So all of this talk about torture seems to have backed the Libs here on Soulcast into a corner. In discussing the issue of President Bush's veto that would ban waterboarding as used by the CIA I discovered this.
I put my two cents into the discussion by saying:
"Bush is 100% right in vetoing this. The CIA outlawed waterboarding. This was just another Democrat spineless move to get attention. They don't care about this issue. Any of the interrogation methods in question would require authorization from the President so it is only in extreme situations. The three times we waterboarded people, they were extreme situations."
The response:
"Waterboarding is wrong stopmediabias....It does not matter if 3 people or a million people are waterborded....It still wrong...Bush was wrong in vetoing this legislation...and I beleve most of my readers agree with me...."
My response:
"This is my post on this matter.
Waterboarding is a tool, that's it. The main reason for the veto wasn't really about waterboarding.
Even from a political standpoint President Bush was brilliant in this veto because if a Democrat gets in office they are going to have to address this issue from their own side.
Maybe you can offer a solution to the problem. How do we get intelligence from a hardcore Jiadist when we only have an hour and we know he has info that will thwart attacks?"
The highlighted question is the important part of this post. One would think that Liberals have a good answer for this. Lets see.
Another Lib, (one of the kings) typed this response:
"smb, turn off 24. that isn't real life."
Then, back to the original person:
Then, back to the original person:
"Smb, I say we get are intelligence by playing by the rules set out by the United Nations...."
Is this scary or what? Now we get our intelligence based on the rules set forth by the United Nations? Did I miss something? Obviously these responses irritated me as you can see in my response:
"Ya know that was a legitimate question. I've heard all this talk about torture and whoever is right or wrong is to be decided but it doesn't change the actual problem. In this day in age when we capture an Al Qaeda leader and we have one hour before the entire world knows he is captured, how do we get the information from him that will stop ongoing terror plots?
Let me take this a step further and get hypothetical. Lets say President Bush is 100% wrong about everything. So from now on we only use the Army Manuel for interrogations, will this work in the above scenario?
Why do you egg me on? Do you like it when I verbally smack you upside the head?
I've actually watched 24 and find it to be a great show. And I hate to say it but many of things on that show mirror real life as far as threats are concerned.
And lets not mention the UN, they are useless and toothless and should be turned into a humanitarian group and sent to Canada."
Please note how I asked the same important question again and again. An answer?
"i egg you on b/c you continue embarrassing yourself and i wanna see just how far you go. you've never once yet "smacked me upside the head"--trust me, we've had enough conversations that i think i'd recognize an utterly unprecedented event like that. :> and if you aren't jack bauer, how in the world can you possibly know that it's like real life?"
If I'm not Jack Bauer? How in the world can you possibly know that it's like real life? I don't get it. 24 is a TV show that is fictional with subjects that are similar to what we are dealing with in the war on terrorism. Jack Bauer is a character on the show.
Then there is this from the original person:
"SMB, 24 is not real it' a tv show....It's made up for entertanment...the kind of entertanment that Fox News and the Cartoon Network provides...
As far as the United Nations is concerned it's a wonderful organization....There have been no world wars since the conception of the UN..."
Did I say 24 was real? Is there an answer to question here? What exactly has the U.N. done except humanitarian work? One would think genocide wouldn't be prevalent with something like the U.N., but look at Rwanda. The U.N. made a bunch of forceful resolutions on Iraq but when it came to actually enforcing them they hid under the bed. Bottom-line the U.N. is useless.
More from the King:
"what's interesting about smb's statement about the UN is that he says it's a humanitarian organization and should be sent to canada. that seems to suggest that in smb's view, humantarian organizations don't belong in the US. :D
i know, i know, he didn't really mean that, but i thought it was a funny slip. :>"
i know, i know, he didn't really mean that, but i thought it was a funny slip. :>"
How witty and how evasive, typical. My response:
"-Go back and read your comments versus my comments.
I don't know why you guys are here. Your responses are childish.
I made a couple of points and asked a question and ### comes back with a genius response of: "smb, turn off 24. that isn't real life"
And ### says:"Smb, I say we get are intelligence by playing by the rules set out by the United Nations...."
I don't get it, why are you guys here?"
The kings response:
"i see you can't address the question smb and therefore, as usual, are reduced to nothing but personal attacks. sadly typical."
Question? Personal attacks? Who started with the personal attacks? And have we gotten an answer to the question?
There is a message from someone not worth hearing from then this from the original person:
"SMB…We are here too have an adult conversation ….I will leave the name calling too the Middle school kids and readers such as yourself"
Sigh.....
My final response:
"ROFL!!!!!!!!!
You guys just can't answer my question, it shows you don't have an argument and you know our President is right. If we restrict the CIA on how they legally interrogate someone you know it will hamper our abilities. You've all back yourselves into a corner here that's why here and other places on this subject you refuse to answer the question.
I'll be doing a post on this, thank you. "
This is why Liberals cannot be President, they are weak. They cannot stomach any kind of conflict and have watered torture down to the point everything is torture. The final knee-jerk response from the King of liberals:
"actually, it's you who's refusing to answer questions, smb. again: if you aren't jack bauer--or indeed, if you aren't an interrogator yourself w/ security clearance--how can you possibly know how relevant the fictional situations in 24 bear any resemblance or relevance to reality?
are you actually working in the intelligence community in some fashion?
your reasoning, that the president should have every possible tool available, is illogical. where do you draw the line? what tools should the president never have, smb? are there any, in your mind?
this is a question you've been asked, both by myself and others, that you refuse to address meaningfully--you usually snap "of course" but refuse to enlarge upon that. so show us that we're wrong to think that: what specific things should the government never be permitted to do?"
are you actually working in the intelligence community in some fashion?
your reasoning, that the president should have every possible tool available, is illogical. where do you draw the line? what tools should the president never have, smb? are there any, in your mind?
this is a question you've been asked, both by myself and others, that you refuse to address meaningfully--you usually snap "of course" but refuse to enlarge upon that. so show us that we're wrong to think that: what specific things should the government never be permitted to do?"
There are terrorists on the TV show 24 and there are terrorists in the real world, period. Back to the evading and asking those conspiracy nut questions that imply our President just wants to torture everyone. This question opens a broad paradox and makes the discussion a waste of time. I could answer the government should NEVER be permitted to torture. But what if we specifically know torturing someone will save thousands of lives and there is no other way but torture? There are no absolutes and throwing a "never" scenerio soils the debate, especially when these people think virtually everything a Republican does to someone Muslim is torture.
