Posted on 01/08/2005 2:56:17 PM PST by wagglebee
How many of you stuck with -- and I doubt that many of you had a chance to, but how many of you stuck with the Gonzales hearings yesterday when he was finished with his testimony? The real story of what happened... Well, that's maybe going a bit far, but clearly one of the big moments of yesterday's hearings, looking into the fitness of Alberto Gonzales to be the attorney general -- and by the way, can I ask you a question? I noticed that yesterday during the hearings, all the Democrats paid homage to his "poor background," came from poverty, came from nowhere, came from the dirt, came from the soil, and rose all the way up to Harvard law and in the newspapers today, the Washington Post and the New York Times both say that's about best thing about Gonzales is that he came from dirt, nothing, and went Harvard. But after that he blew it because he got associated with Bush. Would somebody explain to me just why it makes him any better?
What does it say about somebody's qualifications that they have to come from an impoverished background? Why does that automatically give them even more qualifications than, say, somebody comes from a standard middle class family? (interruption) So they didn't have it all handed to them. You know how few people do have it all handed to them? Most of the people who have it all handed to them are sitting in judgment on this guy on the other side of the committee. You want to talk about people who have had it handed to them, you want to start with Boston and go on across the country? There's Ted Kennedy. You know, the combined wealth would outdo the amount of aid that we have sent to the tsunami victims. The six Democrat senators alone combined wealth is more than the aid we're sending to the tsunami victims. I'm not against it, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying it's something that's always bothered me. I'm perfectly willing to celebrate and applaud people who rise up from the dirt, from the soil, and from the muck and from the mud, even if they've wandered out of the ocean as protozoa and they end up becoming human beings and going to Harvard. (applauds) My hat's off to them.
But it doesn't say. (Interruption) No, they didn't use his non-humble background. They (interruption). Oh, that's true. See, that's my point. Estrada... Estrada, Miguel Estrada, who (the White House) wanted to put on the D.C. Court of Appeals, the first Hispanic there, (Democrats) used his wealthy background, his middle class background against him. He didn't understand the trials and tribulations of the people who might come before him, before the Circuit Court of Appeals because his parents were bankers! So what? There's this notion that you only can relate to all Americans if you walk ashore, you know, you started out as an amoeba you survived the sharks and everybody else in the ocean; you somehow found yourself a beach; you walked ashore and you made something of yourself. I just think it's just typical liberalism, but in this case, it did make it difficult for them to condemn this guy yesterday, Gonzales. But anyway -- sorry for getting sidetracked there, you people (laughing) -- the point is, these three guys that were brought in as witnesses when Gonzales finished. Did you watch this, Mr. Snerdley? Did you watch it or (interruption). Yeah, he was (interruption). Snerdley was on his way home. What, did you stop off at Wal-Mart or something on the way home? (laughs)
Let me tell you who these three guys were. One of them was on Matthews' show on Wednesday night. His name was John Hutson, Rear Admiral John Hutson, former Clinton administration judge advocate general, who is now president and Dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire. Some guy named Douglas Johnson, the executive director of the Center for Victims of Torture -- Now, this guy did not come out yesterday in the hearings, but this guy, Douglas Johnson, is on record as equating our acts of war with the same atrocities committed by those in Iraq who are beheading innocent civilians. This guy, if you so much as shout at somebody, you are torturing them -- and so they brought this guy up there and then they had Dean Harold Koh from Yale Law Skrool. He's another former Clinton administration official who is now the Dean of the Yale Law Skrool, and of course all three of these guys: "There's no reason for torture and Gonzales stands for torture, and we're not here to tell you we're not here to oppose him. We don't recommend that you confirm or not, but this guy stinks! This guy stands for torture. This guy's horrible. This guy's misreading the law. This guy's skirting the law."
This was during their statements. After they all finished their statements, Arlen Specter showed these guys for exactly who they are. Arlen Specter says, "I want to bring up a delicate subject with you, something that hasn't come up today, but I want to bring this up because it's crucially important in the discussions we're having having today about how we're going to behave in the future. From what I understand from you gentlemen, torture is something to be avoided at all costs. May I present to you the ticking time-bomb analogy. Now, many people have discussed this. I am not sure where I come down on this, but I want to ask you experts where you come down on the ticking time-bomb analogy." Do you know what that is, ladies and gentlemen? The ticking time bomb analogy is: You have captured a terrorist. This terrorist has a bomb that's ticking somewhere on an airplane, in a building, could be attached to a nuke. It's going to blow up in an hour. It's going to blow up in two hours. You don't know where the bomb is. The bomb is placed in such a place that tens or hundreds of thousands of people could die.
These guys and all the Democrat senators have spent all day saying, "Torture is horrible. Torture is rotten. Torture is not American. Torture is against the law." The president cannot override U.S. statute and authorize torture. The president can't even authorize torture and then grant clemency to the person who commits it. He can't even do that. "What, gentlemen, would you say about using torture during the ticking time bomb scenario?" And Admiral Hutson, the former JAG in the Clinton administration -- none of these guys would answer the question. None of them would answer the question. They came in there so damn sure, so damn sure, "We don't ever use torture! It's un-American! It's not who we are," but they would not say you wouldn't use it. They didn't even want to answer the question. I heard more legalese gobbledygook. I heard more elitist professorial gibberish than I have heard in 30 minutes in my life at one time. In fact, there was one slip-up. Admiral Hutson said, "Well, if you have to, but it shouldn't become who you are and it shouldn't set a precedent," and I said, "Well, your whole argument is out the window, then, admiral, because if you're going to authorize torture in the ticking bomb scenario, you're authorizing torture."
You are saying that there is a circumstance in which it is justified. That is, to save hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But he wouldn't admit it that way, but he as much as said it. Dean Koh, he skirted around this, this Doug Johnson, none of them wanted to answer the question. They didn't answer the question. I'm telling you, folks, it was the most telling part of the hearings yesterday, and also, when they were there, there were only two or three senators there. The chairman, Specter, John Cornyn from Texas who never left the room yesterday other than to vote on this silly -- oh, I can't wait to play for you some of the audio.(Laughing) We have even more audio of this Ohio protest yesterday. Oh-ho-ho-ho, folks! They're up their thanking Michael Moore. I was so right on yesterday. This is nothing but a bunch of pandering to the base. Cornyn was there. Pat Leahy hung around even though he couldn't talk toward the end of it, and Senator Kennedy stayed until the end of Gonzales because he demanded three and four rounds of questioning even when some senators hadn't had their second round.
He was acting petulant like a little baby saying, "I remember when we conducted 22 days of, of, of hearings into attorney general," and I'll tell you, Arlen Specter kept this in check yesterday, kept it in control. They're through with Gonzales, and the Democrats have lost this. They have already lost it. It's a fait accompli. He's going to be confirmed. Their efforts to mount any serious opposition went down the tubes yesterday. Chucka Schumer, for all practical purposes, the junior senator from New York, rather than senior, had the audacity -- and I don't have the exact quote in front of me but I can get it. He had the audacity to say to Gonzales, Alberto Gonzales, "Hey, look, we're kind of giving you a pass here. This attorney general, lower standard, much, much lower standard. If they send you back up here for the Supreme Court, you're not going to get away with this kind of softball questioning." So I guess, senator, what you're essentially saying is that you had "the soft bigotry of low expectations" on display yesterday for this Hispanic gentleman from the dirt and from the soil who rose to attend Harvard.
The former judge advocate general, John Hutson, Admiral John Hutson, who teaches law someplace hard to find on a road map in New Hampshire, he came in there. He was with Dean Koh and he was with this Douglas Johnson guy from Minnesota and they're going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on talking about torture is no good ever. Then Specter hits him with the ticking bomb scenario, and here it came. I mean, Admiral Hutson said, "Weeeell, you know, you might resort to torture because you have to, to coerce the information." Well, doesn't that just sort of render this whole day yesterday obsolete and meaningless? Then he said he would prefer not to be drawn into so hypothetical and academic a subject late in the day, but the fact of the matter is, folks, that's all this was yesterday especially with these three guys in their statements and their questions, other than Specter's. It was nothing more than an academic exercise.
It was nothing more than what intellectuals call a feast, where they get to sit around and talk about hypotheticals. But when hard questions are asked and their rubber has to meet the road and the reality has to be dealt with, that's when they take a pass. That's when they make a U-turn and head back to the ivy halls, and the towers of academe where they can pretend that they're insulated from the real world, while telling themselves they are the real world. But you present them with a real-life, hard question: "We got a ticking bomb; we got a terrorist going to blow up a hundred thousand people. What do we do to find out where that bomb is? We've got one hour." (Sniveling liberal stammering) Not one of them said the Geneva Conventions. Not one of them said the Geneva Conventions. They didn't even want to go there. They didn't even want to answer the question yesterday, folks. We will. I'm going to try to get the audio for it. I'm going to try to get the audio of each of their three answers. We don't need all of the answer, Cookie, just some of it. It will show you: "B-deh, b-deh, b-deh, buh, buh..." Elmer Fudds. They became Elmer Fudds. It almost sounded like Bruce Babbitt. (sigh) It was just hilarious.
I've got four sound bites from the Gonzales hearings yesterday after he concluded. We had three guests, Harold Koh, former assistant secretary of state. He is currently the Dean of the law school at Yale. The admiral, John Hutson, former Navy judge advocate general Clinton administration, and Doug Johnson, the director of the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis. This guy, particularly, equates U.S. military action with the atrocities committed by terrorists, so opposed to torture is he. All three of these guys say Gonzales is dangerous. Have no reason for torture in this country. It's not who we are. Geneva Conventions should be extended to terrorists, blah, blah, blah. That's what they said in their opening statements. So Arlen Specter after their opening statements asked them a question.
SPECTER: And now with three individuals who are more, perhaps, academicians or at least in part academicians, we could explore a subject which we have not taken up, a delicate subject, and that is the issue of the so-called ticking bomb case on torture. There are some prominent authorities -- and I do not subscribe to this view but only set it forth for purposes of discussion -- that if it was known, probable cause, that an individual had a ticking bomb and was about to blow up hundreds of thousands of people in a major American city, that consideration might be given to torture.
RUSH: So that's how he set it up. Then he started the questioning and it began this way with Dean Koh.
SPECTER: Dean Koh, start with you. Are considerations for those tactics ever justifiable, even in the face of a ticking-bomb threat?
KOH: Well, senator, you're a former prosecutor, and I think that my approach would be to keep the flat ban, and if someone -- the president of time of the United States -- had to make a decision like that, someone would have to decide whether to prosecute him or not. But I don't think that the answer is to create an exception in the law, because an exception becomes a loophole, and a loophole starts to water down the prohibition. I think what we saw at Abu Ghraib is the reality of torture.
RUSH: Didn't want to answer the question. The question gets hard and the academic exercise ceases to exist. You know, these guys live in their ivory towers, divorced from the real world, and that's why they're able to think and say the things they do and look very lofty and idealistic and smarter and more elite than all the rest of us. But when they have to face real-world circumstances, "Weeeell, the president would have to do this but then we'd have to prosecute and I don't know. We don't even want to go there. We don't want to set the precedent and let's..." Abu Ghraib? There's nothing about Abu Ghraib that is relevant to specter's question whatsoever. No desire to answer this question whatsoever. The next question was asked of Admiral Hutson, the judge advocate general during the Clinton administration.
SPECTER: Dean Hutson, what do you think? Ever an occasion to even consider that?
HUTSON: I agree with, uh, with Dean Koh that it is always illegal. Now, you may decide that you are going to take the illegal action, ummm, because you have to.
RUSH: Huh? "I agree with Dean Koh. It's always illegal." Torture is always illegal, but you may have to take the action "if you have to." Okay. So what these guys are saying is, "We don't ever favor torture. It's always illegal. (whispering) You might have to in this circumstance. (loud) But we're going to nail whoever did it! No matter how many lives they saved, no matter. We're going to nail them because this isn't allowed in the United States, (whispering) even though you might have." This is the great thinking on the left, ladies and gentlemen, that sought to appear yesterday, did appear yesterday, in opposition to Judge Alberto Gonzales and up next, this is Douglas Johnson, who is the director of the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis.
JOHNSON: On the specifics of the -- of the ticking time bomb, I think that it's very overblown in our imaginations, and -- and it's very ripe with what I would...could only call fantasy and mythology.
RUSH: Okay. So he doesn't even want to answer the question because it will never happen. It's nothing but somebody's fantasy. It's nothing but something theoretical, as far as he's concerned so he's not going to deign to even answer the question. Well, what about planning? What about preparation? That's all Gonzales was doing: Seeking legal advice from a number of sources to present to the president, planning for certain characteristic circumstances or what have you as the war on terror was fought. But according to this guy, that's not even possible. That's just fantasy. Why, it's mythology. We don't even want to worry about it -- and these are the people that were brought up to tell us why Alberto Gonzales is not qualified to be the attorney general when they all three essentially ducked the question when it got hard. When it was just an academic exercise and they could all engage in their little intellectual feast (claps). Why, look at how smart we are! In the real world, when it came time to hammer the nails and screw the screws and clean the dishes and wash the windshield, "Uhhhh..." They're lost.
What's not a fact. Torture is not illegal. Certain forms of torture are illegal and this has nothing to do with the Geneva convention if you are implying that. Are you saying it is not?
Kenndy ran annnd hid while Mary Jo slowly died a most tortured death over hours in bling horror and Agony..
as Kennedy ran annd hid and lied and lied....
and he never paid for the torture and Agony he reaked on Mary Jo..Never paid...
Precisely why they disguise themselves - albeit not very well usually. Nice visual.
Just curious, what political label do you classify youtrself and just what is important to you?
Are you stating as a fact known to you that the White House or an Federal Official has paid Rush Limbaugh to advocate marginalizing the hearings? Do we have that correct, that you are making that claim of fact?
Teddy Kennedy, manslaughter (1969). Media gave Kennedy a pass and covered up the facts to save Kennedy.
Michael Skakel (Kennedy cousin), rape and murder (1975). Media buried story for over a quarter of a century.
William Kennedy Smith, rape (1991). Media revealed victim's name and dragged her sexual history through the mud to save Smith.
I sense a distinct pattern!
Stress techniques - repeat after me "stress techniques".
Like altered sleep cycles (think new baby), shortened sleep cycles (again, think new baby, Midnight, 2 AM and 4 AM feedings), calling in the ex-wife and demanding more alimony or a half-dozen nagging children that want to go to Six Flags late on a Sunday ...
I suspect that is not effectual either. At some point, the guy just tells the interlocutor what he thinks the guy wants to hear, all too often. It might be effective where you know the guy knows something, and if he does not reveal what he knows that is actionable, the consequences will be painful. It needs to be something specific. But for fishing expeditions, I suspect it is counterproductive.
You ain't never been married have ya boy!
Did the stress cause you to confess the mistress or something?
LOL!
Now you're catching on to the humor ...
Since 9/12 I have been saying, You need to start slamming the libs with the retort: "How many civilian deaths are acceptable to you".
Better to be slow that stationary is my motto.
that = than
Divorce this from 9/11 for a moment.
Actually the abuse at Abu Graib happened right after the contractors in Iraq were, murdered, hacked to pieces and strung up.
There were some bad actors at the prison, no doubt. But put their actions in the frame of what was happening right there, right then.
No excuse but their rage and their acting out on similar perpetrators if not the exact ones is understandable.
One way or the other it wasn't torture.
Decapitation is torture, being required to beg for your life infront of a camera is torture.
Paging Jose
I am waiting for the list of alledged Torture Practices that is condoned and promoted throughout the US Military.
I would also like to know why you think each and every "torture practice" on your list is wrong or bad or whatever problem it is that you have.
(I have a list of what was performed on me, but you first know-it-all)
TT
Democrats have to say something different or people would say "there is no difference between either parties." People like Kennedy, Boxer and ShoeHummer often look foolish trying to take the opposite view from republicans even if it does not make sense and they sound like hypocrites. The hearing was just an attempt to put on a little show and be seen on t.v. Boxer and ShoeHummer did the same thing the night before. They all love to see their own faces on t.v. They are too arrogant to know how foolish they look. Kennedy is too drunk and rich to care!
bump
Given mere rumor of a ticking time bomb, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) ran home and hid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.