GOP senator criticizes White House torture stance (Chucky Hagel Again)

CNN ^

[indianrightwinger]

GOP senator criticizes White House torture stance Bill would ban inhumane treatment of detainees

Sunday, November 6, 2005; Posted: 2:17 p.m. EST (19:17 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator said Sunday that the Bush administration is making "a terrible mistake" in opposing a congressional ban on torture and other inhuman treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said many Republican senators support the ban proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.

The ban was approved by a 90-9 vote last month in the Senate and added to a defense spending bill. The White House has threatened a veto, but the fate of the proposal depends on House-Senate negotiations that will reconcile different versions of the spending measure. The House's does not include the ban.

Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption for prisoners held by the CIA if preventing an attack is at stake.

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture," Hagel, R-Nebraska, said on "This Week" on ABC. "Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know."

McCain, citing the Senate vote as well as support from the public and from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and others with military service, said he will push the issue with the White House "as far as necessary."

"We need to get this issue behind us," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday." "Our image in the world is suffering very badly, and one of the reasons for it is the perception that we abuse people that we take captive."

[Angelas]

"I am ashamed that he is from my State..."

I am ashamed also; so we know there are two Nebraskans that should be polled....

[Linda Sandoval]

I'm also from NE & will be calling him tomorrow. The only time he speaks is to attack the president. He and McCain would not dare attack a dem. How does he expect to run for president if he can't carry his own state? What's really going to be funny is when something happens & everything turns around for W (and it will) and all the demwits + backstabbers like Hagel/McCann look like idots. It will happen.

[indianrightwinger]

The reason the Senate vote was overwhelming is becuase once it was put to vote, no politician can come across as someone who favored torture. So, the idiot who created the the proposal and put it for vote in the Senate and the house are the real culprits.

While the Senators can play politics and vote yes without major consequences, the Whitehouse, which really OWNs the execution and accountability for WOT cannot afford to take the same symbolic posturing position.

Does that help??

[Soul Seeker]

I'm simultaneously reading the threads on each of the nitwit Senators' comments.

Hagel, let me spell out the reason why he would VETO this. WE WANT TO WIN THIS DAMN WAR AND PREVENT LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES! You DAMN FOOL! I do not care if they torture the most twisted evil mind on the planet, nor do the American people. If it's a question of their life, and a murderer's, they'll vote to make the murderer's a nightmare in exchnage for valuable information.

And, for the record, there are only nine Senators in that body that are worth the efforts our troops are engaged in on the battlefield. And you aren't one of them.

[Soul Seeker]

Wrong.

Nine politicians were willing to protect this country and voted against it. Evidently some don't care how the media spins it, because not passing a 'protect the terrorist bill' was of more concern.

There is no excuse for what they have done, no rationalistion. As far as I'm concerned none are qualified to sit in that W.H., saving the nine, as a result of that vote. Though Hagel and McCain weren't qualified before the vote.

[stocksthatgoup]

Hagel is a clown

[Recovering_Democrat]

That doesn't address the question and your response was not appropriate. My question was not a loaded one.

My response was appropriate. Why do you refuse to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Itzlzha]

For all those interested...This Thread has a LOAD of info on Hagel...and how he's conmnected to the Islamazis (at least peripherally) at The Holy Land Foundation and other areas that are aginst America and our interests...look especially at Fedora's work like this post, reposted here as it is...

"There have been some major Alamoudi updates since I wrote this, and my notes on this are a bit disorganized at the moment, so I'm pinging piasa for help pulling that information up as I think he's been keeping track of that. The Muslim organizations you're talking about would be the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation, I believe. I believe this may also relate to your very interesting post on Aburdene and Hagel. For instance see this thread indicating Hagel's interest in the topic:

THE ROLE OF CHARITIES AND NGO’S IN THE FINANCING OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE ^ | AUGUST 1, 2002

Dr. Wiktorowicz, invited at the request of Senator Hagel, is an acknowledged expert on Islamic culture, including charities, and will discuss the scope of the problem and the importance of charity in the Muslim community."

And then there's this mind-blowing record of Hagel's pro-Islamazi activities...excerpted here...

"The AIC is playing host to a gala at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on March 13, where it will honor Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), the only Republican openly to criticize Bush for his "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.

Also invited, according to AIC, are Sens. Biden and Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.). Biden's staff insisted that the AIC had announced his participation prematurely and that no final decision had been made."

Fedora, piasa and ravingnutter, you have done some amazing work linking Hagel to pro-Islamazi and anti-American activities...perhaps a recap here for FReepers might be in order?

Hagel is so far up McStain's butt, when Hagel talks, you smell what McStain had for lunch yesterday...if McStain stopped short, Hagel (and Lindsay Graham) would need a glass belly button installed in McStain, just to see forward again!

[Moolah]

Of course it makes sense. lol

The thing no one has addressed is what I was looking for; "define torture".
What is torture? Torture to one is not torture to another.

I'll admit for me I could care less what they do with someone they think they can get info to save American lives. I don't care, we aren't going to beat these terrorists being politically correct.

[moose2004]

The MSM will tout Hagel as the ideal vice presidential candidate. I can't think of anything more nauseating than McCain/Hagel, and if that is our ticket I'm not voting.

[johna61]

As they say Just Say NO To RINOS.

[indianrightwinger]

You are exactly right. I was not expanding upon the actual vote, which was indeed 9 against. Only making a point that politicians are in the game of CYA, and find it hard to oppose such measures because they fear the media. I believe even Allen and Frist voted in favor.

[indianrightwinger]

I will actively work to defeat the ticket.

But, before we get there, we should defeat these clowns in the primaries. Let the games begin.....

[Mila]

"George Allen is looking better and better every day."

Yes, Allen may very well be a viable candidate for 2008, but his views on prisoner torture seem a bit murky to me. Yesterday, both he and Jay Rockefeller were on CNN and, among others,this topic was discussed. He said that torture causes the person who is tortured to become even more spiteful and hateful toward the torturers. Basically, he said something to effect that we should prohibit torture, but still protect America.

[conserv13]

Just something we learned from the Abu Ghraib "scandal" that was created by the DemocRATS and their toadies in the MSM.

The Abu Ghraib scandal was caused by soldiers torturing detainees, taking pictures, and passing those pictures around.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If you say so hoss. I really don't consider those college pranks depicted in those photos as "torture." Now having your head hacked off with a dull knife, THAT'S TORTURE.

[Lloyd227]

Not that it's worth anything, I agree with you about Hagel

however, I believe that at this stage, we're all missing the real point of this public debate.

I know this is vane, but I just emailed my sons with a prediction based on this very story.

Bush has not been quite as vocal as Cheney on the topic and when he does speak, he does not clearly call for an exemption for the CIA. Bush just sticks to the line that in accordance with Geneva Convention, we do not torture "prisoners of war".  He says that we operate 100% within international law and treaties on the topic, even treaties we may not have officially agreed to......  etc.. etc...    my point here is that Bush is not quite giving the same message as Cheney, but you would not necessarily notice any major difference in their stand. 

 

To the press,  "the Whitehouse" is against this ban on torture as something that's just not necessary.  

 

Now.......   first of all.....  how big of a deal is this to the average American?   I suspect it's of only minor importance to most... for one, we assume that in the right circumstances, people in certain positions (like a CIA operative out in the field) will simply ignore the ban when it's necessary and/or just turn the prisoner over to another country and watch them take care of the dirty work.  I really don't think this congressional ban is a real issue to most of the people on the street.... it's a fabricated issue designed to let certain players stake out a position......   and give them something to talk about and emphasize differences.

 

and then comes Condi Rice.   We now have a very public disagreement being talked about in the media between our Secretary of State and our Vice President.  Condi is adamantly opposed to the exemption that Dick Cheney wants for the CIA.  She takes Bush's position but steps it up just one small notch by clearly disagreeing with the Vice President whereas Bush's position is a bit more fluid on the topic as he has not clearly supported Cheney's position.  The exemption for the CIA is clearly Cheney's desire and neither Bush nor Condi are supporting it,  Condi is actively speaking against it. 

 

What's going  on here (if anything at all)?   Are these just normal topics of public policy and nothing to read too much into?   I think it's something else entirely......  

 

My prediction....   on 7 November 2005:

 - Before Christmas, Dick Cheney will resign / retire and Bush will appoint Condoleezza Rice as the first female and first African-American Vice President of the United States.

 

What we are watching is a very public spat between Condi and Dick and between some GOP members and "the Whitehouse".  This is all fake / staged. The very debate itself is fabricated just to give them something to disagree about and to give Bush the beginning of some reasons to choose sides.  Recent events such as the Libby indictment and the general unpopularity of Cheney are already heading this direction anyway.....  but the bottom line is the GOP has no one strong enough to run in 2008 other than Rudy.   Many in the party do not like Rudy (even if I happen to think he'd be great) and this is the slow build up to making a viable candidate out of Condi.   (the book by Dick Morris certainly didn't hurt either). 

 

 

[Lloyd227]

Here come the attack dogs, like a choreographed performance....

Deep rift developing over U.S. torture policy

Cheney at center of debate over torture

Sources: With policies under fire, Bush-Cheney relationship cools

Dubya-Cheney ties frayed by scandal

Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy

And an interesting analysis from "The Moderate Voice"

Story On Cheney Defending Detainee Policy Suggests His Shaky Status [snip]

"It can mean one of several things (or a combination of several):

• Discipline in the usually-disciplined Bush administration has broken down so much now that they allowed a story basically glorifying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and sandbagging Dick Cheney to get into the Washington Post.
  
• It was calculated to clip Cheney's wings (or, some critics would say, horns) so that he has less power within the administration for the next three years.
  
• He's being positioned as the key person to blame in Plamegate with the Prez likely being painted in a "I had no idea" kind of light.
  
• Cheney's in serious trouble and all the pure speculation that we could get an announcement about him leaving for health reasons may one day prove accurate.

One thing is for certain. This story starts to try to put as much distance between the Oval Office and Dick Cheney as New Delhi and Oriskiny Falls, New York"

 

  Cheney is out - Rice is in: By Christmas 2005

[new yorker 77]

Cheney will be out in January 2009.