Cheney: Torturers Can Do No Wrong
McClatchy has a preview of tomorrow’s Cheney tirade on Fox. And in it, Cheney basically says it doesn’t matter if the torturers exceed the legal guidelines on torture.
Cheney, who strongly opposes the Obama administration’s new probe into alleged detainee abuse, was asked in the Fox News interview whether he was "OK" with interrogations that went beyond Justice’s specific legal authorization.
"I am," the former vice president replied.
"My sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks," he said. "It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well." [my emphasis]
Oh, okay then, let’s just do away with the law altogether, in favor of whatever policy Article II wants.
I am reminded of one of the "Legal Principles" on torture that appeared in a document hand-carried from Scott Muller to John Yoo.
The United States is at war with al-Qa’ida. Accordingly, US criminal statutes do not apply to official government actions directed against al-Qa’ida detainees except where those statutes are specifically applicable in the conduct of war or to official actions.
I’m sure Cheney and Addington had nothing to do with that "Legal Principle," not at all.
Amazing what a person of a certain bent (VERY _bent_) cast of mind can rationalize, given an undefined, unending war against a diffuse and shadowy foe.
“Divine right of kings” and “inquisition” come to mind.
“Divine right of kings” indeed.
You’ll note the parallel use in executive orders invoking the powers of the Commander in Chief during a time of war. Military Order of Nov. 13, 2001 is an excellent specimen.
If he really wants to try that, he should have conned Congress into actually declaring war on al-Qaeda, instead of invoking a undeclared war on terrorism.
I think he needs to be institutionalized, because he clearly no longer connects with this world.
Yes. Leavenworth would do nicely.
I could understand “al-Qaeda suspects.” I would still be shocked by the claim, but at least I would understand it.
But what is an al-Qaeda detainee? How can any legal advice be based on such sleight of hand? How did anyone know whether any detainee was al-Qaeda? (Don’t bother answering that question. We all know the answer.)
And no government lawyer ever tried to unpack that basic illogicality?
The whole edifice of the European Enlightenment since the C17, plus the U.S. founding documents and many other people’s founding documents, just comes crashing down with that brutal dismissal of legal principles rooted in historical understanding.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. I recently started reading Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way, and the Cheney/Bush approach is at odds with all the good stuff they cooked up back in Athens. So the founding principles of Western civilization also take a dive under Cheney/Bush.
? yes, I am sure he was overwhelmed by the opportunity to act out his dreams of unchecked power; didn’t slow him down or humble him though
Mr Hughes, we’ve got so much farther to go to make America America.
Keep talking, Dick. Anything you say on Fox can be used in court without further litigation.
I know Cheney is basically immune from legal action, but I still hope he’ll get angry enough to say something stupid that will knock a brick or two out of his wall.
If I was Dick’s pastor, I would have a special set of sermons ready should he or his family attend.
Boxturtle (And I’d be making Dick pay to get rid of the brimstone smell, too!)
We’ll just have to ask the Mayan priests to come up here and purify the whole place to get rid of the brimstone smell, the brimstone and all the other defilements that settled like intense smog over the nation, particularly DC, during the reign of Dubya & The Barnacle.
I love that link! Perhaps those Mayans would visit Washington DC? I’m starting to smell brimstone when Obama’s DOJ enters a courtroom as well.
Boxturtle (I thought it was Rahm, at first)
And thanks for yet one more succinct, incisive article, EW.
Terrific essay — I really enjoyed that.
Isn’t that what the guy at the UN said he smelled, who had to follow the little dictator when the heads of states were at an opening session? I LOVED it!
yes, that was Hugo Chavez.
The CNN video clip of that speech has been scrubbed; anybody surprised?
No doubt there is much that is not admirable about Chavez, but he is fighting to save his country from a fate such as that of his neighbor, Columbia. [Most of the South American countries are very disturbed about the recent announcement that USA will station troops in Columbia – on the pretext it is for the war on drugs. That claim should have been scrapped after the Iran/Contra hearings. IMHO]
My apologies, acquarius74. Didn’t see your comment before I noisily made mine (@20).
Nuthin ta ‘pologize for, fatster…however, I, myself, have never been known to noisily hop it…heh,heh,heh. Thanks for your link @23.
Here’s the video, acquarius74. He gets into brimstone at about 1:50.
That was Hugo. Chavez.
Oh I know, I saw it and he was cute.
“Oh, okay then, let’s just do away with the law altogether, in favor of whatever policy Article II wants.” Hasn’t Congress pretty much rendered the Constitution quaint? It’s to much trouble to fulfill their prescribed Constitutional duties. It’s easier to let the experts in the Administration do what they think best. That way whatever work does get done favors Congressional benefactors and pads Congressional investment portfolios.
What the hell can be done when the careful power balance envisioned by the Constitutions drafters are set aside, in bipartisan manner, to empower and enrich those in power, and only after the fact recourse is limited intervention by District Courts?
Is he OK with multiple major organ failures of the “high value” suspects that ended in death.
They had so much useful information on impending attacks that you might want to keep them alive,no?
This character
wasis in charge of murder unlimited.this is all just so impossible to stomach, especially while watching teddy’s funeral. could there be a more stark juxtaposition of good and evil actions and intent.
what has been striking me as so obvious we never really mention it much any more is the odd fact of cheney’s insistence on this defense, this bold and aggressive, even obsessive, insistence on a public voice now, compared to his darth vader stealth while in office.
why have the media lost sight of the simple fact that cheney would not be saying a single word had he not been so deeply involved and invested in this program?
were he innocent of what he knows to be a crime (however much he might disdain those laws), he would have no need to defend himself. methinks he doth protest way way too much.
In the end, a large majority of the criminal actions taken by the Bush Regime will lead to Rove.
I can’t resist this: Does that mean all roads lead to Rove?
what a set up and well done!
A rove by any other name … would it smell as sweet? (a turdblossom by …)
They never promised us a Rove garden.
Rove got his paws on this depravity as well as Cheney? I thought they coexisted puppeteering Bush in different areas.
Roving evil, I guess.
All low roads, yes.
Time out for some comparative mythology.
“Divine right of kings” is close. Where did that notion come from? And why do American leaders model themselves after a cosmic tyrant? Isn’t it odd, that we’ve instituted a democratic republic, utterly dependent on the active participation of self-sovereign citizens, and yet we claim to be a Christian nation, which would mean we worship the aforementioned tyrant?
I suggest, like a lot of other Buddhists, that this schism is at the root of America’s psychosis (loss of adequate contact with the reality-based community, as noted above about VP for Torture Dick Cheney).
Think about their world for a while: how long have they been living inside cover stories within cover stories? Have they any effin clue what life “on the outside” is like? How much of their consciousness is devoted to black ops? And how much to forming a more perfect union?
Which brings me back to my question: where does the notion of the divine right of kings come from? Early Egypt (Dynasty II, c.3500-2500 BCE). Back then, it was called the Secret of the Two Partners. No kiddin, that’s actually the name of it.
I’ve detailed it on my own blog, Seattle Buddhism Examiner (The Secret of the Two Parnters: Rove’s MO and inspiration for firing Iglesias?), so I’ll hit the highlights here. A short excerpt will help:
The Secret of the Two Partners
In Dynasty II Egypt, c.2500-3500 BCE. the priests and politicos came up with a way to get out of the cycle of ritual regicide. The answer was stagecraft.
In planting cultures, human sacrifice makes perfect sense: from death and decay come life and food; to increase life, therefore, increase death. Especially a high-value target.
So leaders would get up in front of everyone and cut themselves to pieces, flinging them to the adoring crowd, and die, so that the others would live. (Sounds familiar, huh?)
Some chicken-hawk pharaohs and priests figured it out: Instead of going up there on stage and dying in front of everyone, killing one’s earthly self to fecundate the land, just figuratively die by relinquishing the throne, go backstage and change into a crazy costume, then “rise from the dead,” with the majesty of the gods now all yours. “The king is dead! Long live the king.”
Two words: C Street. They think themselves gods among mere mortals or just Newtonian mechanisms in need of being forced or beaten into shape. In other words, they’re insane, just like the many other madmen of history, some of whom the C Street cult actually approve as role models.
That’s what ails us: pseudo-divine egomaniacs selling us down the river for ungodly wealth, sacrificing us “over there” instead of themselves “over here,” thus perverting the cosmogonic cycle for everybody.
Im saying that if the Vice President does it.. it’s not illegal!
Cheney is beginning to panic. It can be felt in his desperate attempts to make himself believed. After the 8 yrs of lies and damage done by he and Bush Americans are well aware of his disdain for the truth. In his interview when told that the majority of Americans didn’t agree with him and he responded “So ?”, any sane American knew that was how he felt about the law.
Slightly but not much off topic.
One of the 2 documents that Cheney requested was not delivered by the CIA recently. This is the one that Cheney said would support his claims of CIA interrogation effectiveness.
See Slate, CIA Switcheroo!, by Timothy Noah, April 28, 2009:
http://www.slate.com/id/2226713/
Thanks for the link, Gerald. Some more releases due Monday (08/30/09)…we’ll see if we get anything but more black ink.
I think the reason Cheney is panicked is (1) we all know the torture was his program , (2) He, Condi, and Gonzo were the only heavy-hitters of a meeting of the National Security Council (also attended by their minions) where a major decision was made re use of torture; (3) By Law, CIA is to perform operations at the direction of the NSC, so bottom line is that Cheney headed up the NSC that directed the torture techniques. So, my view is that Cheney is very near being branded the mastermind of the torture committed by any and all components of the USA.
So, why is Panetta covering for that old bastid?
Are you referring to the same documents as Ackerman? He speculates they won’t be released. Guess we’ll just do the old wait-and-see, huh?
Namaste.
Someone owes the real (?) Darth Vader an apology.
I read that approximately 85% of the terrorists collected by CIA in rendition for EIT, you know, the worst of the worst Cheney chants about, were found innocent or unchargeable. Why is this never put in his face as he is popping off? Caging and torturing innocent people for years, even the not innocent ones, such depravity.
While we’re at it, could we please have an investigation of
how Daddy’s little girl is privy to so much classified information?
I’ve retained a lawyer who’s written a memo that tells me it’s perfectly legal for me to kick Cheney in the nuts, but only as many times as it takes for my toes to go numb.
Liz was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East and Asia.
SECRET clearances, from the day they are granted (tech speak is “adjucticated”) are good for 10 YEARS.
TOP SECRET/SCI is good for 5 YEARS (with mandatory reinvestigations every five years)
It’s a dirty little (open) secret that you get your SECRET or TS/SCI clearance “refreshed” 18 months or so before you go into the private sector.
People who do this all the time that I have personally witnessed:
– aides to Senators/Congressmen on the Intelligence and Defense committees
– low level admin types to Joint Chiefs, other high ranking officers
– intelligence officals who then go to work for corporate security in Vegas, LA or Wall Street
– 24 on FOX has many full time technical advisers who were SOCOM, FBI, LAPD, etc
– Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers (security clearance = fat cat projects that only YOU can do because YOU have a clearance, and the mexicans don’t)
– military cops who then go to work for NYPD here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..age2.shtml
– deputies at places like State, Treasury, Justice and DoD who know they are going into private life but want to come back or run for office…someday.
Did she “refresh” her TOP SECRET in 2007, 2008? Probably.
I would have. Oh wait…that’s exactly what I did when I left the military for my current job…
Keep an eye on Liz. She’s the more refined, but just as dangerous version. And if she doesn’t run for VP she will be the Chief of Staff, Press Secretary or National Security Adviser. Mark my words. Before you scoff at me or what I said, ask yourself: did Cheney pick himself to be VP? Did he – after fucking up big time – get his ticket elected, in the middle of a war and with allegations of voter fraud?
Then yes, she could and probably WILL be on the ticket or in a major position in the next administration. The Cheney brand is, by design, the antithesis of the Kennedy brand, and stands for totally different things. The aim the same, though.
Build a dynasty.
Get them elected.
Continue building the dynasty.
Get them elected.
That’s my 2c.
I would think this is an admission that the CAT which I believe is backed up by criminal statute did apply.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the only piece of luck we had in the period between 2000 and Jan. 21, 2009 was the somehow, some way, George W. Bush managed to stay alive. As horrific as all of this is (and Dick Cheney is one twisted, paranoiac psychopath), I cannot imagine what would have happened if Bush has somehow expired and Dick Cheney had ended up as president.
Surely you don’t believe Cheney wasn’t calling the shots all along?
I’m convinced that Cheney was the man in command at the White House throughout the W years.
Hi.
You want justice?
Take arms. The fucks you oppose are evil. They will fuck you every step of the way.
Don’t you see, torturing people is the most important way of upholding our American values and honoring the U.S. constitution.
Advocating for universal healthcare is a slippery slope towards fascism, totalitarianism and genocide.
-G
So you’re telling me Cheney’s from Bizarro World?
Somehow, I could totally buy that.
Of course Cheney would say that. He’s as predictable as a stopped clock when it comes to justifying
executive-led government malfeasance, er, defending liberty…And just about as right.Why, even on the hot seat I doubt he’ll tell a different tale.
;>)
I think everyone forgets or forgets to remember so let me renew;
when every single report came forward telling us Iraq was not associated with Afghanistan, that there was no association between Saddam and bin laden
Cheney STILL went on teevee to sing as loud as he could that there was no doubt there WAS a connection
he does this when every thing is going wrong, he gets on the teevee and says opposite that which his own agencies report
this is the man that caused the recruitment of untold insurgents and he has the nerve to tell us the antithesis for all we have found concerning his depraved fetish and as far as I am concerned that’s exactly the word progressives need to use when talking about cheney and torture, it should go “cheney and his fetish”
http://www.informationclearing…..e23385.htm
Cheney is afraid to show up with a real journalist asking tough, follow-up questions. For him to face that would be torture, I guess.
What a two-faced coward. 5 deferments, folks — that’s five.
It seems he is digging his own grave, figuratively speaking.
Used to have a protest sign that read…
CHENEY WILL DO TIME,
THIS TIME!!
and another that read…
BUSH NEEDS A TIMEOUT,
20-30 YEARS WILL DO!!
Jane Hamsher is upstairs!
Health Care Reporting: Bill Moyers Shows How It’s Done
IF ELIZABETH CHENEY HAS A TOP SECRET CLEARANCE
2006 + 5 years = 2011
2007 + 5 years = 2012
2008 + 5 years = 2013
IF ELIZABETH CHENEY HAS A SECRET CLEARANCE
2002 + 10 = 2012
2003 + 10 = 2013
*snip*
2007 + 10 = 2017
2008 + 10 = 2018
Either way, she would have AT LEAST a SECRET between now and 2012/2016 election cycles.
So will Rove, Card, the speechwriters and anyone else required to get a TS/SCI w/ YANKEE WHITE who worked in the executive office of the President, was a Secretary of a Department or a deputy in a department.
Isn’t the issue just as much how and why she would be getting any information at this point rather than whether she has clearance. She has no need to know.
The argument would be – if there was ever a criminal probe – whether she held a clearance or not.
You’re trumpeting the need to know urban myth. Which is fine. But let me educate you, as someone who, as my “bitch job” the first few months, granted and took away clearances.
– You can still view and access classified information, even after you’ve left the government. It’s not whether you’re “allowed” to, it’s whether you’re cool with the people that work there, if they know you’re cleared and if they let you.
– Former Presidents/VP’s and their staff get first-class treatment and in many cases DON’T need to hold an active or even dormant clearance (case in point: CIA brief to Clinton before North Korea trip, NSC debrief of Clinton & Podesta after North Korea trip)
– You can hold a SECRET and have access to stuff people holding a TS don’t.
(Special Access Programs are not dependent upon the clearance but the program manager allowing you to be “read into” the various compartments within it.)
Was she read into the EIT and rendition programs? I say yes, you’re entitled to your own opinion. As long as she sticks to the unclassified brief with is on the front of all TS/SCI material, she’s not breaking any disclousire laws. That’s why you never see her go into detail, or cite specifics. She’s not making it up; she can’t disclose certain things and she has always been aware of the possibility of a DOJ probe.
She is a lawyer by trade, she’s not stupid.
As a DAS at State she would have been briefed/read into many things region-specific. She also ran the Iran Syria Operations Group, which was the policy side of the Office of Special Plans at DoD.
Liz Cheney was and still is read into more compartments and sub-compartments of classified programs than Colin Powell and Al Gore combined. The only one who can even come close is Gates, Rice, and Rumsfeld, who, as a former SecDef still chairs the Defense Policy Group and Defense Science Board to this very day.
Well, quite frankly, that would depend on who was being probed, her or who gave her the information and whether said person had the permission to do so. I don’t really give a damn whether she was briefed on whatever during the last administration, I will assume for the sake of argument that whatever occurred while they, and she, were in office was kosher. I never evinced any argument in that regard; I am, however, concerned if she is still being “read in” as you claim. If that is the case, a word should be had with the person(s) responsible and simply because Liz Cheney still has some residual clearance does not mean she should be getting the information. That was my point. So, in fact, “if there was ever a criminal probe – whether she held a clearance or not” would not necessarily be the argument (although it might have relevance depending on the particular fact set).
See above.
I’m not going to say what I would like to say.
What I will say is this:
There are many who were a part of the last administration who were concerned about Executive overreach and excessive classification. Some of us were in the military. Others, in intelligence circles or policy positions. The fact remains that we were concerned about the flagrant activities of the Office of the Vice President. Some of us are no longer in government and without breaking the law, share what we know. We know it, because we lived it. We know what we’re talking about because we were actually there and did it for a living.
It would probably be a good idea for you and emptywheels visitors if you DIDN’T insult the people that are contributing to the discussion with real world experience. Conjecture is fine, but myself and others I’ve brought to FDL/EW know what we’re talking about. We’re trying to help; that’s all.
Good night.
And how exactly were you insulted? You have me stumped here. I have no idea in the world what you are talking about with that accusation. I respect what you say, and what you said; but I think you misunderstood my initial statement and wanted to clarify and continue the discussion. I certainly had no intent or desire to insult you and affirmatively deny doing so. I am not sure what your complaint here is, and you fail to specify; but for whatever reason you feel slighted, that was most certainly neither my intent nor desire and I am sorry you have mistakenly concluded it was. If you have a complaint, please state it and I will address it appropriately; but I cannot address that which you refuse to specify. At any rate, again, sorry no harm intended. Peace.
First off, I will reiterate what I said @58. That said, I have to respectfully challenge several of you substantive statements.
First, you state:
and then go on later to state:
But, as far as I can discern, security clearances only apply to positions that fall under the purview of the federal government. Pursuant to Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, security clearances are only granted to persons employed by, detailed or assigned to, an [executive] agency, including members of the Armed Forces; an expert or consultant to an agency; an industrial or commercial contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency, including all subcontractors; a personal services contractor; or any other category of person who acts for or on behalf of an agency as determined by the appropriate agency head.
How do your statements comport with EO 12968? Because they would appear to be prima facially inconsistent.
Secondly, you state this:
That is all well and good. Perhaps your edification of me might touch on an explanation of how your statement is consistent with EO 12968 section 2.1(b)(4), which specifically provides:
I fail to see how, or what, your basis could possibly be, for arguing that Liz Cheney (or “Rove, Card, the speechwriters and anyone else” for that matter) could possibly be viewed and/or stated to currently have “a need for access” at this point since they are no longer in government. Furthermore, I am aware of no information, and you have certainly presented none, to indicate that any of these individuals are employed by or participating in any programs and/or activities that would even remotely place them within the ambit of the applicable provision. And, even further, your statements fly directly in the face of sworn declarations by the highest of Executive officials, including the Director of both the NSA and CIA as well as AGs and DAGs in a plethora of national security cases including, but not limited to, al-Haramain v. Obama, NSA v. ACLU and many others on the issue of dissemination only to those with ”a need to know”. How do you explain that? The proclivity of these individuals, i.e. Liz Cheney, Rove, Card etc., to go on Fox News and blab would not appear to qualify. If you would be so kind as to address these inconsistencies in your arguments, I would appreciate it.
Thirdly, you state:
I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Initially, it is completely unsupported, but above and beyond that, it seems impertinent to be discussing and comparing Liz Cheney, who was there long after Colin Powell and Al Gore were gone. Of what substance and import is this? Are you arguing that if they were all there at the same time she would have been more “read in” than they? If so, how in the world do you support that; if not what is the meaning of this? This appears to be superfluous hyperbole.
Fourth, I discussed the situation in which the person or persons inappropriately “reading in” or otherwise disseminating information to the individuals you have listed would be in trouble for inappropriate disclosure/leaking. Do you deny this would be a legal issue? If so, how would you explain the AIPAC charges (irrespective of that they were later dismissed)?
Fifth, you allege some kind of strawman cutout in saying:
Who are you referring to? I certainly said no such thing nor asked such questions, nor did I see anybody else do so. Who are you speaking to with this? You go on to make even more fairly astounding claims about David Addington still being the final authority for Special Access Programs (SAPs) and that “Liz Cheney can look at and read whatever she wants.” These are substantial and serious claims, what in the world do you base them on? How do you comport them with the above discussed EO 12969 and the specific subsections? To be honest, those statements appear prima facially alarmist and fantastical; please explain and support them. If that is really the case, as PJ Evans @62 says, that is certainly not the “way to run things” and we should all know how and why such is really the case.
Lastly, you state:
Neither I, nor anybody else here, has insulted you, and it is inappropriate for you to try to bigfoot others and command them to be subservient to your views, especially when you appear to be engaging in alarmist hyperbole. You are a commenter and your opinion and real world experience are valued, but you have neither the right nor privilege to domineer and/or subjugate anybody, and you are respectfully requested not to act otherwise. I look forward to your reply on all of the above.
Your description sure fits the system in place back when I had security clearances back in the 70s through the mid-90s (Secret and TS, as a GI, direct DoD employee, and DoD contractor).
It’s always possible that BushCo implemented things differently but the laws regarding clearances were always fairly straightforward in reminding those of us with clearances that the clearance itself was not enough but that there was the “need-to-know”.
Of course, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find that BushCo sprinkled some pixie dust to flip the clearance universe on its head and treat the laws regarding clearnaces in the same way they treated other laws.
I would add that people have been on record saying David Addington had a “man sized safe” in his office and in Cheney’s office.
For those of you saying, “SkimpyPenguin, tell me that Addington wasn’t the program manager for these Special Access Programs. Tell me Addington isn’t the one that had to grant or restrict access to classified programs like the interrogation and rendition programs of CIA.”
If he was, according to DCID regualtions and federal statues, he is and will remain the program manager of any Special Access Program he set up or took ownership of. Which is why they classified these programs as SAPs in the first place. It was intentional. It’s brilliant in a sick, twisted kind of way that only Cheney could appreciate.
Translation? Liz Cheney can look at and read whatever she wants. And so can anyone else…as long as David Addington says so. Because he was – and still is – the manager of these programs. And, even though he is no longer in government or at the White House, according to the rules, he HAS to maintain control of the programs and control access to them. Who decides who sees or doesn’t see things? He does.
Only the President (or Vice President) can declassify it. And that would be via Executive Order, which we would never know about anyway because the order itself would be classified at the same level of the program he was terminating.
Now that’s just a bad way to run things.
Once you leave government, you shouldn’t be allowed to continue running government programs, no matter what level of clearance you used to have. (And that clearance should go bye-bye when you turn in your ID.)
It sounds illegal to me.
A senoir partner at a well known law firm hear in Texas -that has long ties to the oil business and the Bush family was overheard to tell this Cheney joke
“Apparently former Vice President Cheney has invited all of his recent
executive staff down to the south Texas ranch for one last deer hunt (even though the season is over ) -The veep particularly wishes Libby to come down -especially now that Scooter was not granted a full pardon. Should there be any early arrivals -just go ahead and store your gear -and head for the bar for refreshments . By the way the early arrivals should pay no heed to the back hoe , and long deep trench behind the bunkhouse – yep its absolutley nothing to be concerned about ..”
Heh, did he ask them all to don quail suits?
skimpypenguin @ 56 ,
First thank you for your service ,and your colleagues service.
Next pretty please keep posting here at EW -real world experience is invaluable and always in short supply.
Third -currently my hopes are that the men and women down the chain of command who took seriously the oath to Protect and Defend the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic -would in the end be the biggest contributing factor to holding Vice President Cheney criminally accoubtable for sanctioning torture. And that once we got Cheney -we could have Addington , Cambone , Feith and others also convicted and jailed .
Perris actually articulated this working theory –that the 98 % of each agency that the OVP co-opted would eventually make sure the 2% criminal element would be brought to justice.
SKIMPYPENGUIN – again I will ask please continue to post here, we all can learn from you
-and if you can -just ignore bmaz –
In response to bamz @ 58
bmaz -respectfully – it may very well not be specific details we take exception to in your reply to our post – but its your arrogance and contempt for other posters that we find offensive. Face it -its human nature that nobody likes a know it all , and my friend whether you intend to or not you do clearly come across as an arrogant know it all – and I for one find it disheartening to see you go after commentators like skimpypenguin & gitchee in such a way as to make them feel unwelcomed and then they stop contributing – So bmaz its more a question of tone and attitude -then it is specifics . We all need to remember common courtesy -it wil serve us all well.
This is a bogus and scurrilous allegation you have made against me tonight. I did nothing, and I mean nothing, to insult or demean SKIMPY and I will not dignify this pure baloney by further responding to it. So, I would kindly ask you to not manufacture or further gin up false controversies out of thin air or gratuitously pile on the same from others; it is counterproductive to the work here and uncalled for.
If al Qaeda really did do 9/11(which is laughable, and sad most liberals believe this propaganda), then why was Cheney or the Bush regime in the wrong in regards to harsh interrogation or the wars?
If the Secret Service actually arrested one of these assclowns who threaten the President, Cheney would go on Fox the next morning to defend him. And probably get his vile daughter to do the same.
bmaz & SkimpyPenguin,
Perhaps what is going on with your two different lines of argument is that bmaz, relying on Executive Order 12968, is reciting the theory of what ought to happen, while SkimpyPenguin seems to be declaring what is actually happening (from his experience).
We have had discussions like this before concerning activities of the Bush administration, and the difference has seemed to be in the liberal use of Pixie dust.
I would like to hear more from SkimpyPenguin about the evidence he has that the alleged practices of the Bush administration are continuing, despite Executive Order 12968. Furthermore, I should think it likely that the President could revoke anyone’s clearances, whether they were the founder of a program or not.
Please continue this conversation.
Bob from HI in AZ