Question for Kookie

Dom1 · #31 (**permalink**) 12-21-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican

It wasn't an issue THEN STUPID.

Thats the whole point humpty, now you are catching on.

#32 (**permalink**) 12-21-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

BINGO!!!!!

woo another one of oceans excellent posts.she has yet to make an intelligent contribution to any forum. just think of her when you pay your taxes. she is who we are all supporting.

Dom1 · #33 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican

It wasn't an issue THEN STUPID.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Thats the whole point humpty, now you are catching on.

Again humpty, that is the whole point. You may not have realized it, but you accidently stumbled on the point, great job. Fact is, you don't give a fuck about torture, neither does Kookie, you two just care who is condoning the torture. If it is a Dem you don't care, which means you don't really give a shit about torture either. You are frauds.

Dom1 · #34 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Dom,

I'll try to answer your question.....it depends (how's that for a fuzzy liberal answer

). But, seriously, I know where you are going with this....Clinton and his acts of rendition. But, it does depend....not all acts are the same. What laws were violated (US laws and UN/international treaties signed and approved by the US) and what were the mitigating circumstances? For example, say we had custody of some dude that blew up a bomb killing many Saudis in down town Riyadh....and the Saudis wanted him. What do you do? It makes sense that the Saudis may eventually capture people we want. Do we scratch their back???

That isn't what heppened and you know it.

A better example is we are after a 'person of interest' on some act that heppened to us and we find the guy in Italy. We then fly his ass to a ship in the Med and decide what to do with him. We limit ourselves to three choices, one being send him to Jordan for a thorough and only slightly painful interrogation, two we send him to Syria where they will get a little more creative with the 'interrogation', or three we send him to Egypt where the SSI (I think that is their name) hook up electrodes to his nuts and get the information they want. After they are done he is fed to crocs in the Nile or something along those lines.

The above is what rendition often entailed Norman, don't try to sugar coat it. If you are against torture you are against torture.

marmalade6 · #35 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

Yes ALL Presidents should be charged...........Well except Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton.

And Ike would never have condoned torture in his theater.

marmalade6 · #36 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

I think impeachment for lying, too....Bush lied when he said he wasn't torturing...then it turns out he is torturing..then the tapes are destroyed...smells like Nixon and it's a lie Clinton.

I was thinking impeachment also, for all the broken laws as well as the lies.

Dom1 · #37 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

I was thinking impeachment also, for all the broken laws as well as the lies.

So what is the answer to the question of should all presidents who had condoned torture been removed from office?

marmalade6 · #38 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

So then you don't think that torture is a reason for removal from office then, right? Or are you saying that some torture is OK but after 'X' amount of torture it is too much?

So Kookie, how many people can a president have tortured (and in Clinton's case, killed and they knew it was going to happen) before it is too much?

Actually, I accomplished what I wanted to. Kookie is now saying that some torture is OK but after an undetermined amount of torture it isn't OK. Now she can tell us how much torture is allowable.

I didn't post this thread to make a point about Bush, I made it to point out Kookie's hypocrisy. I now have her on record saying some torture is OK. She says it is OK when Clinton does it, and he did do it through rendition, she is just too fucking stupid to find out more - even the ACLU was upset with him about it.

What ever Cookie's response, it will be beyond your comprehension, so it seems.

marmalade6 · #39 (**permalink**) 12-22-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

So what is the answer to the question of should all presidents who had condoned torture been removed from office?

Just Bushy!!!! No justification needed.

Dom1 · #40 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

What ever Cookie's response, it will be beyond your comprehension, so it seems.

Actually, I understood it very well. She, like you, doesn't think it is all that bad for a Democrat to condone torture, only when a Republican does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Just Bushy!!!! No justification needed.

Just like I said above, torture isn't a big deal to you at all. To you it is only a partisan issue and only bad when one party condones it. You are a fraud and you admit to beign a fraud.