U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 14, 2009 03:37 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 77 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“A policy is a temporary creed liable to be changed, but while it holds good it has got to be pursued with apostolic zeal.”

–Mahatma Gandhi

Comments

77 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread

  1. Christian Science Monitor article about Dick Cheney’s sudden fondness for the limelight:

    http://features.csmonitor.com/

    Now, it is Mr. Bush who has settled into a quiet retirement and Mr. Cheney who has become the ubiquitous face on television, one of the Obama administration’s fiercest critics on national security. Historians cannot remember an ex-vice president charging so hard against a successor White House so soon after inauguration.

    Only Cheney can explain his motivations. But there’s no shortage of opinion among political players and pundits on the impact the former veep is having – on the Republican Party, on the Obama administration, and on his own legacy.

    To a GOP that is out of power and demoralized, Cheney is both hurting and helping, says Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist now in academia.

    1. http://www.oregonlive.com/news

      The Oregon troops, along with their replacements from Indiana, West Virginia and South Carolina, guarded KBR contractors in 2003 when they were exposed to piles of the cancer-causing hexavalent chromium at a water treatment plant.

      One Oregon soldier died of complications of leukemia at age 21, and eight others have told The Oregonian or the Guard that they suffer breathing problems, chronic coughs or immune system disorders.

      Civilian employees of KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, and Indiana soldiers have sued the war contractor, claiming it disregarded obvious warning signs.

  2. We haven’t talked about this much (or perhaps at all) on this site (perhaps not surprising considering the political bent of this site), but I’d sure love to hear the Democrat reaction to revelations that Speaker Pelosi lied about the enhanced interrogation briefings.  

    She at first denounced the tactics and denied any knowledge of them until 2005 or so.  Multiple sources now confirm that she was indeed briefed about the tactics way back in 2002 in very exclusive briefings.  The written logs kept by the House and the CIA show the same.  She has now pivoted to try and claim that somehow she was briefed that they might be used, but not that they were being used.

    This is more than just politically embarassing.  She has repeatedly tried to demonize the Bush administration over waterboarding and enhanced interrogation.  Playing politics with the issue is bad.  But lying about your own role in the whole affair is downright wrong.  

    Whatever your view on this subject, the Democrats no longer have any moral authority on this subject as a result of the Speaker’s transgressions.  She is now the Tom DeLay of the Democrats.

    Step down, Ms. Pelosi.

    1. I must assume that you then approve of the prosecution of both Bush and Cheney and anyone else in the Administration who also were involved in the criminal activity of legalizing torture, right?

      Right?  

      1. I don’t believe one administration should prosecute the predecessor over policy differences.  We’ve never done that in this country.

        But if that’s the road the Democrat leadership wants to go down, then Pelosi should be subpoenad and prosecuted as well.

                  1. Just find you ridiculous–too ridiculous to take seriously enough to give a serious reply to.

                    And although this doesn’t work for you, Bob Graham is also now claiming that the CIA has lied about several major issues including intelligence briefings. Can’t wait to hear more from you on that subject.

                    As for “Joe here” I don’t believe much of anything that comes out of his mouth. He’s a good part of the reason I didn’t vote for Gore in 2000. But if you want to make him the poster boy for truthiness, you just knock yourself out, little man.

      2. …and means of enforcement.

        Let’s take for granted…for the moment…that (a) torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which are treaties ratified by the United States, and therefore binding, i.e. the terms of the treaties have equal weight with any other federal law; and (b) that waterboarding comprises “torture” under the Geneva Conventions (you can argue about this, but for the moment, the questionis whether and who should/could prosecute former officials including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the military chain of command at the time). This, of course, is the reason the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel was asked to draw up the memos rationalizing various methods of interrogation as “not torture” and making the real question whether those memos–specious as they were–protect the president et al.

        1. Is the President immune from prosecution when he/she breaks the law, or is impeachment the only legal remedy?

        2. Are ex-Presidents immune from prosecution? If so, on what grounds?

        3. Can other signatories to the Geneva Conventions initiate prosecution (Spain comes to mind)? If they do, what about treaties of extradition?

        4. What is the legal obligation, responsibility, and/or liability of anyone…let’s take the Speaker of the House just for illustration…if/when he/she learns about a violation of the Geneva Conventions, even if he/she is not involved in the chain of command?

        I know this site is overflowing with experts in Constitutional law, treaties, and the definition of torture, so it outta be easy to answer this question on the basis of opinions based in legal precedents, rather than on the theory that “my-fingers-made-me-do-it-while-typing.” But at bottom, it’s not a question of “belief” or what we have always done or not done as a matter of policy. It’s a legal issue.

        1. I think it would be just super if someone could offer definitive proof that the CIA briefed Pelosi that they were using waterboarding as part of their interrogation techniques. Considering that now Bob Graham is also suggesting the CIA is flat out lying, it appears someone is flat out lying and that Republicans are using the Pelosi angle as a way to deflect answering the larger issues–some of those issues which you also mentioned in your comment.

          1. ..and this should be a priority since, as you say, it is being used to deflect criticism, as in “Everyone knew about it, everyone must have approved since they didn’t object.

            My point was that even if Pelosi and others were briefed–details still to be discovered–that would not necessarily make her legally liable since she was not in the chain of command, nor would it excuse/pardon/immunize those responsible for ordering and/or carrying out acts deemed criminal under U.S. law via the Geneva Conventions. Ordering a lawyer to write a brief declaring an illegal act to be legal doesn’t necessarily make it so!

            1. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes

              The chart said that in a briefing on Sept. 4, 2002, attended by Ms. Pelosi, the interrogation methods that “had been employed” against a prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, were described. But according to the legal memorandums released last month, Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times the month before the briefing, so any objection from Democrats at the Sept. 4 briefing would have come too late.

    2. Do you mean that she took money to keep quiet?

      Do you mean she held votes open until every Democratic house member would vote to approve waterboarding?

      Do you mean that she took money from Jack Abramoff to approve waterboarding?

      I don’t think that nancy Pelosi has sunk to the level of jack Abramoff.

      And, of course, there is the point of what’s secret and what’s not. Wouldn’t it have been illegal to disclose all of this back in 2002? And if she had, wouldn’t you and every conservative in America gone absolutely ape-shit crazy if she had?

      Give me an effin break, KK.

      1. DeLay cost Republicans moral authority.  That’s the parallel I was drawing.

        And this has nothing to do with what Pelosi did or didn’t do in 2002.  It has to do with what she is saying and doing today.  I just caught part (not all) of a press conference she held.  Wow, she looks guilty.

        1. I find the comparison ludicrous. You don’t. So be it.

          So, several more points:

          1. Can we stop saying enhanced interrogation? It’s torture. We jailed/executed Japanese soldiers who did the same thing.

          2. “…lying about your own role in the whole affair…” So, I gather that you’ve read what she said in those meetings? Please share a link.

          3. I was under the impression that sharing material from secret briefings was illegal. Am I wrong? If you acknowledge knowing about the torture, aren’t you revealing information gained in that secret meeting? So, if Nancy Pelosi had come out and said, “I was told today by the CIA that we torture prisoners,” wouldn’t that be illegal? Please enlighten me.

          1. .

            cf, Danny Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

            cf, Gandhi making his own salt.

            cf, MLK, Jr. doing whatever that got him repeatedly jailed.  

            Maybe the question should be, what did principled leadership demand of Ms. Pelosi ?

            And did she do it ?  

            .

            1. The legal thing can be entirely wrong. With counselors like John Yoo, robbing banks could be legal if it were done beween 9:00 and 9:02 on the third Thursday, using a handgun not larger than .45 calibre and loaded with not more than 5 bullets, while wearing a mask that was pure white (no illustrations!) and by saying “please” as in “Gimme the money, you m’f’in’ lil bastard…please!).

              The law, like politics, is just one arena.

      1. I think we need to get out of the habit of being overly reductionist. Granting the premise, it is neither certain nor impossible that she committed an error in judgment, legality, or morality that rises to the level of requiring her resignation as speaker. Let’s make judgments based on fully-fleshed out information, rather than on innuendo that, even if true, is too partial to be useful in and of itself. The transfer of information among government agencies is embedded in legal, ethical, and practical considerations that cannot be ignored when making these determinations, and the question of exactly what information whas transmitted in what form to whom only complicates the matter more.

    3. I complemented you once on generally being civil, and meant it. But, beyond that, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about anything you post: No information, no logical argumentation, no knowledge of or insight into any of the subjects or disciplines relevant to these disucssions, no links, no nothing. You try to sling mud at individual Democrats whenever you can imagine an opportunity to do so, but consistently are just throwing sand upwind instead. Come on, man. This is just embarrassing.

          1. …their technique could well backfire. If The People like what they get in the “Democratic” party–and by all accounts, including the counts at the polls, they do–and if it’s the “Social Democratic Party” (as it is in Europe), well then maybe the word “socialist” will start gaining acceptability — sort of like what’s happening to “single payer health care,” even when it’s called “socialized medicine” (according to some poll or other I heard about while having my hair cut at the pet grooming shop).

    4. I do want to know exactly what those briefings covered.  It looks as though either Pelosi is lying or the CIA is.  I would also like the hearings to cover whether the torture was done to elicit confessions of connections between Saddam and Al Qaida.  I want to know what Cheney’s role was.  Did he order the waterboarding of specific prisoners in order to get them to confess to such a connection?  I want to know exactly what happened.  The pictures and video can be shown on a screen during the testimony so we are all fully informed.  

      When crimes are uncovered, I want prosecutions.  That includes Pelosi and Rockefeller  if they committed any crimes.  Possibly the President may feel that some pardons are in order, but hearings first, investigations second, prosecutions third, pardons fourth.

    1. and I don’t care what happens here, but if every member of congress, every President, every cabinet member had to step down for lying, would we have a functioning government left ?

      Just a thought, and I do think she is pretty much busted in this one.

      1. that it would be completely inconsistent if Nancy Pelosi were held accountable for knowing about enhanced interrogation tactics and the Bush administration was not held accountable and liable for approving them and having them performed, which bears far more culpability.

        I am sure as a proponent of fair play and good government, as all Repbulicans are, you would agree KK.

        1. .

          But the Dems have been milking this for what its worth.

          It would be refreshing if Speaker Pelosi stepped down on her own, saying that she had done wrong and that the party deserved better from its leaders.  

          You know, setting a standard for conduct, and then keeping it.

          Props to FDN and David, two partisans who can see that she done her party wrong.

          .  

          1. Democrats have been milking this issue.

            And those who approved it should, at the very least, be removed from office.

            That said, Democrats have been able to milk this because an awful lot of Republicans (but certainly not all) cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that we did indeed torture or to even denounce the use of torture.  

          2. and the response has to be commeasurate with the offense, but something dosen’t make sense here. Take this scenario:

            There were 3 people standing in the street, lets say Khalid, George and Nancy.  George beats the living hell out of Khalid, and Nancy witnesses the whole thing.  

            Nancy loses her job because she witnessed the crime, but George goes completely free.

            I know it sounds crazy, but if Nancy is going to suffer the consequences of this whole sordid affar then certainly George should.  

            1. .

              not to disagree, but rather to amplify,

              recall how people like me said that we shouldn’t torture because of who we are and what we stand for.  

              It doesn’t matter how evil our opponents are, there are acts of depravity we shouldn’t stoop to commit.  

              The heart of the argument was to measure ourselves against our standards, not the terrorists’ standards.  

              Here, I call on Dems to set and keep to higher standards that the Republicans will hold themselves to.

              I know it isn’t fair. It’s principled.

              .

              1. There is an excellent debate between John Stewart and Cliff May (formerly of the Rocky) that reinforces a lot of your points above.  I think you would really like it so I am posting it here for you and anyone else that is interested – it’s 3 parts and this is just part 1.  

            2. Just wait until Obama is replaced by a Republican in 3 1/2 years and prosecution of Obama is pursued for turning us into a debt-ridden third world country.

              Ridiculous?  Yes.  But think about what you are saying.

              Many Americans (myself included — and I’m no Bush apologists) do not count the tactics under question as torture and would appropriate them again if thousands of lives were at stake.

              You are talking about prosecuting people over a difference in policy.  Is that really where you want to take this country?  You want to exact revenge on the previous administration by prosecuting them because you hate their politics?

              Amazing.

                1. It’s a pretty meaningless figure at four months after inauguration.  People are indeed uneasy with how much money he is spending.  Inflation and high interest rates are right around the corner.

                  1. Obama = Carter redux. Zzzzzz.

                    That might work, except Reagan had higher spending levels than Carter. Are you saying Reagan bankrupted the country too? I can never keep up with your endless contradictions and paradoxes.

              1. … are also assholes who neither understand our American principles nor the ineffectiveness of torture (whether you consider it to be that or not) in obtaining effective intelligence.

                These “enhanced techniques” serve one purpose: to elicit sadistic pleasure both in the people who employ them and in people like you who want revenge rather than justice.

                And if you don’t think waterboarding counts as torture, consider that former Navy SEAL Jesse Ventura, who underwent waterboarding as part of his training, believes that it is.

                Finally, better that thousands of American lives be lost if it means our liberties remain intact than all those lives be saved at the expense of our freedom. That’s what Thomas Jefferson and a lot of our Founding Fathers understood.

              2. So you favor prosecution of a president over economic policy ?  Do you want them to throw the book at Obama because you don’t like his COMPLETELY LEGAL DECISIONS, PASSED BY CONGRESS INTO LAW that he has made about steering the economy back to health ?  

                What novel legal concept do you have in mind ?

                All of this and you give a free pass to an administration that approved torture ?  Its not a “difference of policy” its torture !

                Do you know how weak that argument is, or how completely fucking stupid that makes you look ?

                1. I said it was ridiculous to prosecute Obama for bankrupting the country.

                  It’s just as ridiculous to prosecute Bush officials for taking a policy position that (whatever you think of it) kept the country safe for 7 years.

                  1. It’s the law.

                    Torture is illegal.

                    Waterboarding is torture.

                    Therefore, waterboarding is illegal.

                    It’s NOT a policy issue.

                    Period.

                    1. Uncomfortable?  Yes.  Frightening?  Yes.  Is permanent damage done?  No.  Three people in total were waterboarded.  They were very, very evil people, and lives may have been saved as a result.  We won’t know the true outcome until the memos are released.

                      No terrorists were harmed during the execution of these enhanced interrogation techniques.

                      Torture?  Not in my opinion.  Not in the minds of the Bush administration.  

                      I’d rather be waterboarding.  Do you want to prosecute me for having a difference of opinion?  Or does everyone have to think alike in the world of Obama?

                    2. Your rationalizations are moral relativism at its, um, finest.

                      You don’t deserve your freedom.

                    3. or committed a crime by prosecuting in war crimes trials others for waterboarding. I vote strongly for the former, but either way, you are endorsing gross hypocricy, which undermines our credibility, and increases the dangers confronting us.

                      So, you’re in favor of diversity of thought and morality, even in “the world of Obama?” In other words, you may be against child molestation, but, since you’re against any moral absolutism, you will defend the right of others to engage in it and declare it a morally acceptable form of behavior, right?

                      Okay, now that we’ve established that, yes, to a certain degree, moral imperatives are not simply dismissable as “not thinking alike,” let’s focus once again on real issues, shall we?

              3. What law do you think Obama is breaking?

                Disagreeing with him about policy or the direction of this country does not implicate the law and you couldn’t prosecute him for anything.

                When Clinton was impeached it was for perjury under oath not for the answer to the underlying question he was asked.  That is against the law.

                It is also one of the reasons why members of the Bush administration have refused to testify under oath, except for one difference: there is a question of legality to their underlying conduct.

                This is not about “policy differences” it is about respect for the law and equality under the law.

                No person, including the president, should be able to ignore the law, particularly constitutional strictures.  It doesn’t matter if they ignored the law under the dubious assumption that it was justified.  Mob rule and vigilantism are not tolerated when it is the average individual that breaks law.

                You either respect the law or you don’t.

                If you don’t like the law, change it.

                Your false equivalence between Bush and his obvious disrespect for the law and the constitution and Obama and your personal distaste for his policies has no basis.

      1. .

        “It is hard for me to imagine that anyone in the intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress,” Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Republican minority leader, said today.

        .

        1. It’s hard for me to imagine that John Boehner can find the bathroom by himself (then again, given his pissing habits, maybe he cant!). “The Honorable Mr. Automaton of Ohio, sponsored by ThrillCream Artificial Tanning Gunk. Buy a tube today (right next to the golf tees), smear it on real thick. Caution: Do not use if you have a functioning organic brain as this product will render you a blithering idiot within an hour or less…”

          1. Boehner has a long history as a grassroots political organizer in Ohio. First assignment: sign up new Republicans. He knew just where to go, same place his dog came from…local chapter of the Dumb Friends League.

  3. …that compares to the Righteoous Red Froth (decaf, with whipped cream on the left) generated on ColoradoPols on a Thursday afternoon! Ummmmm, ummmm, good!

  4. I for one am thrilled that Nacny Pelosi is our speaker of the house.  I think back to all the times I criticized her and I realize that I was wrong.

    Thank God she is the speaker.  I couldn’t think of a better person to represent the Democratic rule.

    If you love America.  And I know you claim you do, you should thank her too.

    1. but at least she didn’t pre-emptively attack a sovereign nation, drawing our troops away from the real post 9-11 theater in Afghanastan, perhaps succeeding in grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory;  nor did she permanently tarnish America’s reputation by instituting and defending the very same acts of torture that we have prosecuted others for under war crimes tribunals; nor did she institute a policy of kidnapping, disappearing, and, yes, torturing foreign nationals, plucking them off of foreign streets on the basis of such evidence as being a half-German, half-Turkish German citizen traveling in the Middle East to learn more about his Arab heritage; nor did she require the most conservative Supreme Court in generations to tell her that America can’t escape its constitutional obligations by setting up off-shore detention facilities.

      Frankly, I don’t care much for Pelosi myself. But she looks damn good in comparison to the alternative your party offers.

      For that matter, Beevis and Butthead look damn good in comparison to the alternative your party offers.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

69 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!