Has the Republican/TEA Party become the Party of Perpetual Self-Pity?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 05, 2011 7:15 PM GMT
    Has the Republican/TEA Party become the Party of Perpetual Self-Pity?

    "Waaaaaa! Obama didn't mention Bush" Waaaaa! He didn't mention Cheney" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention Rumsfeld!" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention waterboarding" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention the intelligence infrastructure" "Waaa! He's only at ground zero for a photo op!" The "Waaaa!" party strikes again!

    No wonder "cry baby" Boehner has become the face of the Republicans. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 05, 2011 7:52 PM GMT
    Yes. Asked and answered.
  • Goofeyman

    Posts: 199

    May 06, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    Correction again!

    If it hadn't been for the platform dealing with terrorists (those who want to kill you and I), under George w bush, Obama wouldn't have done this mission with laden

    In fact Obama would not have wanted to do it.

    During bush's admin, the formats (interrogations, waterboarding) and establishing electronic ways to hunt down people like laden.

    Obama and his cohorts actually were going after bush on these proven successes. Obama and John Kerry wanted bush impeached for crimes against humanity???!!

    Obama is a dork and a hypocrite.

    I'm glad bin laden is gone. I'm publicly thanking George w bush for implementing such a program that led to the death of laden.

    What's sad about this killing is Obama is using this as yet another photo op.

    Discusting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 4:36 AM GMT
    Cgavic saidCorrection again!

    If it hadn't been for the platform dealing with terrorists (those who want to kill you and I), under George w bush, Obama wouldn't have done this mission with laden

    In fact Obama would not have wanted to do it.

    During bush's admin, the formats (interrogations, waterboarding) and establishing electronic ways to hunt down people like laden.

    Obama and his cohorts actually were going after bush on these proven successes. Obama and John Kerry wanted bush impeached for crimes against humanity???!!

    Obama is a dork and a hypocrite.

    I'm glad bin laden is gone. I'm publicly thanking George w bush for implementing such a program that led to the death of laden.

    What's sad about this killing is Obama is using this as yet another photo op.

    Discusting.


    Why don't you have a nice tall glass of STFU?

    Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora, then later said he "didn't think about him much". Later in his administration he did away with the FBI and CIA "bin Laden" desks and called off the search.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 6:37 AM GMT
    New York Times
    May 3, 2011

    Bin Laden Raid Revives Debate on Value of Torture

    By SCOTT SHANE and CHARLIE SAVAGE

    WASHINGTON — Did brutal interrogations produce the crucial intelligence that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden?

    As intelligence officials disclosed the trail of evidence that led to the compound in Pakistan where Bin Laden was hiding, a chorus of Bush administration officials claimed vindication for their policy of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding.

    Among them was John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who wrote secret legal memorandums justifying brutal interrogations. “President Obama can take credit, rightfully, for the success today,” Mr. Yoo wrote Monday in National Review, “but he owes it to the tough decisions taken by the Bush administration.”

    But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    ************
    The rest can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?ref=scottshane
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 9:03 AM GMT
    theatrengym said... But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    NY Times has been downplaying this, as part of its policy of coloring the news according to its agenda. Several sources with direct knowledge have stated otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 10:20 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    theatrengym said... But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    NY Times has been downplaying this, as part of its policy of coloring the news according to its agenda. Several sources with direct knowledge have stated otherwise.

    One of the qualities that separates the good from the great players in games (and in many sports) is the ability to overcome the natural tendency to play against oneself. I have played bridge competitively most of my adult life (though less and less over the years) and I've seen it firsthand: we tend to assume that the opponent is doing whatever we ourselves would do in his position. Only most of the time he isn't. Until you really understand that, you can never be really great at a game.

    I've noticed that among the Republicans too. Fox News, for example, has been shown (via leaked emails) to deliberately distort their reporting according to dictates from the top. On-air talent has been directed to use certain words, avoid others, cover certain events in a particular way, etc. So our right-wing pals assume that the news organizations they dislike, notably the New York Times, operate the same way.

    Only they don't. They don't "color" the news, and there is no agenda except on the editorial page, where all newspaper display an 'agenda'.

    I have read statistics from third parties on percentage of positive versus negative stories run on different politicians and their placement to suggest NY Times extends their editorial policies to their news coverage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 12:16 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    theatrengym said... But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    NY Times has been downplaying this, as part of its policy of coloring the news according to its agenda. Several sources with direct knowledge have stated otherwise.

    One of the qualities that separates the good from the great players in games (and in many sports) is the ability to overcome the natural tendency to play against oneself. I have played bridge competitively most of my adult life (though less and less over the years) and I've seen it firsthand: we tend to assume that the opponent is doing whatever we ourselves would do in his position. Only most of the time he isn't. Until you really understand that, you can never be really great at a game.

    I've noticed that among the Republicans too. Fox News, for example, has been shown (via leaked emails) to deliberately distort their reporting according to dictates from the top. On-air talent has been directed to use certain words, avoid others, cover certain events in a particular way, etc. So our right-wing pals assume that the news organizations they dislike, notably the New York Times, operate the same way.

    Only they don't. They don't "color" the news, and there is no agenda except on the editorial page, where all newspaper display an 'agenda'.

    I have read statistics from third parties on percentage of positive versus negative stories run on different politicians and their placement to suggest NY Times extends their editorial policies to their news coverage.


    Please link to those third party sources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 12:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidPlease link to those third party sources.

    Numerous. Just google NY Times biased reporting. Not all links valid, but enough are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 12:44 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPlease link to those third party sources.

    Numerous. Just google NY Times biased reporting. Not all links valid, but enough are.


    No thanks. I'm pretty confident none of them would even approach being a valid source.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 12:14 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    theatrengym said... But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    NY Times has been downplaying this, as part of its policy of coloring the news according to its agenda. Several sources with direct knowledge have stated otherwise.


    It would be a waste of both my time and yours to try to persuade to change your opinion of the Times in general. But let's just deal with this article. Do you have any particular reason to doubt what's in the article?

    As a regular reader of the Times, I can tell you that one thing the Times is very good about is posting corrections to any errors in an article. None are posted there. If someone had written to the Times convincingly alleging an error, a correction would probably be there. People respond quickly in such cases.

    I may be missing them in my search, but there also don't seem to have been any letters to the Times questioning the conclusions of the article or any of the statements in the article. Again, people read the Times. Bush-administration officials read it, and they've never been shy about responding to articles if they see something they think they can rebut. But nothing so far.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 2:08 AM GMT
    theatrengym said
    socalfitness said
    theatrengym said... But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. . . .

    NY Times has been downplaying this, as part of its policy of coloring the news according to its agenda. Several sources with direct knowledge have stated otherwise.


    It would be a waste of both my time and yours to try to persuade to change your opinion of the Times in general. But let's just deal with this article. Do you have any particular reason to doubt what's in the article?

    As a regular reader of the Times, I can tell you that one thing the Times is very good about is posting corrections to any errors in an article. None are posted there. If someone had written to the Times convincingly alleging an error, a correction would probably be there. People respond quickly in such cases.

    I may be missing them in my search, but there also don't seem to have been any letters to the Times questioning the conclusions of the article or any of the statements in the article. Again, people read the Times. Bush-administration officials read it, and they've never been shy about responding to articles if they see something they think they can rebut. But nothing so far.
    The article is based on anecdotal narrative. "But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out." The statement is not supported by the rest of the article. The biggest error, however, is one of omission. The operation was run by the CIA. The current CIA Chief made the statement on NBC leading to this headline on the msnbc site "CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid".
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/
    Of all the people quoted Panetta's is the most authoritative, and for the Times to omit his input is very telling.

    UPDATE: After posting this, I noticed the Daily Caller noted the same thing.

    The New York Times ignores Panetta’s confirmation of waterboarding’s role in bin Laden killing in harsh interrogation story

    Apparently url too long to work as a live link. You can go to dailycaller.com and search new york times ignores

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/04/the-new-york-times-ignores-leon-panetta%E2%80%99s-confirmation-of-waterboarding%E2%80%99s-role-in-bin-laden-assassination-in-harsh-interrogation-story/

    I must agree that it would be a waste of time persuading me to change my negative opinion of the Times. This article reinforces my opinion that the Times is a rag with an agenda that extends to the front page.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 3:22 AM GMT
    Re: Torture.

    It doesn't matter if it played a small role in helping to find bin Laden. It's morally and ethically wrong, and in most cases does not provide good intelligence. It's also illegal and against the Geneva Conventions.

    Our intelligence agencies could have located him without it. Particularly, if they were allowed to do their jobs and not be wasting time mopping up Iraq.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 3:24 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    I must agree that it would be a waste of time persuading me to change my negative opinion of the Times. This article reinforces my opinion that the Times is a rag with an agenda that extends to the front page.


    Right... Because Tucker "If a gay guy came on to me, I'd beat him down" Carlson's internet toilet is a much more reliable source than the Times. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 5:27 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    The article is based on anecdotal narrative. "But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out." The statement is not supported by the rest of the article. The biggest error, however, is one of omission. The operation was run by the CIA. The current CIA Chief made the statement on NBC leading to this headline on the msnbc site "CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid".
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/
    Of all the people quoted Panetta's is the most authoritative, and for the Times to omit his input is very telling.



    But the article you linked is far from definitive in supporting the idea that waterboarding and other types of harsh interrogation procedures were the primary factor in leading to the information on where Bin Laden was hiding. From that article:

    "But was it harsh interrogation that led to the critical information? The identity and whereabouts of the courier came to light only years later, after the enhanced interrogation had stopped. ...

    "Critics say there's no way to know if enhanced interrogation methods led to that one crucial piece of intelligence.

    " 'To reduce this to the idea that one piece of fact here or there came from enhanced interrogation techniques and their use is really misleading the American public,' said Karen Greenberg, NYU Center On Law And Security.

    "Administration officials say it was multiple sources of intelligence and years of patient work that eventually led to bin Laden."

    And that article includes a link to another article, which can be read in full at http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42863247/ns/today-today_news/t/bin-ladens-death-rekindles-enhanced-interrogation-debate/. Here are some excerpts from the other article:

    "While some current and former U.S. officials credited those interrogations Monday with producing the big break in the case, others countered that they failed to produce what turned out to be the most crucial piece of intelligence of all: the identity and whereabouts of the most important figure in bin Laden courier's network. ...

    "It is unclear what Qahtani, who was captured in January 2002, told interrogators about the crucial bin Laden courier and whether he was fully honest. While Liz Cheney and other conservatives on Monday tried to portray the bin Laden raid as vindication of the intelligence community’s tough interrogations of “high-value” detainees, other details suggest that the most aggressive “enhanced interrogation” techniques -- including waterboarding, against other detainees, particularly 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed -- proved useless in learning the identity of the bin Laden courier. ... [emphasis added]

    "After Qahtani was subjected to some of the humiliating interrogations at Guantanamo that later became public, he started to cooperate and, for a while, provided a wealth of information about al-Qaida, including references to the courier in question, the U.S. official said. An October 2008 Defense Department document about Qahtani, identifying him as Maad al Qahtani, recently released by WikiLeaks, detailed a long history of involvement with al-Qaida, including spending time at training camps and guest houses in Afghanistan and fleeing with bin Laden through the caves of Tora Bora in November 2001. (Qahtani later clammed up, repudiated what he had previously said and stopped cooperating.)

    "In addition, a senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that both Mohammed, who was repeatedly waterboarded by the CIA, and al Libi, who was aggressively interrogated but not waterboarded, provided the nom de guerre of the courier. Mohammed was among the “high-value detainees” subjected to specially approved “enhanced” interrogations at secret sites overseas, including CIA-run prisons in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere, according to U.S. officials.

    "But U.S. officials stressed that none of the detainees at that point offered up the real identity of the courier. “All we had was the nom de guerre,” said the U.S. official. To one counterterrorism expert who has sharply criticized the CIA’s interrogations, the failure of any of the high-value detainees to provide the identity of the courier raises fresh questions about the value of the information the agency was receiving from enhanced interrogations.

    “ 'They waterboarded KSM (Khaled Sheikh Mohammed) 183 times and he still didn’t give the guy up,' said one former U.S. counterterrorism official who asked not to be identified. 'Come on. And you want to tell me that enhanced interrogation techniques worked?' "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 5:41 AM GMT
    I should add that I doubt anyone would dispute that harsh interrogation techniques — torture, if you will — can sometimes produce useful information. But there are some major issues with it. Several can be subsumed under the general category of moral issues. One major issue that does not fall into that category is a practical issue: Are harsh interrogation techniques the most effective way to get reliable information?

    And in the instance under discussion, there seems a good deal of reason to wonder why Bin Laden was found only long after such techniques were no longer being used. If those techniques were so effective, why wasn't he found long ago, when they were being used?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 9:05 AM GMT
    theatrengym said
    socalfitness said
    The article is based on anecdotal narrative. "But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out." The statement is not supported by the rest of the article. The biggest error, however, is one of omission. The operation was run by the CIA. The current CIA Chief made the statement on NBC leading to this headline on the msnbc site "CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid".
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/
    Of all the people quoted Panetta's is the most authoritative, and for the Times to omit his input is very telling.

    But the article you linked is far from definitive in supporting the idea that waterboarding and other types of harsh interrogation procedures were the primary factor in leading to the information on where Bin Laden was hiding. ...

    You appear to be trying to confuse the point by suggesting a premise that was neither made nor implied. Specifically, no one to my knowledge made the claim that enhanced, or harsh interrogation was the primary factor. There are three points that remain relevant: 1) Information obtained from persons who had been subject to enhanced interrogation aided in the successful outcome of the raid, 2) The Times article was significantly flawed by its unwarranted assertion that the techniques played a minor role, and by its omission of the most relevant source of information that did not support its assertion. 3) Such flaws for a front page article indicate not only flawed journalism, but also a bias.

    Just to elaborate a bit. The information available by the various statements does not present anything close to a complete mosaic of all that went into the mission. Imagine the information as trees with branches at all different angles. A branch leading to a sub-branch, leading to a sub-sub-branch can represent a piece of information that leads to another piece of information, etc. Information is of value if it uncovers a previously unknown fact, corroborates other information, casts doubt on other information, or completely refutes other information. In other words, the mosaic can be extremely complex. To know if some technique had a major versus minor impact, the mosaic would have to be known, and the specific branches resulting from that technique would be have to be compared with the others. The few, possibly random, statements in the Times article do not provide such a mosaic and supporting analysis. In fact, the degree of information made public is only a tiny part of the mosaic.

    I have not seen anyone state the techniques played a major role, and certainly statements, generally by the political left, that the techniques played a minor role are unwarranted. But to your initial premise defending the Times, this article only reinforces the opinion I and many others have that the Times is not a reliable source of objective reporting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 2:39 PM GMT
    IMAGE HTTP ADDRESS GOES HERE
    catfish5 saidHas the Republican/TEA Party become the Party of Perpetual Self-Pity?

    "Waaaaaa! Obama didn't mention Bush" Waaaaa! He didn't mention Cheney" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention Rumsfeld!" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention waterboarding" "Waaaaa! He didn't mention the intelligence infrastructure" "Waaa! He's only at ground zero for a photo op!" The "Waaaa!" party strikes again!

    No wonder "cry baby" Boehner has become the face of the Republicans. icon_lol.gif


    Screen-shot-2011-05-06-at-9_42_18-AM1.pn
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 07, 2011 2:43 PM GMT
    when you cannot fullfill the impossible campaign promises you made to the American voters to sukker in their votes; whinning and crying is all you have to go with.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    No but you've become the perpetual poster of idiocy
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    May 07, 2011 3:45 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidNo but you've become the perpetual poster of idiocy



    Oh, hmmmmm, I thought that was the OP of this thread? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 4:16 PM GMT
    UH OH. LOOKS LIKE I WOKE UP THE REPUBLICAN SHEEPLE!!

    Photobucket
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 4:29 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidUH OH. LOOKS LIKE I WOKE UP THE REPUBLICAN SHEEPLE!!

    The comments from non-liberals, be they Republicans or independents, have generally been thoughtful and reasoned. Contrast that with your own messages. I don't remember your messages specifically of a few months ago. As I vaguely recall, you certainly supported liberal positions, but I thought were generally civil and tried to apply some logic or history to your points. But the past few weeks, you have become whiny, baiting, seemingly hysterical. Sounds like you've gone off the deep end and are having some issues. Why not relax, try to make intelligent logical points. You will much further your positions, if that happens to be your intent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 5:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    catfish5 saidUH OH. LOOKS LIKE I WOKE UP THE REPUBLICAN SHEEPLE!!

    The comments from non-liberals, be they Republicans or independents, have generally been thoughtful and reasoned. Contrast that with your own messages. I don't remember your messages specifically of a few months ago. As I vaguely recall, you certainly supported liberal positions, but I thought were generally civil and tried to apply some logic or history to your points. But the past few weeks, you have become whiny, baiting, seemingly hysterical. Sounds like you've gone off the deep end and are having some issues. Why not relax, try to make intelligent logical points. You will much further your positions, if that happens to be your intent.


    My posts are mirror images of Riddler's and SB posts- except from a left wing perspective. They are modeled after the hysterical, whiny, baiting posts coming from the Righties on RJ. Just trying to make the RJ political forum a little more balanced. icon_lol.gif

    Look familiar?
    southbeach1500 saidYou've awakend the hens... here they come.....

    dn10619-1_550.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 5:15 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    catfish5 saidUH OH. LOOKS LIKE I WOKE UP THE REPUBLICAN SHEEPLE!!

    The comments from non-liberals, be they Republicans or independents, have generally been thoughtful and reasoned. Contrast that with your own messages. I don't remember your messages specifically of a few months ago. As I vaguely recall, you certainly supported liberal positions, but I thought were generally civil and tried to apply some logic or history to your points. But the past few weeks, you have become whiny, baiting, seemingly hysterical. Sounds like you've gone off the deep end and are having some issues. Why not relax, try to make intelligent logical points. You will much further your positions, if that happens to be your intent.

    My posts are mirror images of Riddler's and SB posts- except from a left wing perspective. They are modeled after the hysterical, whiny, baiting posts coming from the Righties on RJ. Just trying to make the RJ political forum a little more balanced. icon_lol.gif

    There are posts from the right that do bait, which can be defined as a making a point that will not be popular to the other side. But the posts by riddler, SB, and myself (e.g. thread on election arithmetic), among others, often report on articles from national publications. Even if they are not popular, and can invite refutation, at least they have substance - referring to threads, not some of the specific responses within a thread. Just some thoughts.