Liz Cheney vs. Norah O’Donnell: “The tactics are not torture”
posted at 2:45 pm on April 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A few days old but we’ve had a steady stream of requests for it. Hotline has the transcript; don’t quit before the end or you’ll miss her thoughts on Palin and Meghan McCain. Speaking of McCains, Maverick may differ with Cheney about whether waterboarding constitutes torture but they agree that a “truth commission” would be a very bad idea. A good question: “[Enhanded interrogation] was bad advice. But if you criminalize bad advice on the part of lawyers, how are you going to get people to serve, and what sort of precedent does that set for the future?”
Actually, here’s a better question: If we all know it’s going to happen anyway in certain circumstances, why not legalize it? Kathleen Parker, unsurprisingly, doesn’t get it:
In his book “Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age,” Dershowitz proposes that since torture is a given under those certain circumstances, then “torture warrants” should be issued by a judge.
He is right that most of us would do whatever necessary to save our child, possibly even torture a kidnapper. Likewise, if we stumbled upon someone trying to harm a loved one, we would kill the attacker if necessary to stop him.
But those are both darkly impassioned environments. It is by the cool light of day that we devise our laws. And it is by that same light that we judge our actions.
The law would protect you if you had to kill an attacker to stop him from killing, which is to say, it’s those “darkly impassioned environments” that law is most concerned with. Why leave a CIA agent in legal limbo if, however likely or unlikely it may be, he finds himself with a detainee in a ticking-bomb scenario?
Do yourself a favor after you watch the clip. Go listen to the archived audio here. Three minutes.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »
Quotation marks added.
baldilocks on April 26, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Nora, The Geneva convention isn’t just about Americans and what they want.
Also, it’s not all nice and poofie. It(they, conventions is plural btw as Cheney obviously gets) has things in it like bullets for clean kills, not to be merciful to the soldiers, but rather so armies mustn’t need to expend resources taking care of wounded.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM
I agree Liz is great. I wonder though, if she may be most effective behind the scenes. Unfortunately in American politics we like a good song and dance man to be on camera. The good people need to be doing the actual work that needs to be done.
deewhybee on April 26, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Touché. :)
baldilocks on April 26, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I think this video clip may be cursed. I was in the middle of watching it . . . and then my power supply just went kaput. Had to drive all the way to Best Buy to buy a replacement.
eaglescout1998 on April 26, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Now there’s some dedication. . . but if the nick is correct then it really goes without saying . . yet I said it . . hmmm
MirCat on April 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM
MSNBC has an actual countdown clock for Obama’s 100 days?
Give me a frickin break.
catmman on April 26, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Liz is a very cogent speaker. She doesn’t let the interogater, er, interviewer get out in front of her.
Big John on April 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I think that’s a terrible idea.
First, I don’t want judges with the power to “torture”. They already rewrite our laws at will. They’ve got too much damn power already.
Second, “the bomb is ticking” scenario is laughably far fetched. Some people seem to forget that 24 is fiction.
Third, its just not necessary. Simply outsource high value target interrogations to an ally that isn’t squeamish about roughing people up. And by roughing people up, I’m not talking about allowing anything sadistic. Merely waterboarding, sleep derprivation, and other sorts of “stress and duress” techniques that cause liberals to wet their pants (at least when they’re not the ones ordering such things).
We would obviously want to closely supervise such interrogations. More to insure that we capture every piece of actionable intel than to monitor the welfare of the detainee.
Mike Honcho on April 26, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Not a bad idea.
HornetSting on April 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Now on any give summer day kids are in a swimming pool and they decide to push you under the water also know as: dunking is that torture. If it is we should arrest all the kids who dunk because it is in effect waterbording. If you think about it this way I am not sure it is torture. Yes it is severely uncomfortable but torture I am inclined to think it is not torture.
Clyde5445 on April 26, 2009 at 8:42 PM
It is sad how many conservatives have swallowed the argument that the ends justify the means. Is that what these people think conservatism means now: keep us safe, Big Government, at any cost?
I thought it was liberals who thought that way?
Well, if safety is your only concern maybe you should join the liberals and start supporting things like mandatory seat belt laws and mandatory bike helmet usage. I am sure that would save more lives than a typical terrorist attack. You should also ban guns too. And here’s an idea: how about requiring people to wear safety helmets when they take a bath (slipping in the bath is a very common cause of injury!). Sure, it may mean losing a little freedom, and you will look like a jackass, but you safety-first conservatives have already given up your honor, so what’s the big deal?
You may think this is all irrelevant. But it isn’t. People defend the “aggressive interrogations” by asking stuff like “wouldn’t you do anything to save your child?”. The answer is yes, but there is a world of difference between acting in self-defense in the heat of battle and coldly torturing someone to find information that may statistically save lives some time down the road. The latter is sacrificing American values and ideals in exactly the same way that liberals sacrifice freedom for some statistical idea of safety.
Let the liberals think like that. Conservatives should hold to the eternal verities of honor and the rule of law. We can beat these Islamist lunatics without sacrificing our principles.
TrueNorth on April 26, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Liz Cheney speaks a lot better than Hopey can ever achieve,
thats,as in,’Articulation’!
This Torture Circus,is all about distraction on a grand scale,and allowing the MSM to control the news cycle,
unless the Mexican Flu goes into a full blown crisis!
WaterBoarding isn’t torture,Liberals only want to revisit
this,as a way to go after the Republican Party,or anyone
on the right!
Liberals have signed off on this,all Liberals knew this!
Its nothing but a Lefty Kabucki Dance,Part 2!!
canopfor on April 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM
We need a few more Liz’s………….she was great!
Cinday Blackburn on April 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Second, “the bomb is ticking” scenario is laughably far fetched. Some people seem to forget that 24 is fiction.
Come on now, it certainly has credence. The nuclear bomb scenario perhaps is a bit out of the realm at this point (though getting closer by the day), but what if it were an attack on a school somewhere, or a bomb in a major metro area, or a chem or bio attack on a transit hub?
All of those and more are “ticking bomb” scenarios that would give anyone pause, and reason to put the screws to a suspect.
Bishop on April 26, 2009 at 8:59 PM
baldilocks, you’ve always struck me as rational and non-fundamentalist in your Christianity, but that post makes you officially a fundamentalist loon…sorry.
Don’t agree with everything in it, but good post TruNorth…won’t get much traction around here though I’m afraid.
dakine on April 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
TrueNorth on April 26, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Now all you need to do is climb down and define “aggressive interrogation” and “torture”.
Bishop on April 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Dear baldilocks, keep up the good work.
Loxodonta on April 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Getalife, please play attention to TrueNorth, this is how you have a constructive debate on the topics, not your infantile three word sentence posts. I don’t agree with what he says, but at least he has an actual point to make.
ManInBlack on April 26, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Jefferson said it better than I ever could, TrueNorth.
ManInBlack on April 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Ask a liberal, what is worse………………
Then stand back………
………… heads have been known to explode.
Seven Percent Solution on April 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Bullshit, this absurd canard is the substance of individuals who have never been confronted by genuinely violent people.
doriangrey on April 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
The Left will use torture,its used every day!
Its called Liberal reasoning!
canopfor on April 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
There FIFY
Jamson64 on April 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM
There FIFY
Jamson64 on April 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Apt Jefferson quotation ManInBlack. There comes a point when the evil of torture is overridden by the evil which it seeks to prevent. I have wrestled with this ever since the “aggressive interrogation” policies were made public years ago. I also agree with whoever said that “The constitution is not a suicide pact”. In this age of nuclear weapons, I can well understand the logic that leads people to come to a different conclusion than I have. I do not blame George Bush and Dick Cheney. I like and sympathize with the people who are arguing for the policy a lot more than I do with the moral preening of the opposition, most of whom I find obnoxious.
However, it doesn’t change my mind. I think that the Bush Administration was wise to end the water boarding of suspects in 2005. I disturbs me that so many conservatives have become invested in supporting a policy that even George Bush abandoned years ago. As someone who argues with liberals on a regular basis, and knows what they think of conservatives, it pains me to see so many on my side so eager to fulfill the liberal stereotypes of them.
TrueNorth on April 26, 2009 at 9:47 PM
getalife,
typical liberal living off of others labor in a fantasy world of relativity,
I remember ManlyRash self banned and did not lie or try to rationalize his way back in he started his own blog and left the looser trolls that inhabit this one
dhunter on April 26, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Why confuse what conservatives desire with the policies of the Bush Administration? HE DID NOT GOVERN AS A CONSERVATIVE.
daesleeper on April 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM
As I read through these comments, I seem to note an abundance of allegedly “informed opinions”, mostly from those on the leftward spectrum.
I’m curious, how many Hot Air commentators have undergone SERE training? How many writers have had any of these interrogation practices performed on them?
Personally, I’ve undergone SERE training. Though I wouldn’t wish to repeat it, I consider viewing the MSNBC night time lineup far more painful.
jack herman on April 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM
To be perfectly honest, if someone masterminded a plot that brought down the WTC and killed thousands, I don’t care what happens to him or how much pain he feels.
He deserves to die a thousand miserable, anxious, wet your pants, painful deaths!
If you think I’m a meanie, who cares.
clnurnberg on April 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Geez.
getalife on April 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM
So where’s your definition of patriotism?
Still waiting.
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Still waiting for one of our libtrollbuttboys to answer my torture question from days ago:
Name me another interrogation technique that you call “torture” which has been performed 183 times in a month on a single detainee, which did not result in any physical injury or death.
Just one, sissies.
Jaibones on April 26, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I’m late getting to the party, but Liz Cheney eviscerated that brainless PMSNBC nitwit. She left her drooling ass face down in the gutter.
Jaibones on April 26, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Another question for our Leftists
Let’s assume Ozzie bin Laden is still alive. Even that premise is specious, as there have been no credible sightings of him since late 2001. If he could prove he was alive, he would have been able to make a video holding up a recent newspaper headline. He hasn’t been able to do even that in 8 years.
But that is beside the point.
If SuperMan O’bama captures bin Laden, should he be waterboarded?
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Waterboarding was done. Now let us define if it’s torture and bring on the show trials. All of this wringing of the hands, some saying it is right and some saying it is wrong is moot. Define it and get it out of the way.
Democrats brought this up again to score points so bring it on and see what the majority of Americans think. It’s time to call the bluff and watch the cowards retreat.
Vince on April 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
From the US Law written in 2007… which was more stringent than the one in force when the Waterboarding was done…
Notice to rise to torture, “means the prolonged mental harm caused by”…
Waterboarding does not cause prolonged mental harm, or we certainly would not be doing it to our own troops in training…
Ergo, even under this law, it can easily be argued that Waterboarding is NOT torture.
The Left keeps trying to say it is, as a Fact, but just like the Global Warming debate, they blow right past any evidence to the contrary and use the “consensus” vice legal, or scientific, arguement.
Romeo13 on April 26, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Hey, is getalife commenting again? Didn’t take a vow of silence because of so much hate? I saw him commenting yesterday in the Headlines.
WTF? He’s worse than Obama. It reminds me of Kramer’s vow of silence on an episode of Seinfeld. That lasted a long time too.
BuckeyeSam on April 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM
I’m happy to disappoint you. /quote
Thanks. You too. :)
baldilocks on April 26, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Maybe, but people forget the events of those times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/19/opinion/op-allison19
The whole thing that annoys me about this debate-people forget the context of the time of when it happened. The months following 9/11 were a lot more chaotic than people, particularly the left want to remember:
Rumors of tactical nukes on the loose that were taken very seriously, as evidenced by the piece I linked above, as well as other incidents:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/1833_long_quote_coming_up
The strange and never adequately explained anthrax incident where it seemed that someone had obtained an incredibly effective and stealthy instrument for assassination, one that had the potential to create unbeliveable chaos.
Rumors of Al Qaeda suicide hit squads armed with various weapons. Col. David Hackworth was a big proponent of this possibility, as I recall. Make of that what you will.
We still don’t completely know how much of this stuff were false alarms or what the story was. Obviously the government at the time felt there were a lot of potential threats out there. And that was a pretty bi-partisan feeling.
I still remember the fearful looks on the face of Senators,
Democratic and Republican, I saw interviewed on TV at the time. I saw real fear in their faces, enough fear that it very profoundly scared me. I know fear, and I saw it in their faces and it made me wonder what they knew that I didn’t. There was an awful lot of unspoken fear in the air back then, and probably some of it (at least) was justified.
This whole controversy just demonstrates to me more of the cynicism of this administration. This isn’t about torture, lawlessness or future investigations, the purpose here is cynically political, to increase their political capital for the future by building a narrative, one that isn’t really reflective of history.
And that is truly dishonest. They may have bitten off a little too much, however, because I don’t think the narrative is going to be as easy to control, as they thought.
Dreadnought on April 26, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Yes, yes she did. I’m late too. I remember when Norah pretended to do straight interviews instead of using them as a soap box to preach on. It is so sad to see the state of the media in this country…
It seems to me that every every every effort was made to avoid crossing the line into torture and still get the information needed.
Winning this argument would be more intellectually satisfying if Pakistan and their nukes weren’t about to fall to the Taliban and we didn’t actually need any more Intelligence to win the battles ahead. But as it is. This is tragic.
petunia on April 27, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Cheney/Palin ‘12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ProudPalinFan on April 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Heads intact. Limbs intact. All appendages intact. And no funny business with the genitals. What’s your problem? Some water in a terrorist’s nose?
I want these CIA people on that wall.
BuckeyeSam on April 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I agree. Strange, I think the lefties who wanted this out there thought the number of times the waterboarding happened supported their argument of torture… In reality it begs the question, “If it was so harmful how could it be done so much with no damage?”
And Cheney’s argument that this is done in training our own soldiers… and reporters volunteer to try it…it can’t be torture can it?
Hey, whatever happened to that guy from Foxnews who was waterboarded?
Ummmm maybe I don’t want to know.
petunia on April 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Those fearful looks were because they were scared shitless that the American people might actually wake up and realize that the reason Al Queda’s attack was successful was because of the criminal and corrupt political machinations they were responsible for. They were briefly genuinely afraid that American citizens would hold them personally responsible because they were playing politics with American national security and it got 3000 Americans killed.
Fortunately for them the bind bogglingly corrupt mainstream media came to their rescue and lulled the American people back to sleep and pulled a “Oh look… a puppy” on America and diverted America’s attention from the real problem, political corruption.
doriangrey on April 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM
What exactly is the definition of torture that we’re working from here? And could there be different answers regarding the legality vs. the morality of an technique like waterboarding. Seems to me like it might be illegal under certain definitions, but isn’t necessarily immoral…
I just want to know what is torture from those who condemn waterboarding and the other techniques in the Bush memos.
darii on April 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Here ya go… link to the latest law on torture… one the Dems and McCain rewrote in 2007.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
Problem is that Congress wants to direct folks to just use the Army Training manual version, which basicly says that even yelling at a prisoner could be torture… but that is ina training manual and NOT the Legal definition…
Whole debate is a crock as far as I’m concerned… Left wants to consider everything torture, and yell and scream that we’re meany heads… but like with Global warming, they never bother to prove anything… just yell and scream… as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.
Romeo13 on April 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM
…
NightmareOnKStreet on April 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM
So what do you think of Black Jack Pershing’s method of handling terrorist? Was that torture?
Johan Klaus on April 27, 2009 at 12:38 AM
I think it was more than that. They had the look of people who were scared for their lives. I had the feeling they were nervous about having to hang around Washington, D.C., at all. Whether, in retrospect, they had reason to be fearful or not, I don’t know. But I’m convinced that fear was there.
Dreadnought on April 27, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Liz Cheney did a yeoman’s job on this issue, and on her presentation in such a hostile environment.
Well done.
batterup on April 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM
I think that I detect a reading comprehension problem,
and, maybe a wee bit of disdain for fundamentalist Christians.
Johan Klaus on April 27, 2009 at 12:49 AM
That proves that the left is guilty of torture. Just listen to them go berzerk almost every time that they are in a debate.
Johan Klaus on April 27, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I’ve been trying to put together a little list that may help us define it. Here’s what I’ve got so far, with various activities sorted into “Torture” or “Not Torture” based on whether liberals have angrily denounced them as torture or not:
Torture
Putting a wet towel on a terrorist’s face to make him feel the sensation of drowning
Hard slaps to a terrorist’s belly
Keeping a terrorist awake at night with loud music
Speaking in a threatening manner to a terrorist when his lawyers are not present
Not Torture
Burning innocent civilians to death in the wreckage of a collapsing building
Forcing civilians to jump hundreds of feet to their deaths to escape from fire
Slashing the throats of stewardesses with a box cutter
Sawing off the head of a journalist with a knife while filming the event and chanting slogans
Killing children with a bomb disguised as a soccer ball
Killing civilians by raining rockets down on top of them
Deliberately launching attacks from behind civilians so they will be killed in retaliatory strikes
Feeding people into paper shredders
Maintaining rape rooms for the pleasure of your psychotic sons
Slaughtering civilian populations with chemical weapons
Murdering people with clouds of flaming hot shrapnel from roadside bombs
Abducting soldiers on guard duty, holding them hostage, and then murdering them
Blowing the limbs and heads off civilians with explosive devices detonated in crowded subways
Feel free to add some more items to the lists if you can think of them. Maybe if we build these lists up, we’ll finally have enough evidence to pore over and draw some firm conclusions about what constitutes “torture.” If you’re looking at the items I listed above and thinking the only thing that seems to separate the Torture and Not Torture lists is whether or not American soldiers engaged in the activity under the command of Republican presidents, shame on you for questioning the patriotism of our lefty friends and suggesting they would turn the War on Terror into a political game. I’m sure if we accumulate some more data, we can discern a more complex, less infantile and disgusting pattern to liberal thought on this weighty issue.
Doctor Zero on April 27, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Oh you just ooze tolerance and inclusion, doncha?
soundingboard on April 27, 2009 at 3:06 AM
When I think of torture, I think of inflicting physical pain on another individual. Waterboarding does not cause physical pain. The only thing it does is make the person feel a temporary sense of panic.
eaglescout1998 on April 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM
Liz Cheney did great. She was articulate, and she did not let O’Donnell blur her discussion on why waterboarding, as had been done on three terrorists (not alleged, mind you; they are terrorists in my belief no matter what the MSM / Democrats say) is not torture.
I totally agree with one or two commenters here that Liz Cheney is a better speaker than Obama. No uhs, no ahs; she spoke with clarity that even getaclue would understand.
I look forward to more of Ms Cheney’s interview with the MSM (BO) sycophants so she could put them in their place!
mz.josephine on April 27, 2009 at 3:58 AM
You know everyone.
When Getalife comments and everyone responds to getalife’s posts.
Getalife is laughing. The attention must be…. such a tingle.
The more outrageous getalife’s comments are, the more getalife getacomment.
Howbouts, we let getalife, getanoreply
Kini on April 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM
Awww…poor Norah. Why she gets totally unhinged whenever someone speaks against her beloved Barack. How dare that Liz Cheney utter such blasphemies against The One? /sarc
I thought Norah’s head would explode at certain points in the interview. LOL!
Liz Cheney rules! :D
sarahpalinfan99 on April 27, 2009 at 5:54 AM
the bush depression is over.
we are protected by obama.
cons are evil racists.
all cons should GET OUT.
soundingboard on April 27, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Her head did explode long ago.
She’s Keith Olberman’s sock puppet
Kini on April 27, 2009 at 6:03 AM
“civilization is a sanctuary in a wilderness of barbarianism, a sanctuary that exists only because someone has cleared it, and continues only because someone continues to hold the borders against attack. If we are able to avoid barbaric behavior in the civilized world, it is because we hold the barbarians at bay at those borders. And that means that we must fight at least as effectively as they do. That we can kill without personalized cruelty better than the barbarians can allows us to avoid that personalized cruelty most of the time, but if we shrink from it when it is needed, the barbarians will choose that kind of war simply because we refuse to fight it–and they will win. And there will be no civilization”
njcommuter on April 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM
+100
No truer words were spoken. Most people want to hide their heads in the sand and deny the realities of the real world. We failed to react appropriately to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (Btw KSM financed that terrorist act also). That is why we were easy targets for 9/11.
sarahpalinfan99 on April 27, 2009 at 6:08 AM
Just a comment about the “ticking bomb” scenario and people who think it could never happen or say it’s just a hypothetical situation. Obviously, they forgot about the attack in Mumbai last year. One of the terrorists was captured at the beginning of the attack. Gee, does anybody think he might have pertinent information that might be useful? Maybe things like how many terrorists are there, what are their targets, what are their intentions and goals? There’s really not enough time to build rapprt and develop a sense of dependency on the part of the terrorist right then.
Anybody here want to argue that it’s better to allow innocent civilians to die, than to waterboard or otherwise discomfort this terrorist in order to find out as much information as possible? There were multiple teams, each with their own assignments, and the attack itself went on for days before the last terrorists were killed or captured. I’d waterboard him right there in the hospital while he was strapped down to the guerney. Someone explain why that would be wrong.
Dan859 on April 27, 2009 at 7:11 AM
dan859: suits the hell out of me.
kelley in virginia on April 27, 2009 at 7:44 AM
L.C. pwned N.O.
Never let the mediabot frame the (wrong) arguement.
Nice.
bluelightbrigade on April 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Taliban are just a few miles away from Pakistan’s nukes now.
Iran could already have a bomb (according the IAEA)
North Korean economy is based on arms selling & they need cash
…people better believe the ticking bomb scenario is real, BUT…the lesson of the Obama Admin’s new distraction w SEVER YEAR OLD Bush-hate scandals is: next time, just let the people die/do not torture.
scottm on April 27, 2009 at 8:20 AM
The argument that Americans will be more harshly treated by the Taliban when captured if we keep waterboarding their people would, if it were not so patently offensive, be amusing.
Norah’s not a journalist, and she’s not an interviewer. She’s a political hack (like most of the folks on MSLSD). Whether or not people who occupied serious policy-making positions should dignify this nonsense by participating is a fair question; still, Cheney did a good job making her point, notwithstanding efforts to talk over her.
morganfrost on April 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM
This is type of clarity and articulation we need in our conservative political leaders and candidates. Lynn Cheney exhibits the quiet strength of her father and her mother… and man, did she ever dust Norah O’Donnell… LOL
D2Boston on April 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Compare Liz to Rep Ryan’s remarks about how conservatives in his district need a psychiatrist. She has stones – he doesn’t. Go Liz!
Cinday Blackburn on April 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Actually, in the actual cases of waterboarding we’re discussing, it’s not at all far-fetched. KSM knew of an impending attack, and all he would say is “you’ll find out”. A few days of waterboarding sessions, we find out that the target is the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and we roll up the terrorists tasked with destroying it.
hawksruleva on April 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Conservatives are supposed to be skeptical of government, EXCEPT when it comes to torture, if the government says they don’t torture then they don’t torture. Case closed.
What happened to the conservative movement? Bush completely turned them into big government security first types. Bush was the ultimate stealth op. Sent to destroy the conservative movement and he succeeded. The noose gets tighter and tighter as we continue to accept all things in the name of security.
We have some serious soul-searching to do.
True_King on April 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I bet Liz Cheney is not invited back.
bridgetown on April 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Nora got her *ss kicked, Liz is on top of her game, the best most logical defense of tactics I have heard.
and:
I thought you banned yourself…don’t tell me you lied about that also.
You are just a big fat liar…Squeaky the Animal Farm pig is back.
My response to you is a simple: Oink!
right2bright on April 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I lived in the DC area until 2004. In 2003 there was a long story in the Washington Post about Al Qaeda that made the hair stand up on my neck. It quoted an anonymous CIA source saying “they will be back, and they WILL KILL THE WHITE HOUSE.” These folks at CIA know a hell of a lot more about this terrorist network than any of us armchair quarterbacks do. Either we trust them, or we are screwed.
rockmom on April 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM
What, are you a 9/11 Truther? Did nothing change in your worldview as a result of 3000 innocent Americans being ruthlessly slaughtered? Because a lot changed for me that day.
rockmom on April 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM
You do realize (and you do, you just want to ignore it), that these tactics are employed on hundreds of our armed forces each year. That they have never been deemed “torture”.
So you are saying we are “torturing” hundreds of our military personal, and they are what, now walking and working for us because we “tortured” them?
We are skeptical, and when reasonable arguments like “we use these same exact tactics in training, and have developed them on our own men to know the exact limits”, then we have discerned that these tactics have value.
We don’t use a “knee jerk” reaction to some “trigger word” like torture and buy into the propaganda…you did and do.
That is the difference between most of us, and you who are so easily manipulated.
right2bright on April 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I am pretty sure Nora ain’t inviting her to her next cocktail party.
right2bright on April 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Wow. That Cheney girl is great. She kept the argument focused, rather than letting that airhead O’Donnell muddle it up w/ topic changers.
thebadoutlaw on April 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Can someone tell Nora to SHUT THE F’ UP!!!!
Frances on April 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Those who continue to condemn waterboarding can you ever come up with an alternative to it so we don’t have to lose a city, is it not about time that we hear these alternatives? Nice said he is in a hurry for Hannity to do the waterboarding but I am in a hurry to hear the leftists alternatives.
garydt on April 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Liz Cheney is my new favorite person. While Nora was getting hysterical, Liz was articulating the argument and keeping it as the focal point. Beautifully done, immensely informative, and a perfect example of non-rhetorical, issues based engagement even in the face of a shrill and unbiased hag.
GoodSamaritan on April 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Go Liz!
Cinday Blackburn on April 27, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Yep. People forget what those times were like.
Here’s another tale of fear, this one from Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2001/dec/05/features11.g2
A lot of chaos back then, and nobody quite knew what to think.
Dreadnought on April 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I happened across a “special issue” of Newsweak magazine that was done shortly after 9/11. It was hallucinogenic to see the brief flash of moral clarity coming from the Left.
Of course, that lasted about 15 minutes, then they were back to hating America again.
Del Dolemonte on April 27, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Not Torture
Sucking the brains out of an 9 month old fetus
We really live in an upside down culture when 1/2 it’s population (ie. liberals) say that putting caterpillars into the cells of ruthless terrorist murderers is barbaric and immoral, but the freedom to abort an innocent partially born infant is some type human right.
frank63 on April 27, 2009 at 12:55 PM
So is there a world of difference between acting in self-defense in the heat of battle and blowing up people who are not at the time on the battlefield by means of predator drones? Having snipers deliver head shots to 3 Somali pirates who haven’t shot anyone? In both these cases, the rationale was to save lives ’some time down the road’, even though there is no certainty, statistical or otherwise, that any lives would be lost without these actions being taken. In the the former example I use, we know that the predator actions have resulted in the loss on noncombatants’ lives.
Can you explain the difference? I’m sincere, I really am trying to understand your moral argument, particularly given that in the case in question, no terrorists’ lives were lost or at any time in real jeopardy.
ProfessorMiao on April 27, 2009 at 1:35 PM
First of all get-a-clue you probably couldn’t get laid in a whore house let alone win anything!
As for you ruling something you may want to answer the numerous questions posed to you on HA with something of substance like facts, logic, and reasoning other than the lame memes you constantly espouse, until then the only thing you rule is the fantasy land you live in!
Liberty or Death on April 27, 2009 at 1:45 PM
This entire debate is INSANE! Shouldn’t he be issuing damning speeches about Truman’s bombing of Hiroshima and FDR’s firebombing of Dresden??? What is wrong with everyone?? It’s war, for Pete’s sake!
Oh, wait. It’s an “overseas contingency operation”.
Never mind!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/hl-4398753/saturday_night_live_weekend_update_emily_litella_on_violins_on_tv_season_1/
gocatholic on April 27, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Liz is great. Strong and tough. Like her parents.
I know she’s a America hater…but I can look at Norah O’Donnell all day.
LtE126 on April 27, 2009 at 2:42 PM
In all my years reading and commenting on Hot Air, this is by far the most condescending and ignorant comment I have seen thus far.
To find a real loon, dakine, take a look in the mirror. No, that will not get traction around here for one simple reason, conservatives believe in arguments from facts, and common sense. Something that is frightfully missing in our MSM today – as could be glaringly shown in that video.
The only suggestion I would make to Miss Cheney is, do not allow the leftist questioner to define the terms of the argument! Conservatives allow this every time! When O’Donnell first read the statement that Cheney corrected as being “inaccurate,” she should have immediately said, “I’m sorry, Norah, but what you just read is a lie. Would you like to reverse yourself?” Conservatives have got to learn to be aggressive with these people – as Clinton was with Chris Wallace, so should we be with the likes of this woman. People watching these things are generally unable, or unwilling, to keep up with the flurry of points being made, but they will have no problem seeing one person getting flustered by being forced to defend their obviously specious argument.
STOP BEING NICE, IT IS TIME TO GO FOR THE THROAT WITH THESE PEOPLE!
Joe Pyne on April 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Is anyone else getting sick of hearing anything from or about McCain’s daughter, as I am?
BillCarson on April 27, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Yeah, me!
Her shelf life expired a few weeks ago – enough already! She does not represent Republcanism, Conservatism, or any credible policy institute. What she is is a daughter of a sitting Senator of modest influence, and a functional air head, so what relevance is she to these discussions?
Joe Pyne on April 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I tried to explain this to leftists traitors yesterday but none of them actually got it.
1. Waterboarding is not considered torture under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which has a MUCH more strict criteria that either Federal of State’s Law.
2. Waterboarding is conducted in SERE, used by our military to train Special Operations, Pilots, etc to the tactics out enemies might conduct on those military personel that might be captured.
3. If waterboarding WAS torture it could NOT be conducted in SERE under the UCMJ.
The stupid leftist comment that waterboarding in SERE is to train our military personel to resist torture is beyond foolish. You just cannot train anyone to resist having fingers and limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, flaying, having nails driven in one’s body and your head being cut off.
Leftists, KNOW what you are talking about before you make bigger fools of yourselves.
nelsonknows on April 27, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Say goodnight, Meghan McCain. You’re no more relevant now than your father the Senator.
rtsidedragon on April 27, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Getalife does not rule this blog because she is unable to answer questions and only repeats herself over and over the same platitudes. The real bloggers who own this are the ones who answer the difficult questions. So as long as they can’t answer then they don’t rule.
garydt on April 27, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »