Obama's Tortured Weakness...

[Sinatra]

The growing "torture" debate has left Obama appearing, once again, as a weak and uncertain figure swimming in waters far too deep for his limited experience and skill.

"Reactions to this CIA program, which was used against senior al Quaeda suspects in 2002-2003 are demonstrating how little Barack Obama and some Democrat members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation."

"An honest and thoughtfull review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to US national security by Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his successors."

But in releasing the memos last week, Obama unwittingly reinforced Osama Bin Laden's view of America as a country of pantywaists.

But when Obama opened the door for his attorney general to prosecute Bush lawyers, that flip-flop told US intelligence and law enforcement operatives that Obama's assurances cannot be trusted. That cannot be good for America's safety.

Now all sides are mad at him (Obama) and he looks weak. Weakness is the death knell for a president...Obama's got to be tougher or he will be viewed as a personality who reads well from a teleprompter."

What I am trying to say is the CIA does not need to be handcuffed or demoralized. It needs to know its mission.

Congress Knew About the Interrogations - WSJ.com

RealClearPolitics - U.S. Foes Have Only Bad Lawyering to Fear

Commentary: Obama waffled on torture -- and looks weak - CNN.com

 

[Newby]

You also have to seriously question the ramifications on the CIA itself and how this 'debate' will effectively cut their feet right out from under them. Do something for the current administration, but then worry about when the next administration comes in and changes policy, that you're going to be thrown in jail. Real incentive to really do your job and try to keep this country safe.

 

[amrchaos]

You do know that there is something wrong with the media trying to push this issue forward, right? This is not an election year, so what do you think is really going on?

 

[amrchaos]

You also have to seriously question the ramifications on the CIA itself and how this 'debate' will effectively cut their feet right out from under them. Do something for the current administration, but then worry about when the next administration comes in and changes policy, that you're going to be thrown in jail. Real incentive to really do your job and try to keep this country safe.

Ahh yes--the CIA. The CIA that said Cheney said nothing about releasing all the memos.

That CIA? You guys better check to see if the CIA is really the GOP's buddy!!

 

[Newby]

You also have to seriously question the ramifications on the CIA itself and how this 'debate' will effectively cut their feet right out from under them. Do something for the current administration, but then worry about when the next administration comes in and changes policy, that you're going to be thrown in jail. Real incentive to really do your job and try to keep this country safe.

Ahh yes--the CIA. The CIA that said Cheney said nothing about releasing all the memos.

That CIA? You guys better check to see if the CIA is really the GOP's buddy!!

They're most definitely not the GOP's 'buddy', nor were they whenever Bush was in office.

 

[amrchaos]

You also have to seriously question the ramifications on the CIA itself and how this 'debate' will effectively cut their feet right out from under them. Do something for the current administration, but then worry about when the next administration comes in and changes policy, that you're going to be thrown in jail. Real incentive to really do your job and try to keep this country safe.

Ahh yes--the CIA. The CIA that said Cheney said nothing about releasing all the memos.

That CIA? You guys better check to see if the CIA is really the GOP's buddy!!

They're most definitely not the GOP's 'buddy', nor were they whenever Bush was in office.

I think that Cheney/Bush plus their WH lawyers that wrote the memos may be the only ones that will go down if Obama opens an investigation into the matter.

I personally think there are alot more people that had a hand in this from both sides of the aisle. I really wonder how the Dems are going to control the possible spin out from this.

 

[Newby]

Ahh yes--the CIA. The CIA that said Cheney said nothing about releasing all the memos.

That CIA? You guys better check to see if the CIA is really the GOP's buddy!!

They're most definitely not the GOP's 'buddy', nor were they whenever Bush was in office.

I think that Cheney/Bush plus their WH lawyers that wrote the memos may be the only ones that will go down if Obama opens an investigation into the matter.

I personally think there are alot more people that had a hand in this from both sides of the aisle. I really wonder how the Dems are going to control the possible spin out from this.

I think it's all a media display to appease Obama's leftist crowd, and will never really go anywhere. As you said, there are many Dems who knew what was happening and said nothing, it's not like they weren't informed of what was happening. It will be interesting to see where it goes, but I think it's just a lot of smoke.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Due to PC mentalities, meddling by Washington wise men that did not know beans from butterballs when it came to warfare, and threat of court marshall if rules of engagement were violated, more than once I watched enemy movements and, though I wanted to, did not act.

Create uncertainty in CIA officers and the country will suffer. All it takes is the right set of circumstances. It could be argued that one of the reasons we did not act to circumvent the 9/11 attack is that the services were covering their own turf and following the (absurd) rules handed down to them.

 

[Newby]

Well, here you go.

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations

Members of Congress were briefed on the subject of interrogation techniques more than 30 times since 2002, FOX News has learned. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the first meeting, and she raised no objections.

Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.

The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.

Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.

He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."

"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.

"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.

A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes.

"One way or another there needs to be a careful review and a public accounting of these troublesome policies," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement Wednesday, adding that an ongoing Senate Intelligence Committee probe should yield a lot of the answers Americans are looking for. "And I think issues of prosecution are principally the responsibility of the Justice Department to evaluate."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.

"I'm not one who feels we should turn the page if you haven't read the page," Leahy said.

But while some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This isn't something the media is using to appease us leftists. We want more done to ensure that the US is not a country involved in the practice of torturing prisoners. Obama isn't doing enough, and that's what the media is protraying. It pisses me off. Weak ass democrats. The GOP isn't weak, but their draconian tactics aren't right either. Where's Nader when we need him? Where's Kucinich? Goddamn Democrats won't vote for someone as apparently abrasive as either of these two, but that's what they need: tough, no bull-shit, tell-it-like-it-is, leaders who will kick asses, not kiss them.

Now, you can split hairs on "what is torture", but I consider what was done to these prisoners as torture. It wasn't the rack, it wasn't the iron maiden (excellent), and it wasn't pulling fingernails out with pliers, but it was still torture.

This doesn't mean that I am defending the extremists behind the 9/11 attacks, or any sort of terrorism. If any of those people at Guantanamo committed acts of violence or terror or planned to against innocent people: then they can stay in prison forever. But we shouldn't torture them for any reason. My point has nothing to do with defending the people at Guantanamo or Abu Graib, or any where else. It has everthing to do with what I think is right and wrong and what I think our nation's principles are, and I think torturing people is wrong and un-American. I consider what was done torture. I don't think the US should torture people even if it provides real information that could save innocent lives. Its the principle of the matter.

If Denver was blown up with a WMD, and my entire family was killed, or I was killed, because torture wasn't used to obtain information that would have saved our lives and the lives of a hundred thousand innocent people, then we died, not because terrorists murdered us, but to maintain that the US will not be intimidated by terrorist organizations, will not fear them, and will not compromise the humane (or if you like Christian-value) principles upon which our nation was founded by torturing human beings whether they be innocent or despicable, evil, or murderous. The US shouldn't use the tactics of the ancient civilizations, the Inquisition, the Nazis, of Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Kim Jong-Il, or Saddam Hussein, because if we do, we are no different from them.