Gore would have won in 2000, would we be calling this "Gores War"??

Point being, it didnt matter who was in power, America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable.

Or would Gore just have fired a few rockets like his buddy Bill??

Jenson71
03-27-2008, 06:55 PM
I'm on the true side of the truth. But I'll wait til I hear what Olberman says. Or hear what Hannity says, because then I'd know Olberman would take the opposite side. I'd have to see how hard Colmes disagrees with Hannity too. And then maybe catch some of Rush, if he has any thoughts. If NBC talks about it, then I'll know it's against the war. Unless they say something bad about it. So factor that into it. Is there anything on democraticunderground on it yet? I'll have to check the conservative blogs too to see if I should waste my time on it.

Ari Chi3fs
03-27-2008, 07:02 PM
What does Jim Rome say about it?

Sully
03-27-2008, 07:11 PM
What does Jim Rome say about it?

Rack him.

a1na2
03-27-2008, 07:25 PM
I'm on the true side of the truth. But I'll wait til I hear what Olberman says. Or hear what Hannity says, because then I'd know Olberman would take the opposite side. I'd have to see how hard Colmes disagrees with Hannity too. And then maybe catch some of Rush, if he has any thoughts. If NBC talks about it, then I'll know it's against the war. Unless they say something bad about it. So factor that into it. Is there anything on democraticunderground on it yet? I'll have to check the conservative blogs too to see if I should waste my time on it.

I believe I'll sit it out. I don't think there is anything that can be validated beyond speculation by any of them. Someone always wants to rock the boat, it's just that time of the decade.

Logical
03-27-2008, 07:28 PM
Just a quick question for the Dems...

If Gore would have won in 2000, would we be calling this "Gores War"??

Point being, it didnt matter who was in power, America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable.

Or would Gore just have fired a few rockets like his buddy Bill??Not a Dem, but I have my doubts we would be in Iraq, we would still be fighting in Afghanistan

a1na2
03-27-2008, 07:32 PM
Not a Dem, but I have my doubts we would be in Iraq, we would still be fighting in Afghanistan

Gore would not have done anything regarding the attack of 9/11 IMO. He had a track record that paralleled Clinton and they were not interested in extending force across the globe for any reason other than to muddy the waters because of a blow job in the oval office.

Jenson71
03-27-2008, 07:43 PM
I believe I'll sit it out. I don't think there is anything that can be validated beyond speculation by any of them. Someone always wants to rock the boat, it's just that time of the decade.

Agreed. In fact, I think we should just stop talking about it altogether*, until maybe 15-20 years from now. Then we can start to look back and decide. Now is too early.

a1na2
03-27-2008, 07:57 PM
Agreed. In fact, I think we should just stop talking about it altogether*, until maybe 15-20 years from now. Then we can start to look back and decide. Now is too early.

It doesn't really matter. We can't stop the wagging tongues nor can we dissuade those that feel the country was ruined by either Clinton or Bush. There will always be two wars going on, dems vs repubs and radical libs vs radical cons.

I think it's called the never ending story.

Otter
03-27-2008, 08:01 PM
That was a great documentary, I watched it Monday and Tuesday on PBS. Lot's of key players give first-hand testimony as to their thoughts on how the war became and why it is where it's at today.

Without going into too much detail one of the things that really stood out to me was the "Wizard of Oz" analogy as to why we went in without UN approval and why they assumed the UN would follow once major combat was over.

Absolutely worth the four hours.

Deberg_1990
03-27-2008, 08:48 PM
Gore would not have done anything regarding the attack of 9/11 IMO.



I dont believe that. Americans were so angry and infuriated in the weeks after 9/11, we were practically salivating for payback blood. Heck, even Bush had a decent approval rating in those days.

Its a totally different climate now..

jAZ
03-27-2008, 09:04 PM
Just a quick question for the Dems...

If Gore would have won in 2000, would we be calling this "Gores War"??

Point being, it didnt matter who was in power, America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable.

Or would Gore just have fired a few rockets like his buddy Bill??

You seem to be confusing al Queda in AFGANISTAN with Saddam in Iraq.

a1na2
03-27-2008, 09:04 PM
I dont believe that. Americans were so angry and infuriated in the weeks after 9/11, we were practically salivating for payback blood. Heck, even Bush had a decent approval rating in those days.

Its a totally different climate now..

Gore is a noodle. He doesn't have a backbone, that's the major reason he lost the election.

jAZ
03-27-2008, 09:05 PM
Gore would not have done anything regarding the attack of 9/11 IMO. He had a track record that paralleled Clinton and they were not interested in extending force across the globe for any reason other than to muddy the waters because of a blow job in the oval office.

Nothing, huh?

Hmmm.

whoman69
03-27-2008, 09:29 PM
Just a quick question for the Dems...

If Gore would have won in 2000, would we be calling this "Gores War"??

Point being, it didnt matter who was in power, America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable.

Or would Gore just have fired a few rockets like his buddy Bill??

Retaliate for what. We left the war on terror for this. That's the point of the entire broadcast. It is only because Bush was President that we are at war with Iraq. Anyone else would have finished the job in Afghanistan first.

pikesome
03-27-2008, 09:35 PM
Gore is a noodle. He doesn't have a backbone, that's the major reason he lost the election.

Didn't he hire someone to teach him how to be the "Alpha Male"?

Deberg_1990
03-27-2008, 09:53 PM
You seem to be confusing al Queda in AFGANISTAN with Saddam in Iraq.



In the first few minutes of that Doc, its mentioned in the first speech Bush gave on 9/11 that we would go after terrorists and any States that provided safe harbor to them.


Iraq had long been linked to terrorists had they not??

jAZ
03-27-2008, 10:00 PM
In the first few minutes of that Doc, its mentioned in the first speech Bush gave on 9/11 that we would go after terrorists and any States that provided safe harbor to them.


Iraq had long been linked to terrorists had they not??
Did I miss where Gore said that?

wazu
03-27-2008, 10:50 PM
I think I'll sit this one out. I'm assuming it's not going to convince me that the war has been a good decision, so there is no point in spending 4.5 hours just getting depressed.

wazu
03-27-2008, 10:53 PM
Did I miss where Gore said that?

I do remember Gore giving a speech not long after 9/11, quoting mythology and comparing it to the many-headed hydra where you cut off one head and two more grow in it's place...

A valid point, but I still wanted to cut a few heads off. Also, he ended his speech by basically implying we should provide welfare for the world and if we end poverty in every country nobody would want to be terrorists anymore. Pretty weak, although given the benefit of hindsight I would now take his spineless, bleeding-heart liberalism over the Iraq quagmire.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 06:49 AM
I'm on the true side of the truth. But I'll wait til I hear what Olberman says. Or hear what Hannity says, because then I'd know Olberman would take the opposite side. I'd have to see how hard Colmes disagrees with Hannity too. And then maybe catch some of Rush, if he has any thoughts. If NBC talks about it, then I'll know it's against the war. Unless they say something bad about it. So factor that into it. Is there anything on democraticunderground on it yet? I'll have to check the conservative blogs too to see if I should waste my time on it.

:LOL: Classic.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 06:52 AM
You seem to be confusing al Queda in AFGANISTAN with Saddam in Iraq.

What if he isn’t? What if he meant exactly what he posted?
You do realize it’s now been pretty well confirmed that AQ was already in Iraq before we invaded, right?

patteeu
03-28-2008, 08:30 AM
Neocons conspicuously silent.

Uh, until you posted, everyone was conspicuously silent. I attribute it to the fact that few of us, if any, have watched the show.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 08:37 AM
You seem to be confusing al Queda in AFGANISTAN with Saddam in Iraq.

Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan in the same way that Haliburton is in Dubai or that Sony is in Japan.

jAZ
03-28-2008, 08:40 AM
You do realize it’s now been pretty well confirmed that AQ was already in Iraq before we invaded, right?

ROFL

Great Dick Cheney pardoy!

:thumb:

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 08:41 AM
ROFL

Great Dick Cheney pardoy!

:thumb:

At least you refuted the claim with evidence. Impressive as ever jAZ. But I guess attempting to attack the poster has become your M.O. lately.

jAZ
03-28-2008, 08:42 AM
Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan in the same way that Haliburton is in Dubai or that Sony is in Japan.

What does this have to do with Deberg's claim that had Gore won in 2000 he would have invaded Iraq because "America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable". Retaliating with war was entirely possible without the target ever being Iraq.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 08:48 AM
At least you refuted the claim with evidence. Impressive as ever jAZ. But I guess attempting to attack the poster has become your M.O. lately.

Ha, just caught that. WTF do I mean, “lately”. ROFL

patteeu
03-28-2008, 11:39 AM
What does this have to do with Deberg's claim that had Gore won in 2000 he would have invaded Iraq because "America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable". Retaliating with war was entirely possible without the target ever being Iraq.

It was a response to you and it has to do with my perception that you were attempting to pretend that al Qaeda was only in Afghanistan.

jAZ
03-28-2008, 11:45 AM
At least you refuted the claim with evidence. Impressive as ever jAZ. But I guess attempting to attack the poster has become your M.O. lately.
How is laughing at what was surely a joke (guess I was wrong about that), "attempting to attack the poster"?

And to your (suprisingly serious claim and oddly amusing choice of phrasing) why should I bother with your assertion when you don't bother to support it with anything?

You back up your claim, I might bother with it.

jAZ
03-28-2008, 11:49 AM
It was a response to you and it has to do with my perception that you were attempting to pretend that al Qaeda was only in Afghanistan.

Given that al Queda was in the US and reportedly in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and numerous other countries, I find your claim to such an interpretation uncredible.

I was pointing out (exactly as I did at the time and exactly as has been the overarching theme of the anti-Iraq Invasion folks since the beginning) that one could "retaliate" with "war" and never choose to invade Iraq.

Radar Chief
03-28-2008, 12:00 PM
How is laughing at what was surely a joke (guess I was wrong about that), "attempting to attack the poster"? And to your (suprisingly serious claim and oddly amusing choice of phrasing) why should I bother with your assertion when you don't bother to support it with anything?

You back up your claim, I might bother with it.

Well I’ve backed it up before, repeatedly, to you even, but here’s the latest.

http://75.125.205.90/BB/showthread.php?t=181951

Bowser
03-28-2008, 12:27 PM
Gore would not have done anything regarding the attack of 9/11 IMO. He had a track record that paralleled Clinton and they were not interested in extending force across the globe for any reason other than to muddy the waters because of a blow job in the oval office.

Democrats = soft. Got it.


This response from those on the hard right never fails to amuse. And really, just admit that you know nothing about Gore, other than what O'really has burned into your brain.

keg in kc
03-28-2008, 12:30 PM
Democrats = soft. Got it.Republicans = butthurt whenever you criticize or point out a so-called mistake. Because, you know, they don't make mistakes. They can't. God made them perfect.

Chief Henry
03-28-2008, 02:00 PM
Republicans = butthurt whenever you criticize or point out a so-called mistake. Because, you know, they don't make mistakes. They can't. God made them perfect.



The only perfect human was nailed ot the cross.

a1na2
03-28-2008, 02:38 PM
Nothing, huh?

Hmmm.

Honestly, I do not feel he would have done anything.

a1na2
03-28-2008, 02:38 PM
Didn't he hire someone to teach him how to be the "Alpha Male"?

He did. It was Roseanne Arnold.

a1na2
03-28-2008, 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4653197#post4653197)
In the first few minutes of that Doc, its mentioned in the first speech Bush gave on 9/11 that we would go after terrorists and any States that provided safe harbor to them.


Iraq had long been linked to terrorists had they not??

Did I miss where Gore said that?

You are better than that.

a1na2
03-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Democrats = soft. Got it.


This response from those on the hard right never fails to amuse. And really, just admit that you know nothing about Gore, other than what O'really has burned into your brain.

For Orielly to have an impact wth me I'd have to been watching. I do not.

Gore was and is a noodle. He wouldn't have responded to 9/11 in any way.

a1na2
03-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Republicans = butthurt whenever you criticize or point out a so-called mistake. Because, you know, they don't make mistakes. They can't. God made them perfect.

There is no mistake here. My opinion of Gore is that he is a noodle and would not have responded to 9/11 in any way, shape or form.

BTW, I am not perfect, but I am forgiven.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 08:18 AM
Given that al Queda was in the US and reportedly in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and numerous other countries, I find your claim to such an interpretation uncredible.

I was pointing out (exactly as I did at the time and exactly as has been the overarching theme of the anti-Iraq Invasion folks since the beginning) that one could "retaliate" with "war" and never choose to invade Iraq.

There's often more than one way to do something. Suggesting that there was an alternative approach that was valid is not an argument for the invalidity of the approach selected.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 08:29 AM
Democrats = soft. Got it.


This response from those on the hard right never fails to amuse. And really, just admit that you know nothing about Gore, other than what O'really has burned into your brain.

One thing I know about Al Gore (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200010/ai_n8912915) is that when it was time to strip away politics and cast a serious vote based on his view of national interests about whether or not to go to war against Iraq in 1991, Al Gore instead based his vote on Al Gore's political interests. He told Republicans that if he didn't get 20 minutes of floor debate time during prime time, he'd vote against the measure. In the end, he got his time and voted for it.

Given the pessimism about the success of any ground war in Afghanistan in the weeks leading up to our invasion, I doubt that Al Gore would have taken that political risk when the model of retaliating (ineffectively) with a few cruise missiles in order to make a media splash and create the opportunity for a tough-sounding speech was available to him at far less risk.

jAZ
03-29-2008, 09:32 AM
There's often more than one way to do something. Suggesting that there was an alternative approach that was valid is not an argument for the invalidity of the approach selected.

I'm getting a little lost, but the purpose of my comments wasn't to make an "argument for the invalidity of the approach selected" if by that you mean invading Iraq.

That's not what this discussion is about.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 10:47 AM
I'm getting a little lost, but the purpose of my comments wasn't to make an "argument for the invalidity of the approach selected" if by that you mean invading Iraq.

That's not what this discussion is about.

I think we can agree that Gore wouldn't have retaliated for 9/11 in the same way that Bush has.

The points where we probably disagree are

1) whether Iraq is a legitimate part of Bush's retaliation (even if Saddam wasn't directly involved in 9/11), and

2) whether Gore's retaliation would have been more substantial than lobbing a handful of cruise missiles into a few terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm willing to agree to disagree on these points and leave it at that.

jAZ
03-29-2008, 10:54 AM
I think we can agree that Gore wouldn't have retaliated for 9/11 in the same way that Bush has.

The points where we probably disagree are

1) whether Iraq is a legitimate part of Bush's retaliation (even if Saddam wasn't directly involved in 9/11), and

2) whether Gore's retaliation would have been more substantial than lobbing a handful of cruise missiles into a few terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm willing to agree to disagree on these points and leave it at that.

:toast:

Easy 6
03-29-2008, 12:39 PM
This was, by far, the most comprehensive thing i've read or watched on this war...from either perspective.

The list of people interviewed was VERY impressive & due time was given to each side IMO.

These guys run roughshod over anyone that disagrees in even the slightest way...even members of their so-called "inner circle".

They see no limit to their powers.

whoman69
03-30-2008, 07:26 AM
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4653197#post4653197)
In the first few minutes of that Doc, its mentioned in the first speech Bush gave on 9/11 that we would go after terrorists and any States that provided safe harbor to them.


Iraq had long been linked to terrorists had they not??


If you are looking for bastions of terrorism, the list starts with Afghanistan. Iraq's ties to terrorism would be well down that list. The head of the CIA saw it that way and so did the bipartisan committee that looked into our reasons for going to war. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not. You don't leave Afghanistan until you have that under control. We let the biggest prize slip from our grasp while going after the guy that supposedly tried to kill Bush's father. The President let his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

The promise to go after any country that harbors terrorists sounds great to those who don't think about what that entails. We have now been in Iraq for five years with thousands killed and many more thousands maimed and wounded. There is no end in site, at least in the Bush/McCain view, while our military becomes stretched to the limit. We have soldiers returning to Iraq for their fourth tour. What is it all for. The war attracted more terrorists to Iraq than were ever there before. They now have a ready made target to attack American interests on nearly a daily basis. The job remains unfinished in Afghanistan while countries with more significant ties to terror have been left untouched.

Deberg_1990
03-30-2008, 08:44 AM
If you are looking for bastions of terrorism, the list starts with Afghanistan. Iraq's ties to terrorism would be well down that list. The head of the CIA saw it that way and so did the bipartisan committee that looked into our reasons for going to war. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not. You don't leave Afghanistan until you have that under control. We let the biggest prize slip from our grasp while going after the guy that supposedly tried to kill Bush's father. The President let his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

The promise to go after any country that harbors terrorists sounds great to those who don't think about what that entails. We have now been in Iraq for five years with thousands killed and many more thousands maimed and wounded. There is no end in site, at least in the Bush/McCain view, while our military becomes stretched to the limit. We have soldiers returning to Iraq for their fourth tour. What is it all for. The war attracted more terrorists to Iraq than were ever there before. They now have a ready made target to attack American interests on nearly a daily basis. The job remains unfinished in Afghanistan while countries with more significant ties to terror have been left untouched.


I do agree with the decision to invade Iraq. We did accomplish getting rid of Saddam, which few people would argue was a bad thing.

However, i do think that we should have pulled out years ago and let the Iraq people fend for themselves. They will always use as a crutch until we are gone. Its time to let them sink or swim.

whoman69
03-30-2008, 11:00 AM
I do agree with the decision to invade Iraq. We did accomplish getting rid of Saddam, which few people would argue was a bad thing.

However, i do think that we should have pulled out years ago and let the Iraq people fend for themselves. They will always use as a crutch until we are gone. Its time to let them sink or swim.

If your reason to go to war is because their leader is a tyrant, we have a lot more countries to invade. Invading a country and leaving it to fend for itself is highly irresponsible and leaves with it the possibility that someone even worse takes over.

Radar Chief
03-31-2008, 06:57 AM
If you are looking for bastions of terrorism, the list starts with Afghanistan. Iraq's ties to terrorism would be well down that list. The head of the CIA saw it that way and so did the bipartisan committee that looked into our reasons for going to war. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not.

:spock: Who in the world are you even talking about? The head of the CIA George Tenet said that “up to 200 AQ had landed in Iraq fleeing our troops in Afghanistan”. :shrug:


You don't leave Afghanistan until you have that under control. We let the biggest prize slip from our grasp while going after the guy that supposedly tried to kill Bush's father.

If you’re talking about bin Hide’n he supposedly slipped away from Tora Bora long before we even started talking about invading Iraq. Again, WTF are you even talking about? :spock:

The President let his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

:LOL: The irony here is killing me.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 07:03 AM
If you are looking for bastions of terrorism, the list starts with Afghanistan. Iraq's ties to terrorism would be well down that list. The head of the CIA saw it that way and so did the bipartisan committee that looked into our reasons for going to war. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush did not. You don't leave Afghanistan until you have that under control. We let the biggest prize slip from our grasp while going after the guy that supposedly tried to kill Bush's father. The President let his personal feelings cloud his judgement.

What do you know about the President's personal feelings? That's rubbish.

And Osama bin Laden slipped through our fingers well before we invaded Iraq. Unless you are proposing an invasion of Pakistan, just what would we have done with more troops in Afghanistan that would have made Osama's capture more likely?

The promise to go after any country that harbors terrorists sounds great to those who don't think about what that entails. We have now been in Iraq for five years with thousands killed and many more thousands maimed and wounded. There is no end in site, at least in the Bush/McCain view, while our military becomes stretched to the limit. We have soldiers returning to Iraq for their fourth tour. What is it all for. The war attracted more terrorists to Iraq than were ever there before. They now have a ready made target to attack American interests on nearly a daily basis. The job remains unfinished in Afghanistan while countries with more significant ties to terror have been left untouched.

As long as re-enlistment rates don't drop significantly, what difference does it make whether it's a 1st tour or 4th tour?

What difference has our war in Iraq made? Fallout from Iraq: Al Qaeda is Losing War of Minds (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181400&highlight=hearts+minds)

StcChief
03-31-2008, 07:58 AM
Just a quick question for the Dems...

If Gore would have won in 2000, would we be calling this "Gores War"??

Point being, it didnt matter who was in power, America had to retaliate and unfortunately, war was inevitable.

Or would Gore just have fired a few rockets like his buddy Bill??he would have negotiated and continued to hunt BinLaden.

and another 9/11 would have happened somewhere else in America? L.A., Chicago, Houston ?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 12:39 PM
I want to know how many people watched this wire to wire, and how many still support the decisions of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al.

And if this doesn't make Bush look like even more of an impotent clown, I don't know what would.

jAZ
04-14-2008, 02:05 PM
I'll just say that I did. And I'm almost certain patteeu didn't.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 02:16 PM
I'll just say that I did. And I'm almost certain patteeu didn't.

That's amazing, Kreskin. How do you do it?

What would really be amazing though would be if this program provided any of you with a succinct, articulable case against the Bush administration that can withstand scrutiny.

Logical
04-14-2008, 02:27 PM
That's amazing, Kreskin. How do you do it?

What would really be amazing though would be if this program provided any of you with a succinct, articulable case against the Bush administration that can withstand scrutiny.
I am pretty sure that was not its goal. However the admin certainly made itself look foolish with its own actions.

mlyonsd
04-14-2008, 02:28 PM
That's amazing, Kreskin. How do you do it?

What would really be amazing though would be if this program provided any of you with a succinct, articulable case against the Bush administration that can withstand scrutiny.

Throwing chit against the wall hoping it sticks combined with repeating falsehoods over and over until it's believed they are true doesn't cut it?

You are one tough cookie to crack.

jAZ
04-14-2008, 02:29 PM
That's amazing, Kreskin. How do you do it?

What would really be amazing though would be if this program provided any of you with a succinct, articulable case against the Bush administration that can withstand scrutiny.

Watch the program. For you, more any almost anyone, it's worth the time. You'll find a bunch of things to justify your view and you will also find a few things that challenge your views.

It's well done.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 02:48 PM
Watch the program. For you, more any almost anyone, it's worth the time. You'll find a bunch of things to justify your view and you will also find a few things that challenge your views.

It's well done.

I don't have the kind of access to high speed internet that it would take to watch this show online. If it comes out on DVD and I'm aware of it, I'll see if it shows up in the library.

penchief
04-14-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't have the kind of access to high speed internet that it would take to watch this show online. If it comes out on DVD and I'm aware of it, I'll see if it shows up in the library.

Let me spell it out for you. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole lot of them really suck ass because they're greedy self-righteous muthers. Because they're willing to exploit America's integrity to impose their ideolgoy and take what they want.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 03:22 PM
Let me spell it out for you. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole lot of them really suck ass because they're greedy self-righteous muthers. Because they're willing to exploit America's integrity to impose their ideolgoy in order to get what they want.

You saved me several hours of video time. Thanks. ;)

penchief
04-14-2008, 03:24 PM
You saved me several hours of video time. Thanks. ;)

My pleasure.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 05:30 PM
That's amazing, Kreskin. How do you do it?

What would really be amazing though would be if this program provided any of you with a succinct, articulable case against the Bush administration that can withstand scrutiny.

Here's one:

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, civilians, directly negated the advice of Shinseke and other generals saying that we needed a force of at least 400,000 in order to pacify the region, so rather than changing their "light and mobile" strategy for disaster, they just ignored the experts in the field and proceeded with their preconceived notions.

Cheney's trips to the CIA to tell analysts what to report
Kay being banished to the basement in Langley without any available methods of communication
The administration circumventing the legislature and using a yes-man in the Justice dept. (John Yoo) to draw up what they could and couldn't do in the War on Terr'
Rumsfeld signing off on torture memorandums.

I'm wondering how you can honestly post this shit day after day and not have your brain devolve into cream of wheat.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 08:48 PM
Here's one:

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, civilians, directly negated the advice of Shinseke and other generals saying that we needed a force of at least 400,000 in order to pacify the region, so rather than changing their "light and mobile" strategy for disaster, they just ignored the experts in the field and proceeded with their preconceived notions.

In hindsight, Shinseke's advice is obviously attractive. Unfortunately, hindsight isn't available when the decisions are actually made. There were other generals saying that they could accomplish the mission with far fewer troops than Shinseke advised. Indeed, the invasion went smashingly well at the levels Rumsfeld and Franks negotiated.

Not only that, but there were generals making the same kinds of noises about Afghanistan, but the need for massive ground troops did not materialize in that operation and reinforced the belief that those arguing for massive troop levels in Iraq were simply fighting the last war.

Cheney's trips to the CIA to tell analysts what to report

That didn't really happen. As any good consumer of intelligence should do, Cheney questioned the analysis presented to him and made specific requests for additional analysis, but he didn't tell people to make anything up or to ignore relevent information.

Kay being banished to the basement in Langley without any available methods of communication

I don't know anything about this one so I guess it gives me something to look forward to in the event I someday get to see this program.

The administration circumventing the legislature and using a yes-man in the Justice dept. (John Yoo) to draw up what they could and couldn't do in the War on Terr'

Rumsfeld signing off on torture memorandums.

You don't like Yoo's opinions, but that's hardly a basis on which to conclude his opinions aren't good faith interpretations of the legal/constitutional landscape.

And I don't know what a torture memorandum is.

jAZ
04-14-2008, 09:44 PM
In hindsight, Shinseke's advice is obviously attractive. Unfortunately, hindsight isn't available when the decisions are actually made. There were other generals saying that they could accomplish the mission with far fewer troops than Shinseke advised.
Please at least acknowledge that Rumsfeld was the one pressuring the military (including Franks) to go in light.

If you watch, you'll learn that Rumsfeld wanted only 70,000 and kept sending Franks' plans back (who along with the other generals wanted 400,000) settled on 140,000.

If the generals got their way (including Franks), we would have had the proper forces.

jAZ
04-14-2008, 09:46 PM
Not only that, but there were generals making the same kinds of noises about Afghanistan, but the need for massive ground troops did not materialize in that operation and reinforced the belief that those arguing for massive troop levels in Iraq were simply fighting the last war.
If you watch, you'll learn that Afganistan was a CIA plan, not a DOD plan. Rumsfeld lost that internal battle to Tenent.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:12 PM
Please at least acknowledge that Rumsfeld was the one pressuring the military (including Franks) to go in light.

If you watch, you'll learn that Rumsfeld wanted only 70,000 and kept sending Franks' plans back (who along with the other generals wanted 400,000) settled on 140,000.

If the generals got their way (including Franks), we would have had the proper forces.

I'm not sure why you deleted the last sentence of that paragraph where I acknowledge that Rumsfeld had to negotiate with Franks to settle on the number of troops they ultimately went in with. There is no doubt that Rumsfeld was an imposing force as SecDef, but the fact that his original position was 70K and that he later settled on 140K after negotiating with his military staff cuts against the argument that Rumsfeld refused to listen to his generals.

Furthermore, I think it would be wrong to conclude that Shinseki had the number right. Maybe 140K wasn't enough, but if they hadn't made a couple of particular mistakes along the way, the number necessary may well have been pretty close to that. The most obvious example of this is the decision to disband the Iraqi army completely.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:13 PM
If you watch, you'll learn that Afganistan was a CIA plan, not a DOD plan. Rumsfeld lost that internal battle to Tenent.

That doesn't change the fact that military generals were arguing for massive land forces that turned out to be unnecessary.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 10:21 PM
You don't like Yoo's opinions, but that's hardly a basis on which to conclude his opinions aren't good faith interpretations of the legal/constitutional landscape.

And I don't know what a torture memorandum is.

Rumsfeld signed off on numerous uses of torture including the uses of dogs, standing for several hours continously, removal of clothing and religious items, simulated drownings, and ploys to play into the personal phobias of detainees.

You can see his signature in the very documents in question.

Here's the problem with Yoo's opinions--Bush submitted what he wanted to congress and they rejected it outright, so rather than go through the democratic channels, the administration sought another work around of the process, because as they always have believed, the means justify the ends.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 10:22 PM
That doesn't change the fact that military generals were arguing for massive land forces that turned out to be unnecessary.

Yeah, because had you watched, you would have known that we didn't have enough ground forces to trap Bin Laden in the mountains around Tora Bora, where we *knew* he was, and thus he escaped.

Of course, having the boogeyman out there has its perks.

Really unnecessary.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:28 PM
Rumsfeld signed off on numerous uses of torture including the uses of dogs, standing for several hours continously, removal of clothing and religious items, simulated drownings, and ploys to play into the personal phobias of detainees.

You can see his signature in the very documents in question.

Here's the problem with Yoo's opinions--Bush submitted what he wanted to congress and they rejected it outright, so rather than go through the democratic channels, the administration sought another work around of the process, because as they always have believed, the means justify the ends.

Congressional oversight has been a part of the enhanced interrogation program from the beginning and the first objections raised by Congress came after the harsher techniques had already been discontinued.

I don't know the details of the memos you say that Rumsfeld signed off on so I can't really address that issue.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:29 PM
Yeah, because had you watched, you would have known that we didn't have enough ground forces to trap Bin Laden in the mountains around Tora Bora, where we *knew* he was, and thus he escaped.

Of course, having the boogeyman out there has its perks.

Really unnecessary.

It wasn't a lack of ground forces that allowed bin Laden to escape Tora Bora.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 10:31 PM
Congressional oversight has been a part of the enhanced interrogation program from the beginning and the first objections raised by Congress came after the harsher techniques had already been discontinued..

The sonofabitch expressly argued against the system of Separation of Powers, feeling that it would unnecessarily hamper progress in the WOT. He also believes that the President's powers during war put him above any law.

That's a recipe for authoritarianism.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 10:36 PM
It wasn't a lack of ground forces that allowed bin Laden to escape Tora Bora.

Why the hell do you think we went in with Afghan warlords rather than Special Ops and Rangers?

You really have no clue WTF you are talking about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Chapter 4

8:00-10:46...

"The United States did not do the one thing the Pentagon had the authority to do, which was move regular US Troops into a blocking position behind the Afghan Mountains....we had come from the North, West, and South, but we couldn't come from the east, we didn't have enough troops."

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:41 PM
The sonofabitch expressly argued against the system of Separation of Powers, feeling that it would unnecessarily hamper progress in the WOT. He also believes that the President's powers during war put him above any law.

That's a recipe for authoritarianism.

He didn't argue that the President's powers during war put him above the constitution.

It may be that Yoo's constitutional interpretation pushes the envelope too far, but we have two other branches of government that can check the power of the President. If the SCOTUS finds occasion to rule on a particular interpretation and concludes that the President's interpretation is in error, there's a very good chance that the President would choose to follow the SCOTUS ruling in order to avoid a constitutional crisis if for no other reason. Indeed, this appears to have happened in the case of Jose Padilla when it appeared that the President was on the verge of losing the legal challenges. And if the SCOTUS doesn't find an opportunity to rule on the issue or the President ignores the SCOTUS ruling, Congress ALWAYS has the ultimate power to impeach and remove.

I really don't see a true danger of authoritarianism here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 10:49 PM
He didn't argue that the President's powers during war put him above the constitution.

It may be that Yoo's constitutional interpretation pushes the envelope too far, but we have two other branches of government that can check the power of the President. If the SCOTUS finds occasion to rule on a particular interpretation and concludes that the President's interpretation is in error, there's a very good chance that the President would choose to follow the SCOTUS ruling in order to avoid a constitutional crisis if for no other reason. Indeed, this appears to have happened in the case of Jose Padilla when it appeared that the President was on the verge of losing the legal challenges. And if the SCOTUS doesn't find an opportunity to rule on the issue or the President ignores the SCOTUS ruling, Congress ALWAYS has the ultimate power to impeach and remove.

I really don't see a true danger of authoritarianism here.

How are you going to impeach when you need a 2/3 vote and 1/2 are your lackeys?

And FTR:

"Yoo's positions include that the use of military force is, like presidential vetoes and pardons, an unreviewable matter. Yoo's opinions are widely seen by legal scholars as controversial and contrary to most scholars' understanding of the Constitution. Rejecting the applicability of the arguments previously stated in support of such views, many argue that these views seem to have little basis in either the text or the history of constitutional law and this is seen by many to lend further credence to the skepticism regarding the validity of the arguments."

And here I thought Congress had the right to declare war....

"Critics assert that, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers cannot be restrained by any law, national or international.[22] Others note that the view Yoo advocates, closely resembles the Führerprinzip,[23] and is similar to the one seen in police states.[24] Still others point to Jefferson's warning that the Tenth Amendment was needed to keep the Federal branches from monopolizing adjudication of rights, a danger further specified today by alleged attempts by the legislative and especially judicial branches to claim such a monopoly in a way that overwhelms the legitimate prerogatives of the states and of the federal executive branch."

Enjoy the view from behind the welder's mask.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 10:59 PM
Why the hell do you think we went in with Afghan warlords rather than Special Ops and Rangers?

You really have no clue WTF you are talking about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Chapter 4

8:00-10:46...

"The United States did not do the one thing the Pentagon had the authority to do, which was move regular US Troops into a blocking position behind the Afghan Mountains....we had come from the North, West, and South, but we couldn't come from the east, we didn't have enough troops."

Nonsense. I have no idea whose quote that is, but he's either wrong or you're misinterpreting what he's saying. We had enough troops in Afghanistan, we just chose not to deploy them along the border because we decided to rely on two afghani warlord armies and the Pakistan army. Obviously that was a mistake, but it wasn't forced on us because we lacked troops in the country. It was very similar to the strategy we employed in other parts of Afghanistan as we rolled from incredible success to incredible success.

patteeu
04-14-2008, 11:10 PM
How are you going to impeach when you need a 2/3 vote and 1/2 are your lackeys?

And FTR:

"Yoo's positions include that the use of military force is, like presidential vetoes and pardons, an unreviewable matter. Yoo's opinions are widely seen by legal scholars as controversial and contrary to most scholars' understanding of the Constitution. Rejecting the applicability of the arguments previously stated in support of such views, many argue that these views seem to have little basis in either the text or the history of constitutional law and this is seen by many to lend further credence to the skepticism regarding the validity of the arguments."

And here I thought Congress had the right to declare war....

"Critics assert that, the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers cannot be restrained by any law, national or international.[22] Others note that the view Yoo advocates, closely resembles the Führerprinzip,[23] and is similar to the one seen in police states.[24] Still others point to Jefferson's warning that the Tenth Amendment was needed to keep the Federal branches from monopolizing adjudication of rights, a danger further specified today by alleged attempts by the legislative and especially judicial branches to claim such a monopoly in a way that overwhelms the legitimate prerogatives of the states and of the federal executive branch."

Enjoy the view from behind the welder's mask.

You impeach when the President goes too far for 51% of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to accept. Whining about the makeup of the Congress and complaining that impeachment is too hard is like complaining about the judicial process because your side doesn't control enough seats on the supreme court.

None of your wiki criticisms of Yoo move me much. The issue isn't whether a majority of people share Yoo's opinion or oppose it. The issue is whether or not there is a critical mass in either of the other branches of government to chip away at it or blow it up altogether. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 11:53 PM
You impeach when the President goes too far for 51% of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to accept. Whining about the makeup of the Congress and complaining that impeachment is too hard is like complaining about the judicial process because your side doesn't control enough seats on the supreme court.

None of your wiki criticisms of Yoo move me much. The issue isn't whether a majority of people share Yoo's opinion or oppose it. The issue is whether or not there is a critical mass in either of the other branches of government to chip away at it or blow it up altogether. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Actually the point about Yoo is that it's a hackneyed view of the Constitution that only an extremist would hold. And just as would be expected, you are goosestepping in line.

Regarding the video, I gave you an exact time citation with verbatim quotes. If your best attempt to rebut that is to assume that something that I've culled directly, is readily available on the Internet given the link and time stamp I provided, and is something multiple others on this very board have seen lacks veracity, well then, why in the hell are you talking to me?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-14-2008, 11:56 PM
Just a question,

If Yoo was a favorite of the Clinton administration, and held such views regarding the use of force in say...Kosovo after a Republican legislature had blocked Clinton from rounding up and executing Serb war criminals sans trial, would you still tacitly accept his judicial positions??

Logical
04-14-2008, 11:56 PM
Actually the point about Yoo is that it's a hackneyed view of the Constitution that only an extremist would hold. And just as would be expected, you are goosestepping in line.

Regarding the video, I gave you an exact time citation with verbatim quotes. If your best attempt to rebut that is to assume that something that I've culled directly, is readily available on the Internet given the link and time stamp I provided, and is something multiple others on this very board have seen lacks veracity, well then, why in the hell are you talking to me?

My guess is you have presented An Inconvenient Truth what a great title.

Saggysack
04-15-2008, 12:38 AM
Been a couple weeks but I watched the whole thing. Very well done. I would have thought they would/could have been more critical of Bush. Most of the blame for Iraq definately went to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Afghanistan was the CIA's shining moment. Ready to go from the get-go when nobody else in the world had even a plan in place for Afghanistan.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 12:40 AM
And one more thing, patteeu,

Yoo drew up this piece of legislation on September 14th, 3 days after 9/11 as part of Cheney's "dark side" approach. It was rebuffed by the Senate (democratically controlled) and then rewritten and rubber stamped (around the legislature) on the 25th. This was a pre-emptive endorsement of torture, and not something that had ceased before Congress started asking questions.

It's a simple case of someone who doesn't like the way the system works, so they circumvent it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 12:42 AM
Been a couple weeks but I watched the whole thing. Very well done. I would have thought they would/could have been more critical of Bush. Most of the blame for Iraq definately went to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Afghanistan was the CIA's shining moment. Ready to go from the get-go when nobody else in the world had even a plan in place for Afghanistan.

Well, I think the most damning thing about it is that it shows Bush as an utter figurehead. He's convinced and/or swayed by moderates, and then Cheney gets his alone time with the prez, and viola, Bush's mind changes (and this happens on multiple occasions).

Bush may be a cheerleader, but he's no leader, and this shows him as such.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 06:29 AM
Actually the point about Yoo is that it's a hackneyed view of the Constitution that only an extremist would hold. And just as would be expected, you are goosestepping in line.

I understand your opinion on Yoo's analysis, but the combination of your gut intuition and your appeal to popularity don't really add up to an argument against it. And I don't think "hackneyed" is the word you meant to use.

Regarding the video, I gave you an exact time citation with verbatim quotes. If your best attempt to rebut that is to assume that something that I've culled directly, is readily available on the Internet given the link and time stamp I provided, and is something multiple others on this very board have seen lacks veracity, well then, why in the hell are you talking to me?

I don't have access to the video. I'm not doubting that the quote is real, I'm skeptical of your interpretation. I'm sorry, but I've read enough about Afghanistan and Tora Bora to know that bin Laden's escape wasn't primarily an issue of too few troops in Afghanistan. After seeing the failure of our Afghan allies in action at Tora Bora, the decision not to commit a larger number of those troops to the operation has been criticized. This is probably what your quote is referring to. Not a lack of troops in general, but a lack of troops committed to Tora Bora because someone made a conscious decision to let the Afghans take the lead and do the heavy fighting and to use the Pakistani army to seal the border. Soldiers from the 10th Mountain division were available in country but were not deployed.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 06:33 AM
Just a question,

If Yoo was a favorite of the Clinton administration, and held such views regarding the use of force in say...Kosovo after a Republican legislature had blocked Clinton from rounding up and executing Serb war criminals sans trial, would you still tacitly accept his judicial positions??

It's hard for me to say. My Clinton hate was strong. Almost as strong as the Bush hate so many have today. I'd imagine that I would have been ready to see him impeached at the first opportunity regardless of whether I thought Yoo had a good argument.

But if we take Clinton and Bush out of the equation and make it a generic question, I'm supportive of the unitary executive theory for both Republicans and democrats.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 06:43 AM
And one more thing, patteeu,

Yoo drew up this piece of legislation on September 14th, 3 days after 9/11 as part of Cheney's "dark side" approach. It was rebuffed by the Senate (democratically controlled) and then rewritten and rubber stamped (around the legislature) on the 25th. This was a pre-emptive endorsement of torture, and not something that had ceased before Congress started asking questions.

It's a simple case of someone who doesn't like the way the system works, so they circumvent it.

Specifically, what memo/legislation are you talking about? I'm not sure what you're saying happened on September 14th or the 25th. I think you may be confusing different issues.

When it comes to enhanced interrogation techniques, Congress was involved in oversight for that program from the very beginning and they didn't start complaining about waterboarding until after the use of waterboarding had been discontinued.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 06:45 AM
Well, I think the most damning thing about it is that it shows Bush as an utter figurehead. He's convinced and/or swayed by moderates, and then Cheney gets his alone time with the prez, and viola, Bush's mind changes (and this happens on multiple occasions).

Bush may be a cheerleader, but he's no leader, and this shows him as such.

Thank goodness we had Dick Cheney in the WH when we needed strong leadership.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 06:47 PM
Specifically, what memo/legislation are you talking about? I'm not sure what you're saying happened on September 14th or the 25th. I think you may be confusing different issues.

When it comes to enhanced interrogation techniques, Congress was involved in oversight for that program from the very beginning and they didn't start complaining about waterboarding until after the use of waterboarding had been discontinued.

No, I'm not. It's you who are uninformed. Cheney told David Addington on 9/11 that he wanted to know what extraordinary powers they could give the President. Addington called Justice and reached John Yoo, who was someone who was very amenable to their world view and served as a de-facto rubber stamp.

Yoo drew up his first piece of legislation on September 14th. It was rebuffed by the Senate Democrats and died there. 11 days later they used a loophole to pass the same thing that gave the President wartime powers in the United States by saying that we've been "invaded", allowed them to jettison "enemy combatants" to Camp X-Ray and deny them their Geneva Convention Rights, and used an extremely controversial (and to most wholly illegitimate) interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory.

petegz28
04-15-2008, 07:15 PM
No, I'm not. It's you who are uninformed. Cheney told David Addington on 9/11 that he wanted to know what extraordinary powers they could give the President. Addington called Justice and reached John Yoo, who was someone who was very amenable to their world view and served as a de-facto rubber stamp.

Yoo drew up his first piece of legislation on September 14th. It was rebuffed by the Senate Democrats and died there. 11 days later they used a loophole to pass the same thing that gave the President wartime powers in the United States by saying that we've been "invaded", allowed them to jettison "enemy combatants" to Camp X-Ray and deny them their Geneva Convention Rights, and used an extremely controversial (and to most wholly illegitimate) interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory.

In all fairness I can give a **** if they get Geneva Convemtion or not. The don't wear uniforms, they target innocent civilians on purpose, so I can really care less. Then again I'd just assume blow them all up and then it isn't an issue.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 08:03 PM
In all fairness I can give a **** if they get Geneva Convemtion or not. The don't wear uniforms, they target innocent civilians on purpose, so I can really care less. Then again I'd just assume blow them all up and then it isn't an issue.

First of all, not all of the people who they rounded up were actually terrorists, and many times they gave false information while being tortured simply so the interrogators would stop torturing them.

Furthermore, if we get into a conflict with another nation state, and they look at how we've flouted the Geneva Convention in the past, what is to stop them from torturing our prisoners?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 08:15 PM
No, I'm not. It's you who are uninformed. Cheney told David Addington on 9/11 that he wanted to know what extraordinary powers they could give the President. Addington called Justice and reached John Yoo, who was someone who was very amenable to their world view and served as a de-facto rubber stamp.

Yoo drew up his first piece of legislation on September 14th. It was rebuffed by the Senate Democrats and died there. 11 days later they used a loophole to pass the same thing that gave the President wartime powers in the United States by saying that we've been "invaded", allowed them to jettison "enemy combatants" to Camp X-Ray and deny them their Geneva Convention Rights, and used an extremely controversial (and to most wholly illegitimate) interpretation of the Unitary Executive Theory.

I disagree with your "most wholly illegitimate" evaluation of the Unitary Executive Theory so I'm not sure why I should allow you to form opinions about the rest of Yoo's work for me. I'd rather see the actual memo/piece of legislation and judge for myself.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 08:17 PM
First of all, not all of the people who they rounded up were actually terrorists, and many times they gave false information while being tortured simply so the interrogators would stop torturing them.

Furthermore, if we get into a conflict with another nation state, and they look at how we've flouted the Geneva Convention in the past, what is to stop them from torturing our prisoners?

What are you talking about? How many torturees are we talking about and what do you mean by torture?

And the answer to your last question is "nothing". There's nothing to stop them whether we flout the GCs or not.

alanm
04-15-2008, 09:38 PM
You lost me at PBS.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 10:52 PM
What are you talking about? How many torturees are we talking about and what do you mean by torture?

And the answer to your last question is "nothing". There's nothing to stop them whether we flout the GCs or not.

Hogshit.

When we torture detainees we lose the moral high ground, and that is worth a hell of a lot. Remember all that good will we pissed away? That's a part of it. You honestly cannot be *this* stupid.

You can't even form a substantive argument. In fact, this discussion has done nothing other than illustrate the extents to which your own partisan hackery will take you. You haven't seen the piece and yet feel compelled to speak to its veracity, and your only recourse is the fact that you have an internet connection from 1996, so you can't watch it yourself.

I can post link after link, and all you'll do is turtle into your shell of Cheney omnipotence and wanton ignorance, because the mere thought of opening your mind to the criticisms of those which you hold higher than Bush holds the "Almighty" appears inimical to your very existence.

You seem like a nice man, you really do. But going through life with such an infantile view of those you support only makes you look like a complete fool to anyone with a modicum of objectivity or critical thinking skills.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Highlights from Yoo:

Addington helped draft a Justice Department opinion in late 2001, written by lawyer John Yoo (see Late September 2001), that asserted Congress cannot “place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response.”

December 2001
Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philbin and John Yoo send a memorandum to Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes offering the legal opinion that US courts do not have jurisdiction to review the detention of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore detentions of persons there cannot be challenged in a US court of law.

September 25, 2001

“The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them,” Yoo writes, “whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of Sept. 11… Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”

the president’s broad power can be used against selected individuals suspected of posing a danger to the US, even though it may be “difficult to establish, by the standards of criminal law or even lower legal standards, that particular individuals or groups have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States.” Yoo concludes: “[W]e do not think that the difficulty or impossibility of establishing proof to a criminal law standard (or of making evidence public) bars the president from taking such military measures as, in his best judgment, he thinks necessary or appropriate to defend the United States from terrorist attacks. In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the president’s decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.”

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm


Yoo on the Fourth Amendment

John C. Yoo provides legal advice on “the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States.” He addresses the question of how the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the use of “deadly force” by the military “in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens.” The Fourth Amendment requires the government to have some objective suspicion of criminal activity before it can infringe on an individual’s liberties, such as the right to privacy or the freedom of movement. Yoo writes that in light of highly destructive terrorist attacks, “the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.” If the president determines the threat of terrorism high enough to deploy the military inside US territory, then, Yoo writes, “we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_c._yoo

patteeu
04-16-2008, 06:15 AM
Hogshit.

When we torture detainees we lose the moral high ground, and that is worth a hell of a lot. Remember all that good will we pissed away? That's a part of it. You honestly cannot be *this* stupid.

You can't even form a substantive argument. In fact, this discussion has done nothing other than illustrate the extents to which your own partisan hackery will take you. You haven't seen the piece and yet feel compelled to speak to its veracity, and your only recourse is the fact that you have an internet connection from 1996, so you can't watch it yourself.

I can post link after link, and all you'll do is turtle into your shell of Cheney omnipotence and wanton ignorance, because the mere thought of opening your mind to the criticisms of those which you hold higher than Bush holds the "Almighty" appears inimical to your very existence.

You seem like a nice man, you really do. But going through life with such an infantile view of those you support only makes you look like a complete fool to anyone with a modicum of objectivity or critical thinking skills.

I don't make a substantive argument regarding the program *because* I haven't watched it. You, OTOH, don't have that excuse. Nonetheless, you've failed to do anything beyond providing a short quotation from the show and back it up with your own version of some rehashed opinions you picked up from watching it.

You have no way to back up the assertion that some future nation state will be more or less likely to torture US soldiers based on what we do in the GWoT. If we deal with Iranian detainees is a particularly harsh way, I think it's fair to say that there might be a risk in a future war with Iran that our prisoners would be treated harshly. Of course, it's hard to know if they'd have been treated harshly anyway. I don't think our treatment of a Pakistani al Qaeda bigwig is going to have much impact on how our POWs would be treated by the Australians if we ever were to go to war down under though.


Having said that, I distinguish between the unauthorized practices used at Abu Ghraib (which, for the most part, shouldn't be described as torture anyway) and the enhanced interrogation practices which the CIA was authorized to use on high value, non-GC, detainees (all of which fall short of torture).

patteeu
04-16-2008, 06:23 AM
Highlights from Yoo:

Addington helped draft a Justice Department opinion in late 2001, written by lawyer John Yoo (see Late September 2001), that asserted Congress cannot “place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response.”

December 2001
Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philbin and John Yoo send a memorandum to Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes offering the legal opinion that US courts do not have jurisdiction to review the detention of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore detentions of persons there cannot be challenged in a US court of law.

September 25, 2001

“The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them,” Yoo writes, “whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of Sept. 11… Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”

the president’s broad power can be used against selected individuals suspected of posing a danger to the US, even though it may be “difficult to establish, by the standards of criminal law or even lower legal standards, that particular individuals or groups have been or may be implicated in attacks on the United States.” Yoo concludes: “[W]e do not think that the difficulty or impossibility of establishing proof to a criminal law standard (or of making evidence public) bars the president from taking such military measures as, in his best judgment, he thinks necessary or appropriate to defend the United States from terrorist attacks. In the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the president’s decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable.”

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

I see nothing at all wrong with any of this.

Yoo on the Fourth Amendment

John C. Yoo provides legal advice on “the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States.” He addresses the question of how the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the use of “deadly force” by the military “in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens.” The Fourth Amendment requires the government to have some objective suspicion of criminal activity before it can infringe on an individual’s liberties, such as the right to privacy or the freedom of movement. Yoo writes that in light of highly destructive terrorist attacks, “the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.” If the president determines the threat of terrorism high enough to deploy the military inside US territory, then, Yoo writes, “we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_c._yoo

This is slightly more troubling, but it's hard to argue with the theory behind it. Imagine a scenario where we are invaded by Canadians and they've taken control of Minnesota and Wisconsin. As the CiC directs troops to repel the invasion, surely they would be allowed to operate freely without having to worry about getting search warrants for every building they enter and without having to worry about criminal law protections for every person they detain or kill. If the threat is high enough, if the legitimate government interest is vital enough, every right has to be subject to being balanced against that interest.

I think this is a good-faith, and ultimately correct, interpretation, but I'm also glad that the Bush administration backed down a bit in the Jose Padilla case.

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 06:46 AM
You lost me at PBS.

To be fair Nova is a great show. :)

Logical
04-16-2008, 08:15 AM
I see nothing at all wrong with any of this.



This is slightly more troubling, but it's hard to argue with the theory behind it. Imagine a scenario where we are invaded by Canadians and they've taken control of Minnesota and Wisconsin. As the CiC directs troops to repel the invasion, surely they would be allowed to operate freely without having to worry about getting search warrants for every building they enter and without having to worry about criminal law protections for every person they detain or kill. If the threat is high enough, if the legitimate government interest is vital enough, every right has to be subject to being balanced against that interest.

I think this is a good-faith, and ultimately correct, interpretation, but I'm also glad that the Bush administration backed down a bit in the Jose Padilla case.All well and good, but they also could detain and enhance interrogate American Citizens at will with no known connection to the terrorists or any other invading party just because the Executive Branch wants to, you dont't see the danger in that? The loss of our civil liberties?

patteeu
04-16-2008, 08:25 AM
All well and good, but they also could detain and enhance interrogate American Citizens at will with no known connection to the terrorists or any other invading party just because the Executive Branch wants to, you dont't see the danger in that? The loss of our civil liberties?

Not according to the description of Yoo's position that 'Hamas' provided.

patteeu
04-16-2008, 08:26 AM
To be fair Nova is a great show. :)

I second that. I don't necessarily trust Nova on politics, but the show is consistently better than most of the rest of what I get on my over-the-air-only TV.