If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   MSNBC's political analyst slams Liz Cheney for defending CIA's interrogation practices during the Bush administration. Excuse me, did I say "MSNBC"? I meant "Fox News"   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 70
    More: Interesting, Liz Cheney, Fox News, CIA, MSNBC, CIA Torture, Bush administration, political analyst, interrogation practices  
•       •       •

1215 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2014 at 7:35 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-07 06:53:44 AM
I've seen less choreographed slams in professional wrestling.
 
2014-04-07 07:15:31 AM
Huh I figured it would be Shepard Smith. He had a good "we do not torture" rant against Bush a few years ago.
 
2014-04-07 07:34:39 AM
"I want to start by agreeing with Juan that we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Its too early for this shiate.
 
2014-04-07 07:36:09 AM
This is my total and utter lack of surprise...

In fairness, she didn't exactly "defend" the program, so much as blamed that any look at it is "politicized" and that a Democratic Administration directly following a Republican Presidency that refused to even consider investigation or even questioning its own policies. She is not the worst human in the world, but she certainly serves a good number of them, and is just parroting out defense of the indefensible...
 
2014-04-07 07:38:38 AM
So vote republican.....
 
2014-04-07 07:48:54 AM
He didn't so much 'slam' her as he did agree obliquely, making sure to trot out the old 'Bush-Cheney kept us safe' bullshiat line.
 
2014-04-07 07:51:41 AM
Her faction of republicans are going to melt down over this. This is just groundwork propaganda, wait until they go after the democratic staffers personally.
 
2014-04-07 07:57:49 AM
Williams responded by calling Cheney "the good daughter."

considering her parentage, that's pretty insulting.

remind me, is Liz the Lesbian or the Carpetbagger?

/must ... avoid ... munching joke
 
2014-04-07 08:05:38 AM

hubiestubert: This is my total and utter lack of surprise...

In fairness, she didn't exactly "defend" the program, so much as blamed that any look at it is "politicized" and that a Democratic Administration directly following a Republican Presidency that refused to even consider investigation or even questioning its own policies. She is not the worst human in the world, but she certainly serves a good number of them, and is just parroting out defense of the indefensible...


I love the fact that both sides seem to be arguing past each other to a degree: Democrats claim that torture didn't produce significant actionable intelligence, whereas Republicans claim that inmates subjected to advanced interrogation techniques did divulge actionable intelligence. There are significant enough differences between those two claims for them to both be true, and supporters of the program are going to hang their hat on that phrasing once the report comes out while attacking the source as another example of Democrats blaming Bush and putting politics ahead of their country for daring to criticize the program and spread details about it that could be used as a recruiting tool by extremist groups.

I love that Juan Williams is just pointing out that a lot of Democrats DON'T seem to like the idea of this report coming out, considering an honest assessment would show a lot of senior party members were willing to keep their head down and their mouths shut while this was going on rather than be labeled the pro-terrorist party for questioning the skeevy stuff they were aware of that was being kept from the public (which the CIA did go beyond, but even without that stuff it should be shocking to their constituents what people like Feinstein signed off on.)
 
2014-04-07 08:12:41 AM

winterbraid: Williams responded by calling Cheney "the good daughter."

considering her parentage, that's pretty insulting.

remind me, is Liz the Lesbian or the Carpetbagger?

/must ... avoid ... munching joke


Liz is the one who tried to oust Mike Enzi for not being conservative enough. This is the Mike Enzi who probably had the most influence on nearly killing the healthcare bill by purposely extending every Senate Finance Committee meeting over the bill and ask for more studies and reviews of every potential amendment to delay a vote on the bill in the Senate for as long as possible.
 
2014-04-07 08:13:38 AM

vernonFL: "I want to start by agreeing with Juan that we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Its too early for this shiate.


To start playing drinking games? It's never too early for that.
 
2014-04-07 08:18:18 AM
We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?
 
2014-04-07 08:26:08 AM
"...we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Considering that continual investigations by congress for more than a year have resulted in nothing, more Benghazi hearings would be a.) a waste of time and money and b.) serve no purposes but partisan political ones.

Also, given that neither G.W. Bush nor D. Cheney are running for office any time soon, how "political" could this report possibly be? Seems pretty plain the purpose of this exercise was to answer the question "How should we handle interrogations next time there's a war or terrorist threat?"...

Well, okay, I guess if you're hung up on quasi-theological discussions about who's dogma's better, then maybe there's a political dimension to arguing about this, but that's kind of stretching.
 
2014-04-07 08:26:47 AM

LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?


Easier quiz: ask them to identify which country it's in, and for bonus points ask them to name the two other American outposts attacked that week that all evidence points to being attacked in relation to the film.

(Benghazi is in Libya, and the other two attacks were on our embassy in Cairo, Egypt and our consulate in Sanaa, Yemen)
 
2014-04-07 08:27:02 AM
But Juan Williams is FOX's "liberal" panelist (relatively speaking), so that's not much of a surprise.
 
2014-04-07 08:30:44 AM
Here is the thing: Even if torture DID provide "actionable intelligence", its STILL illegal, and immoral.

The ends don't justify the means. We don't let police or the military engage in torture, its illegal. But the CIA should be able to?

No.
 
2014-04-07 08:36:54 AM

vernonFL: "I want to start by agreeing with Juan that we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Its too early for this shiate.


Benghazi has apparently become some sort of totem word now. It doesn't refer to the events that happened in Benghazi. It refers to everything that anyone doesn't like about Obama's foreign policy.

Stalled Israeli Palestinian peace talks? John Kerry is a failure, just like Benghazi.

Putin grabbing Crimea? Barack Obama embiggens our enemies, just like Benghazi.

North Korea shooting their Domgs into the sea? Yep. Benghazi.

Every single foreign policy decision or international event that any Republican dislikes for any reason? Just like Benghazi.

It's gone far past silly and has turned into a running joke, like The Macarena or Tim Tebow. The only good thing is that it will burn itself out very soon.
 
2014-04-07 08:38:51 AM

vernonFL: Here is the thing: Even if torture DID provide "actionable intelligence", its STILL illegal, and immoral.

The ends don't justify the means. We don't let police or the military engage in torture, its illegal. But the CIA should be able to?

No.


You obviously don't understand what the CIA is all about. Note how many of these mental exercises the media does about government behavior includes the conceit that is it illegal "if done on American citizens". Sure kill lists and warrantless wiretaps are fine if they're happening to foreigners (including leaders of allied nations) but the second an American is involved then Constitutional rights come into play. I mean, it's not like the Founders said that freedom is innate in mankind from birth and that there are certain boundaries no government has the right to interfere with: God only gives you those if you're born in a certain geographical range or move her legally.
 
2014-04-07 08:40:54 AM

vernonFL: Here is the thing: Even if torture DID provide "actionable intelligence", its STILL illegal, and immoral.

The ends don't justify the means. We don't let police or the military engage in torture, its illegal. But the CIA should be able to?

No.


Well, we had a link here in the politroll just a day or two ago that had a torturer telling us that torture is NOT immoral or illegal, it was justified and good and hey we didn't really torture anybody it was just enhanced interrogation and besides the bosses said it was OK.

So, you know, that settles that.
 
2014-04-07 08:42:09 AM

phaseolus: "...we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Considering that continual investigations by congress for more than a year have resulted in nothing, more Benghazi hearings would be a.) a waste of time and money and b.) serve no purposes but partisan political ones.

Also, given that neither G.W. Bush nor D. Cheney are running for office any time soon, how "political" could this report possibly be? Seems pretty plain the purpose of this exercise was to answer the question "How should we handle interrogations next time there's a war or terrorist threat?"...

Well, okay, I guess if you're hung up on quasi-theological discussions about who's dogma's better, then maybe there's a political dimension to arguing about this, but that's kind of stretching.


To right wing trolls, ANY criticism of their people, or even discussion of their actions, is political.  Doesn't matter how inept or what the consequences of the actions were, you're never allowed to talk about them.

Ever.
 
2014-04-07 08:43:48 AM

LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?


I can see it now.  Darrell Issa's next Benghazi hearing.  He calls up the next 'witness' to get his soundbite fix.  And in returns the witness hands him a map of Europe and Africa and says "Pick a point on this map.  I'll answer any question you have about deaths at an embassy within 500 miles of that point."
 
2014-04-07 08:44:41 AM
The GOP knows how to play CYA involving the CIA. SFW. DIAF.
 
2014-04-07 08:46:52 AM
Juan Williams is about as "Fox News" as Alan Colmes. Juan Williams isnt even a Shepard Smith. Wake me up when somebody who's actually a Fox News person rips a Cheney for anything. Ever.
 
2014-04-07 08:49:06 AM

The Larch: vernonFL: "I want to start by agreeing with Juan that we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Its too early for this shiate.

Benghazi has apparently become some sort of totem word now. It doesn't refer to the events that happened in Benghazi. It refers to everything that anyone doesn't like about Obama's foreign policy.

Stalled Israeli Palestinian peace talks? John Kerry is a failure, just like Benghazi.

Putin grabbing Crimea? Barack Obama embiggens our enemies, just like Benghazi.

North Korea shooting their Domgs into the sea? Yep. Benghazi.

Every single foreign policy decision or international event that any Republican dislikes for any reason? Just like Benghazi.

It's gone far past silly and has turned into a running joke, like The Macarena or Tim Tebow. The only good thing is that it will burn itself out very soon.


www.1877xmasguy.com
I bet the Benghazis did this!
 
2014-04-07 08:49:48 AM

FnkyTwn: Juan Williams is about as "Fox News" as Alan Colmes.


Hey! Black Colmes would have you know he cut his ties with NPR just to make sure his pledge of fealty to Rupert and Roger's propaganda machine proved true.
 
2014-04-07 08:54:28 AM
Now Liz, we can forgive that past mistake. But is Benghazi unforgivable? Explain why the answer has to be yes.
 
2014-04-07 08:58:05 AM

EyeballKid: Black Colmes


Black Colmes is waaaay more black than Juan Williams.

www.polyvore.com
 
2014-04-07 08:59:58 AM

EyeballKid: Hey! Black Colmes would have you know he cut his ties with NPR just to make sure his pledge of fealty to Rupert and Roger's propaganda machine proved true.


Didn't NPR cut ties with him?
 
2014-04-07 09:03:29 AM

Grungehamster: LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?

Easier quiz: ask them to identify which country it's in, and for bonus points ask them to name the two other American outposts attacked that week that all evidence points to being attacked in relation to the film.

(Benghazi is in Libya, and the other two attacks were on our embassy in Cairo, Egypt and our consulate in Sanaa, Yemen)


Don't forget that Tunis, Tunisia was also attacked that night.
 
2014-04-07 09:15:16 AM

oeneus: Don't forget that Tunis, Tunisia was also attacked that night.


img.interia.pl
 
2014-04-07 09:23:39 AM

winterbraid: vernonFL: Here is the thing: Even if torture DID provide "actionable intelligence", its STILL illegal, and immoral.

The ends don't justify the means. We don't let police or the military engage in torture, its illegal. But the CIA should be able to?

No.

Well, we had a link here in the politroll just a day or two ago that had a torturer telling us that torture is NOT immoral or illegal, it was justified and good and hey we didn't really torture anybody it was just enhanced interrogation and besides the bosses said it was OK.

So, you know, that settles that.


My "favorite" (as in, person I find most despicable) is Marc Thiessen. He wrote an entire book justifying enhanced interrogation techniques as not amounting to torture, but then decided to push the chutzpah into overdrive by also arguing that subjecting detainees to enhanced interrogation techniques was actually doing them a favor. See, he believes many detainees have information that they want to give their American interrogators but would feel guilty about betraying their brothers in arms. He claims that enhanced interrogation techniques push detainees beyond their breaking point, breaking their will and forcing compliance with their interrogators and absolving them of any responsibility for betraying their fellow extremists. Thiessen claims one detainee was crying, thanking his interrogators at the end of the session and told them "you must do this to all the brothers."

Ignoring the accuracy of that account, the very argument he makes seems to confirm it was torture. Pushing someone beyond their mental or physical breaking point and breaking their spirit so that they are compliant/obedient out of fear of further exposure to those actions seems as perfect of a textbook definition of torture as I can imagine.
 
2014-04-07 09:27:45 AM
"Liz, you don't understand. The Republicans not only wouldn't participate, they don't want this released," he said. "Because it's so politicized, because it's viewed as an attack on Bush-Cheney after 9/11, when they were legitimately trying to protect us as Americans - nobody is saying anything but that - but the fact is, Republicans wouldn't participate."

I am! I'm saying that! If Bush/Cheney protected Americans, it was sheer farking coincidence.

/thanks, fox news liberal for undercutting all of "your" "side"'s arguments
 
2014-04-07 09:44:56 AM

oeneus: Grungehamster: LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?

Easier quiz: ask them to identify which country it's in, and for bonus points ask them to name the two other American outposts attacked that week that all evidence points to being attacked in relation to the film.

(Benghazi is in Libya, and the other two attacks were on our embassy in Cairo, Egypt and our consulate in Sanaa, Yemen)

Don't forget that Tunis, Tunisia was also attacked that night.


Honestly did forget that one. Thank you for the correction.
 
2014-04-07 09:59:20 AM

Grungehamster: Pushing someone beyond their mental or physical breaking point and breaking their spirit so that they are compliant/obedient out of fear of further exposure to those actions seems as perfect of a textbook definition of torture as I can imagine.


There are people out there (my step-brother is one) who honestly believe that if something does not leave permanent physical scarring or injury then it's not torture.
 
2014-04-07 10:03:39 AM

RminusQ: "Liz, you don't understand. The Republicans not only wouldn't participate, they don't want this released," he said. "Because it's so politicized, because it's viewed as an attack on Bush-Cheney after 9/11, when they were legitimately trying to protect us as Americans - nobody is saying anything but that - but the fact is, Republicans wouldn't participate."

I am! I'm saying that! If Bush/Cheney protected Americans, it was sheer farking coincidence.

/thanks, fox news liberal for undercutting all of "your" "side"'s arguments


Well they ignored terrorist threats against the US and 9/11 happened so they have the worst security record in political history.  After which, they failed to get OBL even when they had the chance.  If a democrat had that security record, they would have been tried for treason.
 
2014-04-07 10:06:18 AM

Grungehamster: LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?

Easier quiz: ask them to identify which country it's in, and for bonus points ask them to name the two other American outposts attacked that week that all evidence points to being attacked in relation to the film.

(Benghazi is in Libya, and the other two attacks were on our embassy in Cairo, Egypt and our consulate in Sanaa, Yemen)


Those embassies didn't get attacked in nearly the same severity, coordination and volume of deadly fire.  And in-fact were hardly attacked at all.  Those were ginned up fake protests.  It was about as authentic as corn syrup.  I'll believe people in Yemen saw that video and were outraged when my shiat turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.  I'll believe a couple mullahs saw it and figured it would make for an entertaining weekend of crocodile tears.

In Benghazi the only people maintaining the video protest fantasy are the same who spewed that lie in the first place;  This was an attack on the mission to get intel on where the CIA operatives were keeping a cache of arms in the city.  That two former navy SEAL - turned private security guys - held off an entire militia from a mud walled house rented as essentially an administrative building is quite laughable.  Heck it turns out that there were significantly more people there than we have been led to believe.

The entire reason that it appears to be a scandal is that there is a cover-up of what we were doing there.  That this 'facebook'' revolution was no such thing.  That was just a nice media cover for a much more carefully orchestrated coup by the CIA and cooperating foreign intelligence agencies.  Its not like a bunch of farmers picked up a rock after reading facebook and then knocked out a soldier and took his gun screaming for revolution.  Its a ncie media fantasy but I guess folks raised on Disney will believe anything.

Issa's committee will get no traction because the leadership had to sign off on the coup as part of how all black ops are carried out statutorily.  So he keeps trying but will never get anywhere with it.
 
2014-04-07 10:09:33 AM

TDBoedy: :words:


checkraise.com
 
2014-04-07 10:26:04 AM

TDBoedy: The entire reason that it appears to be a scandal is that there is a cover-up of what we were doing there.  That this 'facebook'' revolution was no such thing.  That was just a nice media cover for a much more carefully orchestrated coup by the CIA and cooperating foreign intelligence agencies.


It's a "scandal" that the current administration didn't publicly release classified information about an intelligence operation being run by the CIA?

media2.policymic.com
 
2014-04-07 10:38:02 AM

vernonFL: "I want to start by agreeing with Juan that we need more congressional oversight, of Benghazi for example,"

Its too early for this shiate.


Well the Benghazi topic has been tortured to death, brought back alive, and tortured some more. Honestly Fox News should be brought up on charges of cruel and unusual punishment.
 
2014-04-07 10:40:04 AM

TDBoedy: Those embassies didn't get attacked in nearly the same severity, coordination and volume of deadly fire. And in-fact were hardly attacked at all. Those were ginned up fake protests. It was about as authentic as corn syrup. I'll believe people in Yemen saw that video and were outraged when my shiat turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet. I'll believe a couple mullahs saw it and figured it would make for an entertaining weekend of crocodile tears.


On 9/8/2012 Sheikh Khalid Abdullah broadcast the youtube video on al-Nas in Egypt, claiming it was a teaser for a US-government funded feature film called "The Trial of Muhammad" and demanding the execution of the filmmakers. For the next three days the crowds of people protesting the embassy in Cairo increased, with reports of the growing crowds and the reason for the protests being a US film mocking Muhammad. Then on 9/11/2012 the protesters were joined by another group demanding the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, at which point the protests turned violent. That's when everything snapped, and suddenly we had attacks on half a dozen other locations around the world (only the ones in Cairo, Tunisia, and Yemen had any success though.)

The video turned out to have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi but the claim that the administration made up the video that no one ever saw before they used it as a scapegoat is false.
 
2014-04-07 10:53:15 AM

Grungehamster: TDBoedy: Those embassies didn't get attacked in nearly the same severity, coordination and volume of deadly fire. And in-fact were hardly attacked at all. Those were ginned up fake protests. It was about as authentic as corn syrup. I'll believe people in Yemen saw that video and were outraged when my shiat turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet. I'll believe a couple mullahs saw it and figured it would make for an entertaining weekend of crocodile tears.

On 9/8/2012 Sheikh Khalid Abdullah broadcast the youtube video on al-Nas in Egypt, claiming it was a teaser for a US-government funded feature film called "The Trial of Muhammad" and demanding the execution of the filmmakers. For the next three days the crowds of people protesting the embassy in Cairo increased, with reports of the growing crowds and the reason for the protests being a US film mocking Muhammad. Then on 9/11/2012 the protesters were joined by another group demanding the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, at which point the protests turned violent. That's when everything snapped, and suddenly we had attacks on half a dozen other locations around the world (only the ones in Cairo, Tunisia, and Yemen had any success though.)

The video turned out to have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi but the claim that the administration made up the video that no one ever saw before they used it as a scapegoat is false.


This.
 
2014-04-07 10:54:18 AM

Grungehamster: The video turned out to have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi


The New York Times disagrees. http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
 
2014-04-07 11:06:44 AM

RyogaM: Grungehamster: The video turned out to have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi

The New York Times disagrees. http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0


Depends what you mean. Ansar al-Sharia made a statement where they took credit for the attacks in which they claimed that while they were involved they were only a fraction of the people involved and attributed their actions as a response to the youtube video. However later analysis of video showed no group of protesters there prior to the RPG being fired at the building, and the coordination of it suggested this wasn't something they just threw together in the last 3 days. In other words they certainly pointed to the video as an excuse, but chances are they already had SOMETHING planned and just were looking for an excuse to launch.
 
2014-04-07 11:10:41 AM

TDBoedy: Grungehamster: LeoffDaGrate: We always laugh at the joke "Couldn't find Benghazi on a map."  I seriously wonder, if they tested all Congresscritters, and told them to point out where Benghazi was on a world map, how many would be able to find it without the internet's help?

Easier quiz: ask them to identify which country it's in, and for bonus points ask them to name the two other American outposts attacked that week that all evidence points to being attacked in relation to the film.

(Benghazi is in Libya, and the other two attacks were on our embassy in Cairo, Egypt and our consulate in Sanaa, Yemen)

Those embassies didn't get attacked in nearly the same severity, coordination and volume of deadly fire.  And in-fact were hardly attacked at all.  Those were ginned up fake protests.  It was about as authentic as corn syrup.  I'll believe people in Yemen saw that video and were outraged when my shiat turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.  I'll believe a couple mullahs saw it and figured it would make for an entertaining weekend of crocodile tears.

In Benghazi the only people maintaining the video protest fantasy are the same who spewed that lie in the first place;  This was an attack on the mission to get intel on where the CIA operatives were keeping a cache of arms in the city.  That two former navy SEAL - turned private security guys - held off an entire militia from a mud walled house rented as essentially an administrative building is quite laughable.  Heck it turns out that there were significantly more people there than we have been led to believe.

The entire reason that it appears to be a scandal is that there is a cover-up of what we were doing there.  That this 'facebook'' revolution was no such thing.  That was just a nice media cover for a much more carefully orchestrated coup by the CIA and cooperating foreign intelligence agencies.  Its not like a bunch of farmers picked up a rock after reading facebook and then knocked out a soldier and took his gun screaming for revolution.  Its a ncie media fantasy but I guess folks raised on Disney will believe anything.

Issa's committee will get no traction because the leadership had to sign off on the coup as part of how all black ops are carried out statutorily.  So he keeps trying but will never get anywhere with it.


So the "scandal" is Obama won't declassify secrets just to make himself look better politically? How horrible!
 
2014-04-07 11:11:17 AM
Grungehamster: ...but chances are they already had SOMETHING planned and just were looking for an excuse to launch.

That's always been my interpretation, once the relation to terrorist organizations was revealed.
 
2014-04-07 11:32:17 AM
liz who?
 
2014-04-07 11:49:34 AM

Grungehamster: vernonFL: Here is the thing: Even if torture DID provide "actionable intelligence", its STILL illegal, and immoral.

The ends don't justify the means. We don't let police or the military engage in torture, its illegal. But the CIA should be able to?

No.

You obviously don't understand what the CIA is all about. Note how many of these mental exercises the media does about government behavior includes the conceit that is it illegal "if done on American citizens". Sure kill lists and warrantless wiretaps are fine if they're happening to foreigners (including leaders of allied nations) but the second an American is involved then Constitutional rights come into play. I mean, it's not like the Founders said that freedom is innate in mankind from birth and that there are certain boundaries no government has the right to interfere with: God only gives you those if you're born in a certain geographical range or move her legally.


There are no god-given rights, just ones made up by people.

/which is to say, there are no such thing as "rights", just privileges
 
2014-04-07 11:50:20 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: TDBoedy: The entire reason that it appears to be a scandal is that there is a cover-up of what we were doing there.  That this 'facebook'' revolution was no such thing.  That was just a nice media cover for a much more carefully orchestrated coup by the CIA and cooperating foreign intelligence agencies.

It's a "scandal" that the current administration didn't publicly release classified information about an intelligence operation being run by the CIA?

[media2.policymic.com image 245x285]


no...its a scandal that we even bothered to intervene in Libya period.  Its a scandal that almost has repeated in Syria and has actually repeated in a lesser way in the Ukraine and there we have some nice geo-political blow back to deal with.  The scandal is that this black op in Libya went upside down and they have put more effort into covering it up than in dealing in good faith with the victims of the crap policy decision and that they issue bald-faced lie after lie and people say that "there is no there...there."  The truth is that "There is stuff there..." but you don't have the right to know exactly what it is.

At the end of the day its poor communication and a lack of transparency.  Our intervention in Libya was barely explained.  Some people spurged about Lockerbie Flight 103 and all that but we made peace with that years ago.

Here's actual proof of that from my own experience:
Back in 2008-2008 time I was invited by my professor (as was the rest of my poli-sci class) to a dinner at the Hope Club in Providence, RI.

Here we heard a talk/lecture from a state department official on North Africa and the Middle East.  This was an actual Council on Foreign Relations talk...the state department official (whose name I cannot recall) was obviously a member and was giving a talk in the vein of a salon.  The goal of this talk (to many wealthy elite in the area who were also in attendance) was to tell them where to invest their money as far as I can tell.

 A great deal of time was spent on talking about how Gaddafi was moderating and cooperating with the west.  And just a few years later...not even a decade we're spurging about the plane bombing and human rights and blah blah blah.  Its a nice narrative for people who don't understand the flow of money.  This was about oil, gas, and other resources that both the EU and US wanted access to.  Gaddafi had stopped playing ball and though he had a stronger hand to play than he did.

facebook revolution my blue ass.  The entire operation is a scandal and a fraud.
 
2014-04-07 12:08:01 PM

TDBoedy: :words:


I have to give you mad props for going out of your way to not just call the whole thing a FALSE FLAG OPERATION. I know that in your heart of hearts it's just screaming to come out, but you've done a really amazing job of stuffing that part of your batshiatery argument down. kudos!
 
2014-04-07 12:13:08 PM

TDBoedy: A great deal of time was spent on talking about how Gaddafi was moderating and cooperating with the west.  And just a few years later...not even a decade we're spurging about the plane bombing and human rights and blah blah blah.  Its a nice narrative for people who don't understand the flow of money.  This was about oil, gas, and other resources that both the EU and US wanted access to.  Gaddafi had stopped playing ball and though he had a stronger hand to play than he did.

facebook revolution my blue ass.  The entire operation is a scandal and a fraud.


I'd have a ton more sympathy for these formerly Western-friendly dictators if they weren't despots, to boot.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report