Utopia Talk / Politics / re: cia memos.. Surprise! Cheney Lied

Ninja Member	Tue Aug 25 15:16:35 http://tpm...lie_cheneys_claims.php?ref=fpa Big Surprise: Torture Memos Belie Cheney's Claims By Zachary Roth - August 25, 2009, 11:13AM It's hardly news that Dick Cheney isn't likely to win any prizes for honesty any time soon. But yesterday offered yet another exhibit in the case. During the debate over torture this spring, Cheney claimed that CIA memos, which he had asked to be declassified, would prove that torture proved effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report. And, surprise surprise, they don't begin to show what Cheney said they did. The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees, particularly Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, gave up useful information during debriefing sessions. But nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture. Indeed, as Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent shows, most of the evidence suggests they came through traditional interrogation techniques. As Spencer puts it: "Cheney's public account of these documents have conflated the difference between information acquired from detainees, which the documents present, and information acquired from detainees through the enhanced interrogation program, which they don't." It's no wonder that in his response to the memos' release, Cheney is reduced to playing silly semantic games that a reasonably intelligent junior high-schooler could see through. "The documents released Monday," said Cheney in a statement, "clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda." That's true, but it's totally different from Cheney's earlier claim -- that the documents would show it was the EITs themselves that elicited the information. Human rights organizations are making similar points. Gitanjali Gutierrez of the Center for Constitutional Rights said the documents "don't make the case for torture, they only show that the CIA is able to tailor documents to justify its actions after the fact." And Tom Parker of Amnesty International added that the memos "are hardly the slam dunk we had been led to expect. There is little or no supporting evidence in either memo to give substance to the specific claims about impending attacks made by Khalid Shaik Mohammed in highly coercive circumstances." Over at the Plum Line, Greg Sargent makes a good additional point. The mainstream media trumpeted Cheney's lies about what the documents show. But now that they've been made public and they contradict his claims, most reporters seem to have lost interest. And, no doubt, when Cheney or his daughter want to go public with their next set of self-justifying crap, they'll be welcomed as authorities, as if none of this ever happened.
kargen Member	Tue Aug 25 17:09:02 How do we know he lied. Sure the documents were released, but there are still huge portions of it that are blackened out. Cheney wants the entire document released. For now that hasn't happened.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 17:24:08 Ninja, why don't you post the documents themselves rather than an opinion piece by The Muckraker.
Ninja Member	Tue Aug 25 18:35:48 documents were linked through the source. http://was...-cheney-says-vindicate-torture ipaper format so you'll have to go view them
Ninja Member	Tue Aug 25 18:38:34 http://was...little-cover-for-cheney-claims For months, former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that two documents prepared by the CIA, one from 2004 and the other from 2005, would refute critics of the Bush administrationâ??s torture program. He told Foxâ??s Sean Hannity in April: â??I havenâ??t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country,â?? Cheney said. â??Iâ??ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.â?? Those documents were obtained today by The Washington Independent and are available here. Strikingly, they provide little evidence for Cheneyâ??s claims that the â??enhanced interrogationâ?? program run by the CIA provided valuable information. In fact, throughout both documents, many passages â?? though several are incomplete and circumstantial, actually suggest the opposite of Cheneyâ??s contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIAâ??s interrogations. The first document, issued by the CIA in July 2004 is about the interrogation of 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and whom, the newly released CIA Inspector General report on torture details, had his childrenâ??s lives threatened by an interrogator. None of that abuse is referred to in the publicly released version of the July 2004 document. Instead, we learn from the July 2004 document that not only did the man known as â??KSMâ?? largely provide intelligence about â??historical plotsâ?? pulled off from al-Qaeda, a fair amount of the knowledge he imparted to his interrogators came from his â??rolodexâ?? â?? that is, what intelligence experts call â??pocket litter,â?? or the telling documentation found on someoneâ??s person when captured. As well, traditional intelligence work appears to have done wonders â?? including a fair amount of blundering on Khalid Sheikh Mohammedâ??s part: In response to questions about [al-Qaeda's] efforts to acquire [weapons of mass destruction], [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] revealed that he had met three individuals involved in [al-Qaeda's] program to produce anthrax. He appears to have calculated, incorrectly, that we had this information already, given that one of the three â?? Yazid Sufaat â?? had been in foreign custody for several months. This is a far cry from torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into revealing such information. It would be tendentious to believe that the torture didnâ??t have any impact on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed â?? he himself said that he lied to interrogators in order to get the torture to stop â?? but the document itself doesnâ??t attempt to present a case that the â??enhanced interrogationâ?? program was a factor, let alone the determinant factor, in the intelligence bounty the document says he provided. The second newly released document â?? a June 2005 overview of information extracted from detainees â?? is, if anything, more caveated. In making a case that â??detainee reportingâ?? was â??pivotal for the war against [al-Qaeda],â?? it says that â??detainee reporting is often incomplete or too general to lead directly to arrests; instead, detainees provide critical pieces to the puzzle, which, when combined with other reporting, have helped direct an investigationâ??s focus and led to the capture of terrorists.â?? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the prime example here. The document also discusses unraveling the network of Indonesian al-Qaeda affiliate Hambali after Khalid Sheikh Mohammedâ??s capture. There are repeated references to the value of â??debriefings,â?? which the 2004 CIA inspector generalâ??s report says are distinct from the â??enhanced interrogation techniquesâ?? but can be used after they occur. For instance, â??Debriefings of mid-level [al-Qaeda] operatives also have reported on specific plots against U.S. interests.â?? Indeed, in a section titled â??Aiding Our Understanding [al-Qaeda],â?? a listed example is: Abu Zubaydahâ??s identification early in his detention of [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] as the mastermind of 11 September and [al-Qaeda's] premier terrorist planner and of â??Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri as another key [al-Qaeda] operational planner corroborated information [REDACTED]. Those revelations, as former Abu Zubaydah interrogator Ali Soufan has testified, came before Abu Zubaydah was tortured. Similarly, the document contains accounts of how interrogators performed the traditional interrogation labors of cross-checking detaineesâ?? accounts with each other to determine veracity, and particularly when cross-referenced with â??large volumes of documents and computer dataâ??: For example, lists of names found on the computer [REDACTED] â?? a key [al-Qaeda] financial operative and facilitator for the 11 September attacks â?? seized in March 2003 represented [al-Qaeda] members who were to receive funds. Debriefers questioned detainees extensively on the names to determine who they were and how important they were to the organization. The information [REDACTED] helped us to better understand al-Qaâ??idaâ??s hierarchy, revenues, and expenditures, [REDACTED] as well as funds that were available to families. Again, perhaps the blacked-out lines of the memos specifically claim and document that torture and only torture yielded this information. But whatâ??s released within them does not remotely make that case. Cheneyâ??s public account of these documents have conflated the difference between information acquired from detainees, which the documents present, and information acquired from detainees through the enhanced interrogation program, which they donâ??t. In a statement, Tom Parker, the policy director of Amnesty Internationalâ??s American branch, said, â??Perhaps unsurprisingly, given Vice President Cheneyâ??s track record, the two CIA memos released today are hardly the slam dunk we had been led to expect. There is little or no supporting evidence in either memo to give substance to the specific claims about impending attacks made by Khaled Shaik Mohammed in highly coercive circumstances.â??
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 18:40:39 As kargen stated, there are large portions blacked out. Let's wait until we see the whole document before we make a final decision on who is lying.
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 19:03:32 Why do you want to wait for something that won't happen?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 19:04:15 Why do you rush to judgment?
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 19:21:29 "rush to judgment? " Bush's WMD claim is a rush to judgement. I am just asking you why are you asking people to wait for something that is not going to be release for a long time as your argument when there are no other evidences to support it?
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 19:24:58 "As kargen stated, there are large portions blacked out." Kargen is a spinster, it's his job to say that. Fact remains the evidence says cheny lied. And now the burden of proof rest with you to show other wise.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 19:35:36 What proof, do you mean the portion that is not blacked out? If they tried to use a document like that against a murdering Islamic terrorist you would be apoplectic.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Tue Aug 25 19:38:33 I don't understand how people post opinion pieces and expect people to consider it factual. Please post real news articles if you want to convince anyone.
MrPresident07 Member	Tue Aug 25 19:45:20 So fat people are more mature. LOL!
mexicantornado Member	Tue Aug 25 19:45:53 It is what these morons do, post 10 opeds a day believing people bother to read it. Why don't you guys post your own opinions and defend them yourselves instead of basing your opinions on the backs of people who aren't here to argue the points?
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 19:54:33 "What proof, do you mean the portion that is not blacked out?" Yes they are blacked out to make Cheney and Bush look like a evil liars. Is that what you are saying?
roland Member	Tue Aug 25 19:54:50 "I don't understand how people post opinion pieces and expect people to consider it factual. " Take note, HR.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 20:00:21 NeverWoods - Yes they are blacked out to make Cheney and Bush look like a evil liars. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that *YOU KNOW* what is under those blacked out portions? I don't. roland, I seldom post an op-ed. I frequently post my opinion, which is sometimes wrong though. Big difference.
The Bear Jew Member	Tue Aug 25 20:11:19 You post your opinion and pretend its fact. Then get pissed off when someone actually provides you something factual which makes your opinion wrong. Then you throw a fit. Then you stop listening only to resort to childish insults and childish antics. Then you play "I'm the victim" card. Then "leave". Then a new thread is started by you or you participate in another thread and the process starts all over again.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 20:17:11 And you hide behind a new tag like a weaselly little shitfaced coward. I would rather be me than you any day. Have a nice one. :)
NeverWoods Member	Tue Aug 25 20:18:57 "Are you saying that *YOU KNOW* what is under those blacked out portions?" could be this HR: http://www...hread=22339&time=1251249058204
Lt. Aldo Raine Member	Tue Aug 25 20:21:55 "And you hide behind a new tag like a weaselly little shitfaced coward." But I'm right.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Aug 25 20:23:48 Did you notice the last post. This is still an opinion piece because it was *supposedly* written by an IG that did not identify himself nor did he supply evidence.
Purvis Member	Wed Aug 26 05:57:18 Testimony is opinion piece these days? Lol
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 06:06:13 The Obama Administration has already fired one IG for not toeing the line. I think that casts doubt on anything an IG may say in the future. An IG is supposed to be independent and able to tell the truth without fear of reprisals. Obama has tossed that concept in the crapper. How can you trust an IG after that?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 06:07:02 And it was not "testimony" it was a report.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 06:33:39 "Are you saying that *YOU KNOW* what is under those blacked out portions? I don't. " Its not exectly a secret, old pederast. "The blacked-out portions hide the Inspector General's findings on the circumstances that led to the deaths of at least three of the detainees in the CIA's program, the official said. Two of the men reportedly died in CIA in Iraq and the third died in Afghanistan." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8410340 "This is still an opinion piece because it was *supposedly* written by an IG that did not identify himself" Wtf are you talking about? IGs name was Helgerson, iirc. It doesn't really matter, though. To date, there is not a single confirmed example of any imminent threat to US, a plot that was disrupted because of the information given under torture. Contrary to Cheney claims. There are numerous examples of prisoners spilling out information before the torturers arrived, after being interrogated without use of torture. "An IG is supposed to be independent and able to tell the truth without fear of reprisals. Obama has tossed that concept in the crapper. " Idiot, this is a 2004 report. What reprisal? From Bush? "The Obama Administration has already fired one IG for not toeing the line. " Stop lying, old pederast. He was removed because the entire bi-partisan board of Americorps asked for his removal, after reviewing his job. And after the complaint from Bush-appointed US Attorney who said that IG 'overstepped his authority by electing to provide my office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth".
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 06:38:54 "Idiot, this is a 2004 report. What reprisal? From Bush? " From the time travelling Obama, the same one who went back in time to post the ads on the newspapers.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 06:50:25 CR - Idiot, this is a 2004 report. What reprisal? From Bush? Stopped reading there. "Big Surprise: Torture Memos Belie Cheney's Claims By Zachary Roth - August 25, 2009, 11:13AM" "Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report."
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 06:54:48 Yes, you miserable old cretin, 2004. What reprisals should the retired IG fear? From whom?
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 06:55:12 ""Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report."" There is a key phrase and that phrase would be..... ALONG WITH THE CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT. The report, written in 2004 by Inspector General John L. Helgerson, outlines brutal interrogation techniques, such as choking, shackling and waterboarding, used against terror suspects in secret overseas prisons. It includes an appendix on medical and psychological support, noting that medics were responsible for monitoring the health of the detainees subject to enhanced interrogation techniques. Want the link, or should this suffice?
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 06:56:34 "Stopped reading there. " LOL, this is quite deep into my post. Nothing more to say, old pederast? :)
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 06:57:40 You better pretend that you gtg, Rod.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 07:26:11 I was responding to the opening post. There is no indication when the IG's report was written. I am not going to research every OP, to learn every esoteric detail about the subject, before posting.
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 07:26:33 "Yes, you miserable old cretin, 2004. What reprisals should the retired IG fear? From whom? " He envisioned back in 2004 that Obama will win the presidency and then set up the death panel to euthanise him?
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 07:29:07 "There is no indication when the IG's report was written. " Its all over the news, old pederast. Let this be a lesson to you. What Fox and Friends did not mention it? And stop lying.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 07:36:34 roland, "The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees..." The OP does not say when the IG's report was written. CrownRoyal, I seldom watch any news after 5:00 PM Central.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 07:38:41 "CrownRoyal, I seldom watch any news after 5:00 PM Central. " Is that the reason for your horrendous ignorance?
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 07:42:04 "The OP does not say when the IG's report was written. " Isn't that your job to establish the correct context in the debate? And even if you are unsure, should you ask? And do you know you can enter any search term to google other than "obama socialist kill grandma"?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 07:52:43 roland - Isn't that your job to establish the correct context in the debate? And even if you are unsure, should you ask? LOL, you have got to be kidding. That does not even deserve ridicule.
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 07:56:43 "That does not even deserve ridicule. " Of course, the following would deserve to be ridicule more. "...An IG is supposed to be independent and able to tell the truth without fear of reprisals. Obama has tossed that concept in the crapper..."
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 08:00:43 There job is to be a whistle blower. Obama fired an IG for blowing the whistle on one of his big contributors. And we discussed that in detail in this forum. CR, Want to bet I watch more news than you do during a given day?
NeverWoods Member	Wed Aug 26 08:09:03 "And we discussed that in detail in this forum." Lets reopen it then, because i missed that.
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 08:22:06 "I am not going to research every OP, to learn every esoteric detail about the subject, before posting." This explains why you are most of the time. You comment about shit you do not know nor take the time to research to make an informed post. Then when pointed out you fucking bitch about it.
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 08:22:34 This explains why you are wrong most of the time.*
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Aug 26 08:24:49 Obama fired an IG for blowing the whistle on one of his big contributors. " I told you to stop lying. Care to get spanked again, old pederast?
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 08:26:00 "Obama fired an IG for blowing the whistle on one of his big contributors. " I am going to LMAO literally speaking. You do know that the CIA is a different organisation to AmeriCorps? And the CIA IG has nothing to do with the AmeriCorps IG. And this report has nothing to do with Obama other than the fact that the court order it to be released. You are obviously too lazy to do anything research, how can you expect to form a coherent argument if you just threw all your fox leftover talking points together?
president bush Member	Wed Aug 26 08:26:21 Every time I log on, someone is owning the bejeezus out of HR. lol
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 08:33:18 Do any of you know what an IG is and what their function is. Do you really think the AG is doing this without an OK from Obama? I don't think so.
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 08:34:40
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 08:35:49 "I am not going to research...to learn every esoteric detail about the subject, before posting" I think you're done. It is time for you to leave.
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 08:39:57 Hot Rod, Hot Rod!!! Let me spell this out for you if you can't read. The one that fired by Obama is the Inspector General of AmeriCorps. The one that wrote this report was the CIA's Inspector General who was serving Bush btw. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERSON! SERVE TWO DIFFERENT AGENCIES!
Hot Rod Member	Wed Aug 26 08:41:35 If I do, can I hold you to the same standard? Thought not. If you are too cowardly to post a tag we recognize without making a new one every five minutes, I doubt you have any personal standards beyond making a fool of yourself.
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 08:42:33 "I am not going to research...to learn every esoteric detail about the subject, before posting" I think you're done. It is time for you to leave.
doRtoH New Member	Wed Aug 26 09:07:54 .flesruor fo loof a gnikam dnoyeb sdradnats lanosrep yna evah uoy tbuod I ,setunim evif yreve eno wen a gnikam tuohtiw ezingocer ew gat a tsop oot yldrawoc oot era uoy fI .ton thguohT ?dradnats emas eht ot uoy dloh I nac ,od I fI
The Bear Jew Member	Wed Aug 26 09:16:19 ^Brilliant!
Randal Graves Member	Wed Aug 26 12:24:46 "I am not going to research every OP, to learn every esoteric detail about the subject, before posting." You can't be serious?
roland Member	Wed Aug 26 18:43:39 ttt
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 12:50:40 rg, how many articles do you read, on average, about an Opening Post *BEFORE* you make your first post? 8, 10, 20, how many? Just the OP?
purvis Member	Thu Aug 27 13:02:10 Lol...Just what was this esoteric detail?
roland Member	Thu Aug 27 18:18:06 Why are you avoid talking about the IGs, HR?
hoER Member	Thu Aug 27 18:22:12 lol...
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 18:42:06 The esoteric detail is there is nothing in the OP that *says* the IG wrote the report in 2006, or whenever it was written. I guess I was supposed to go onto the internet to find *another article* that says when the IG wrote the report. "Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report. And, surprise surprise, they don't begin to show what Cheney said they did. The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees, particularly Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, gave up useful information during debriefing sessions. But nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture." I don't mind being ridiculed when I deserve it, but this time the ignorance is on the other side of the aisle.
roland Member	Thu Aug 27 18:55:44 But... but.. he fired the AmeriCorp IG in 2009, so that the CIA IG who wrote this report in 2004 would fall into line. How can we trust this report from the CIA, huh? "I don't mind being ridiculed when I deserve it, but this time the ignorance is on the other side of the aisle. " Cheney said: "...There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity..." It doesn't. As you read from the quote. "nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture"
Randal Graves Member	Thu Aug 27 20:34:21 "rg, how many articles do you read, on average, about an Opening Post *BEFORE* you make your first post? 8, 10, 20, how many? Just the OP? " Well that really depends. But let's be honest, not everyone can know -everything- about every topic or subject. I do not pretend that I do, there are some things I say just because of my curiosity, but if its something that I do have some knowledge on and there are some descrepensies I see in the subject. I take some time and do a quick research on it to either debunk or show more support. What is the recurring theme we have on here HR? People always request for sources and that means that yes, people are held to a certain point to read up more about the subject or do some research. Hence why I was flabbergasted when you made the comment.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 21:17:42 "Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report." What is there in that sentence to tell me that the IG's report was written years ago?
Randal Graves Member	Thu Aug 27 21:21:37 Are you asking me?
Randal Graves Member	Thu Aug 27 21:31:44 I guess you are asking me. Well, let's go back to the OP. "Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report. And, surprise surprise, they don't begin to show what Cheney said they did. The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees, particularly Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, gave up useful information during debriefing sessions. But nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture. " I guess the second paragraph there would indicate when. I could be wrong.....:shrugs:
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 21:38:09 Be flabbergasted all you like. "people are held to a certain point to read up more about the subject or do some research." I agree with that, but *NOT BEFORE* you respond to the OP. We learn as the thread unfolds, no one in their right mind will research an OP before they make their first response unless they see something they *KNOW* to be wrong. Then they might, just might, do some research so they will have a link when they challenge the OP. But to claim someone should research a subject before responding to an opening post, when the have *NO REASON TO DOUBT* what is in the opening post, is just plain ignorant.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 21:41:58 "The memos, from 2004 and 2005..." It says the *MEMOS* from 2004 and 2005. It says nothing about when the IG report was written. There is nothing there to say the IG did not write the report five minutes before it and the memos were released.
Randal Graves Member	Thu Aug 27 21:47:11 "I agree with that, but *NOT BEFORE* you respond to the OP. " The issue is though if you are going to make an argument about the OP and you shown that you are wrong because either one, you are just flat out incorrect or you clearly are ignorant about what the subject is about. It would be fair to say that probably you should have gotten a little more background about it before you made your argument against it. "We learn as the thread unfolds, no one in their right mind will research an OP before they make their first response unless they see something they *KNOW* to be wrong." I disagree. "But to claim someone should research a subject before responding to an opening post, when the have *NO REASON TO DOUBT* what is in the opening post, is just plain ignorant." As I've said before, if the argument that you make against the OP/subject/topic is wrong or you continously keep making the same mistakes or incorrect assessment shows your ignorance and it would be better for you to have done some research before participating in the discussion. This is of course you choose to participate, that's why it would be prudent. Instead of looking like a jackass and then get pissed off when someone points it out.
Randal Graves Member	Thu Aug 27 21:54:05 "It says the *MEMOS* from 2004 and 2005. It says nothing about when the IG report was written. There is nothing there to say the IG did not write the report five minutes before it and the memos were released." This is where you use your critical thinking skills to deduce when the IG report was released. Go back to the sentence where it reads; Well, yesterday, >>those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report.<< The phrase that sticks out towards me is "...along with the CIA IG's report." Then the second paragraph comes in; "The memos, from 2004 and 2005..." Sure it says memos, but using some critical thinking skills you could have deduce that the IG report was release during the same time-frame. And if you were uncertain, it shouldn't be a big deal to do a quick google search. The whole subject was about those reports from that time and the most probable likelihood when that report was done was during that time.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 22:47:29 rg - It would be fair to say that probably you should have gotten a little more background about it before you made your argument against it. I would agree had they named the IG that wrote the report, or when, or had the IG written the article. But, how often do you see an unsourced *expert*, or unnamed official who is full of crap or very probably made up. How often do people post op-eds from the ny times as fact. Why should I expect anything truthful from something called the muckraker. And look at that scathing comment I made about the validity of the OP, "Ninja, why don't you post the documents themselves rather than an opinion piece by The Muckraker." And then look at that purely radical right wing slur I made, "As kargen stated, "there are large portions blacked out." Let's wait until we see the whole document before we make a final decision on who is lying." BTW, no one else seemed to be aware of when the report was written either because no one mentioned it until CrownRoyal did 13 hours after I made my first post. To hold someone up to ridicule for not knowing something is just pure meanness and there is no excuse for it.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 23:00:16 "Sure it says memos, but using some critical thinking skills..." I am through with you and your semantics. You claim you are not delude or Byron, but you latch onto some dubious phrase and swear *I should have known* just like they do. Whether you are or aren't you are certainly in the same class. So go change your name again so you can try to sucker me into another of these "discussions." Discussion, that's a laugh. A discussion is an attempt to arrive at the truth which you have no intent of doing. Go someplace and rot please.
roland Member	Thu Aug 27 23:08:29 "How often do people post op-eds from the ny times as fact. " Lol, and you don't post op-eds? Here's 2 in one thread. http://ata...hread=22381&time=1251331135081 "BTW, no one else seemed to be aware of when the report was written either because no one mentioned it until CrownRoyal did 13 hours after I made my first post. " No one say something about it doesn't mean no one aware there is a report. Big difference. "To hold someone up to ridicule for not knowing something is just pure meanness and there is no excuse for it. " But you have continue to make a big ass out of yourself by continue with this lunacy, randomly throwing new allegations like the Obama firing of AmericaCorp IG has something to do with the report without even trying to cross check it.
yankeessuck123 Member	Thu Aug 27 23:11:24 Generally speaking, if Cheney makes a claim, I would assume he's lying.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 23:22:52 Seton Motley is the Director of Communications for the Media Research Center. Sounds like he is a little more than an editorial writer. I would say he has done some research on his subject. Of course, if you can disprove his writings I am more than willing to listen.
roland Member	Thu Aug 27 23:47:10 "Sounds like he is a little more than an editorial writer. I would say he has done some research on his subject. " Lol, so editorial writers doesn't do research for their writing, is that what you are trying to say? That piece he wrote is not news, it is his own opinion, this's exactly what a ed-op is. This guy is just another conservative political pundit. Your argument is completely flawed. If the professional title define what you wrote, why don't you can give yourself a professional sounding title too, that would be your thump card in any argument.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Aug 27 23:52:28 Believe what you want about him, but debunk hios article instead of just ranting about him. Besides, I have stated in the past that I post op-eds on occasion, but not that often.
roland Member	Thu Aug 27 23:59:26 "Believe what you want about him, but debunk hios article instead of just ranting about him. " What is there to debunk? The point I am making is you post an op-eds all the time, while you critise others. I don't have to prove his opinion is correct or otherwise. If you want to counter that, perhaps you should first understand my argument, and then think about how it can be falsify.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Aug 28 00:07:58 Well, I guess first I need to know what you think an op-ed is? This is what I consider an op-ed. Which by the way stands for*opinion editorial.* "a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, essayists, humorists, etc., of varying viewpoints: the Op-Ed of today's New York Times." "Of or being a newspaper page, usually opposite the editorial page, that features signed articles expressing personal viewpoints." Word Origin & History op-ed 1970, page of a newspaper opposite the editorial page, usually devoted to personal opinion columns. The thing itself pioneered by the Pulitzers in the New York "World."
roland Member	Fri Aug 28 00:16:30 Lol, I suppose this is the third stage of Hot Rod here. "Well, I guess first I need to know what you think an op-ed is? " If you want to go into semantics, the OP here is not a newspaper source, so are you saying the OP is not an op-ed?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Aug 28 00:20:06 You can take that up with Dictionary.com, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition and the Online Etymology Dictionary, who researched the origin of the word. I'm going to bed.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Aug 28 00:21:29 No, the OP is not an op-ed, I was mistaken.
roland Member	Fri Aug 28 00:26:10 "You can take that up with Dictionary.com ...." Why? When we are dicussing this, we included all op-eds as in newspaper or news site on the internet, blogs, etc... forms. Dictionary.com didn't deceptionally narrow the context of the word in this discussion. You did. "I'm going to bed. " 5th stage of Hot Rod completed.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Aug 28 05:34:16 roland - we included all op-eds as in newspaper or news site on the internet, blogs, etc... forms. What part of "No, the OP is not an op-ed, I was mistaken" is tripping you up? Is the words "no" or "not" or "I was mistaken?" Why don't you go find a dead horse to kick? And it was 12:21 AM when I went to bed. Even I have to sleep sometimes.
roland Member	Fri Aug 28 06:11:20 "Is the words "no" or "not" or "I was mistaken?" " I didn't know you responsed, because the page doesnt refresh itself in real time. The last post I saw at the time is you were going to bed. Which brings another interesting point, does that mean newspaper opinion piece is evil, internet blogs are trustworthy?
hoER Member	Fri Aug 28 06:48:50 Not for a second did I believe Cheneys claims about what was in those documents.
Randal Graves Member	Fri Aug 28 07:11:18 "I am through with you and your semantics." Why are you getting so angry. It is what people must do with they are in any situation to derive to a decision. Not everything is going to be spelled out to you. In some situations you are going to have to think. Now since it was pointed out that the IG report was written in 2004 were the people that point it out wrong for doing so? Would it have also been wrong since they figured it out and had to go find the source to prove it to you, that you probably should have asked if you were uncertain or probably searched it yourself? This has not stopped you during other times. So why are you getting angry about this? "You claim you are not delude or Byron, but you latch onto some dubious phrase and swear *I should have known* just like they do." Ok, Mr. Inquisitor, as I've said before, not them, but if it pleases you in some sort of way to say that I am them, go ahead. I guess it will ease the torment that must burn inside of you to think that I am them. But this is nothing more but a distraction from what we are talking about. I am sure posters have uttered same sentiments before and have been completely different people. But I am not going to keep fighting you on this because it is pointless. "Whether you are or aren't you are certainly in the same class." What 'class'? Look, you are the one that asked me the question and I answered it. Sorry that it does not please you because maybe you were hoping for some sort of 'support' or whatever the hell you were trying fo find. I cannot help that there are other posters who may share the same view as I have or sentiments. "So go change your name again so you can try to sucker me into another of these "discussions."" Um, okay? "Discussion, that's a laugh. A discussion is an attempt to arrive at the truth which you have no intent of doing." The truth was already arrived at because it was determined when the IG report was written. As for the other crap, this is nothing more than attempt by you to play victim. I suppose this would be stage four, how observant the UP Guide person was. "Go someplace and rot please." This was uncalled for and I must ask, are you bipolar?
The Bear Jew Member	Fri Aug 28 07:37:03 I can definately see Stages, 3, 4, and 5. LMAO!
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: