New Liberal Ads

[blueblood]

All I read from that is that he does not support torture. What do you get out of it? I mean the first part is speaking about international politics and the need for military intervention at some times, the second part is relevant after the first is taken into consideration. Once we undertake military operations, they should not be used to torture and seek revenge upon those we wage war upon.

Have fun trying to explain all that away in a 30 second soundbite.

Then we have the Liberals who signed the detainee agreement before they were punted, and before that the Liberals sent the detainees to the Americans/Gitmo, where apparently allegations of torture run wild.

The Liberals are throwing rocks from a glass house.

In fairness to the Liberals, they signed that agreement with the Afghan gov't in good faith, and gave the detainees to the Americans in good faith. However so did the tories.

But, alas when all this is done, everyone's hands are dirty.

Edited January 11, 2010 by blueblood

[punked]

All I read from that is that he does not support torture. What do you get out of it? I mean the first part is speaking about international politics and the need for military intervention at some times, the second part is relevant after the first is taken into consideration. Once we undertake military operations, they should not be used to torture and seek revenge upon those we wage war upon.

I read the book personally I don't know if you have. He honestly says "when you deal in torture it is a slippy slop and almost anyone will find themselves on the wrong side of the line after they start doing it..............but we can do it cause we are America and we know better then to cross the line." Seriously that is the book. Other countries would find it hard to not cross that line but we are America and we can do it. It is dumbest thing I have ever read, rapped in a whole lot of history and flippy floppy logic.

[blueblood]

I read the book personally I don't know if you have. He honestly says "when you deal in torture it is a slippy slope and almost anyone will find themselves on the wrong side of the line after they start doing it..............but we can do it cause we are America and we know better then to cross the line." Seriously that is the book. Other countries would find it hard to not cross that line but we are America and we can do it. It is dumbest thing I have ever read, wrapped in a whole lot of history and flippy floppy logic.

I wonder if Layton is saving that little gem for the upcoming leader's debate in the future. (there's always an election coming up)

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I read the book personally I don't know if you have. He honestly says "when you deal in torture it is a slippy slop and almost anyone will find themselves on the wrong side of the line after they start doing it..............but we can do it cause we are America and we know better then to cross the line." Seriously that is the book. Other countries would find it hard to not cross that line but we are America and we can do it. It is dumbest thing I have ever read, rapped in a whole lot of history and flippy floppy logic.

Now tell us the rest of the story. The line to be crossed is between the head games and actual pain and life endangerment. You can torture to that degree, no more. They say they know better than to cross the line, yet they did and do. I know it is problematic, but he actually comes out on the right side of the equation to my mind. There is a line that you should not cross.

[capricorn]

But those words still don't prove he is in favour of torture at all. That would be an interpretation in a non-literal sense designed to well position ones ass on a fence without looking like you will fall in either direction when the wind blows.

That's the beauty of Ignatieff double-speak. Perhaps it's one reason he's not connecting with mainstream Canadians. You don't know what you're getting because of the lack of directness or clarity when he gives an opinion.

It is a political statement designed to preclude being compelled to take one stand or another.

To you it is a political statement but I doubt it was to Ignatieff when he wrote that "lesser evil" piece. Notice he wrote those words while he was still an academic.

[punked]

Now tell us the rest of the story. The line to be crossed is between the head games and actual pain and life endangerment. You can torture to that degree, no more. They say they know better than to cross the line, yet they did and do. I know it is problematic, but he actually comes out on the right side of the equation to my mind. There is a line that you should not cross.

Ummmm Iggy says in the book that targeted assassinations are ok with him so no he is fine with bodily harm as far as I can tell from the book he is fine with everything as long as it isn't "systematic" and it some how out weighs the consequences. He doesn't explain how you you would weigh the torture against "what you prevent" or the what systematic means but that is what I got out of it.

It has nothing to do with head games vs. physical torture that is something you made up right now I suggest you read the book.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ummmm Iggy says in the book that targeted assassinations are ok with him so no he is fine with bodily harm as far as I can tell from the book he is fine with everything as long as it isn't "systematic" and it some how out weighs the consequences. He doesn't explain how you you would weigh the torture against "what you prevent" or the what systematic means but that is what I got out of it.

It has nothing to do with head games vs. physical torture that is something you made up right now I suggest you read the book.

Let me draw a line between a couple of things you said here. You seem to come out against targeted assassinations. Now tell me if I am wrong here but....had bin Laden been whacked the entire Afghanistan thing would not have happened, and in the case Iraq, taking out Saddam would have prevented that war as well. Now how is that a bad thing, just taking out the bad guys and leaving the citizens alone with a little infrastructure for their poor existence? I am all for saving as many lives as possible in case of political conflicts, I would hope that you would be as well. I am all for limiting the collateral damage that is a consequence of the use of military force, again I hope you would be as well. So now having said this, how is this strategy such a bad thing and why do you come out against it when it is made clear in Iggy's writings? I don't see any conflict in what he has written only in how you are perceiving his words. Torture is crossing a line and political assassinations are far more desirable than full blown military conflicts.

[punked]

Let me draw a line between a couple of things you said here. You seem to come out against targeted assassinations. Now tell me if I am wrong here but....had bin Laden been whacked the entire Afghanistan thing would not have happened, and in the case Iraq, taking out Saddam would have prevented that war as well. Now how is that a bad thing, just taking out the bad guys and leaving the citizens alone with a little infrastructure for their poor existence? I am all for saving as many lives as possible in case of political conflicts, I would hope that you would be as well. I am all for limiting the collateral damage that is a consequence of the use of military force, again I hope you would be as well. So now having said this, how is this strategy such a bad thing and why do you come out against it when it is made clear in Iggy's writings? I don't see any conflict in what he has written only in how you are perceiving his words. Torture is crossing a line and political assassinations are far more desirable than full blown military conflicts.

OK fine you are on the slippy slop now and can read the future as well fine. So let's say we can torture 15 enemy combatants to get Osama's location to assassinate him? Do we do it? Iggy says yes as long as it is a one time thing. This seems to be the very thing the Liberals are Yelling at Harper over. Please have fun explaining to the Canadian people the difference between torture once and while and a "systematic" thing.

PS yes I am against Targeted assassinations, and torture. We follow the rules because ask of others to do the same

PPS there would have been no need for either war if the US would have just read its intelligence papers and took them seriously. So as long as we are revising history that is the way I will go............and I would punch Hitler in the face.

Edited January 11, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

....PPS there would have been no need for either war if the US would have just read its intelligence papers and took them seriously. So as long as we are revising history that is the way I will go............and I would punch Hitler in the face.

That's why there was "either war"....

[punked]

That's why there was "either war"....

Ummmmmm not the intelligence the made up but the stuff that actually came across their desk. Sorry I should have said that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummmmmm not the intelligence the made up but the stuff that actually came across their desk. Sorry I should have said that.

Doesn't make any difference....you are making an assumption that isn't true.

When America wants war...there shall be war.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

OK fine you are on the slippy slop now and can read the future as well fine. So let's say we can torture 15 enemy combatants to get Osama's location to assassinate him? Do we do it? Iggy says yes as long as it is a one time thing. This seems to be the very thing the Liberals are Yelling at Harper over. Please have fun explaining to the Canadian people the difference between torture once and while and a "systematic" thing.

PS yes I am against Targeted assassinations, and torture. We follow the rules because ask of others to do the same

PPS there would have been no need for either war if the US would have just read its intelligence papers and took them seriously. So as long as we are revising history that is the way I will go............and I would punch Hitler in the face.

First of all lets not say we tortured anyone, to find out anything. Lets not cross the line to actual torture, lets just play the head games that result in no permanent damage to individuals. Maybe we can find stuff out that way, but if we can't then we can't and we don't cross the line. But lets say we did have the information we were looking for. Then yes whack the bastard, and be done with it, instead of having limited warfare rake the lives of any innocent humans.

Iggy never said "a one time thing" did he, or did he say "systemic?

[punked]

First of all lets not say we tortured anyone, to find out anything. Lets not cross the line to actual torture, lets just play the head games that result in no permanent damage to individuals. Maybe we can find stuff out that way, but if we can't then we can't and we don't cross the line. But lets say we did have the information we were looking for. Then yes whack the bastard, and be done with it, instead of having limited warfare rake the lives of any innocent humans.

Iggy never said "a one time thing" did he, or did he say "systemic?

He says anything goes as long as it isn't systemic and pros out weigh cons. When you get down too it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

He says anything goes as long as it isn't systemic and pros out weigh cons. When you get down too it.

When it comes down to an us or them situation the pros of survival will always out weigh the cons of not surviving, there is no upside to death. When you get down to it, he never says that torture is okay. The closest he comes to it is that there is a line that should not be crossed. Don't try to ignore the simple fact that he has never advocated torture.

What he was speaking about is matters of national security and the nations responsibility to its on citizens in terms of moral high ground verses survival. He stops short of advocating the government impose on its captives that which would be unacceptable treatment of their own citizens.

[Shakeyhands]

Then we have the Liberals who signed the detainee agreement before they were punted, and before that the Liberals sent the detainees to the Americans/Gitmo, where apparently allegations of torture run wild.

The Liberals are throwing rocks from a glass house.

In fairness to the Liberals, they signed that agreement with the Afghan gov't in good faith, and gave the detainees to the Americans in good faith. However so did the tories.

But, alas when all this is done, everyone's hands are dirty.

Well no they aren't, and this is what you right wingers are failing to be able to grasp. The difference is, that once it was revealed that there was speculation (if not evidence) that these turn overs were being tortured, the CPC did nothing for what a year? And further, when called on it, they lied. Again.

[Shakeyhands]

The words that stood out are "Afghan detainees", "cover up", "secret" and "something to hide". This is somewhat reminiscent of the "scary" Harper ads put out earlier by the Liberals, complete with ominous music. There is also a veiled attempt at comparing Harper to dictatorships seen in unnamed, unsavoury countries.

I'm supposing the reaction will range from being afraid of what's in store for the country at the hands of the evil Harper and laughter.

I guess if played often enough, the ads could sway some people away from the Conservatives.

Wow. Spot on.

[Argus]

Nice! There will be hell to pay over this.

Why do you think that? The Liberals continueto harp on the "torture" question despite the fact Canadians don't seem to give a damn. Tying that into their efforts at stirring up public indignation at the extra month of recess would seem to me to be a non-starter.

[Argus]

The Liberals don't need to spend money attacking the credibility of Stephen Harper. We've already seen twice that 65% of Canadians don't want him to do the job.

Poor argument given every single poll ever taken shows Canadians vastly prefer him to any of the other party leaders - including Ignatieff.

[Argus]

No it doesn't, it's just the conservatives trying to change the channel. It's more of "well, the Liberals did it, too so what we're doing is no less bad." The Liberals of 20 years ago aren't the Liberals of today.

The sad thing is - they actually are. I was hoping they would change, but I've seen no indication of one. They're still as self-serving, dishonest and hypocritical as ever.

[Argus]

All I read from that is that he does not support torture.

And just how do you interpet the term "coercive interogations"?

[cybercoma]

And just how do you interpet the term "coercive interogations"?

Not in any way that makes the Afghan detainee scandal an issue. If Ignatieff allows for "coercive interrogations" then he hardly has a foot to stand on when it comes to Afghans slapping around a prisoner with a shoe.

[DrGreenthumb]

Wow. Spot on.

They are good ads, I hope they continue on this track, they have let Harper destroy their leaders with attack ads before while trying to maintain the high ground. I hope the NDP come up with some ads soon too. I really hope that the Liberals and NDP will co-ordinate their efforts and present a united alternative for the next election. All they need to do is not challenge any Liberal or NDP incumbants in the next election, and divide up the Conservative ridings. Then its goodbye Perogy Prime Minister.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They are good ads, I hope they continue on this track, they have let Harper destroy their leaders with attack ads before while trying to maintain the high ground. I hope the NDP come up with some ads soon too. I really hope that the Liberals and NDP will co-ordinate their efforts and present a united alternative for the next election. All they need to do is not challenge any Liberal or NDP incumbants in the next election, and divide up the Conservative ridings. Then its goodbye Perogy Prime Minister.

Include Gilles with that thought and you get a majority that sees Harper moving out of 24 Sussex.

[DrGreenthumb]

Include Gilles with that thought and you get a majority that sees Harper moving out of 24 Sussex.

I like Gilles, if it wasn`t for the whole seperation thing and not having a candidate here I might vote for him. I don`t think the Libs and NDP would need bloc support to send Harper packing though.

[blueblood]

Well no they aren't, and this is what you right wingers are failing to be able to grasp. The difference is, that once it was revealed that there was speculation (if not evidence) that these turn overs were being tortured, the CPC did nothing for what a year? And further, when called on it, they lied. Again.

there's no difference. PMPM signed the agreement. Did he think the detainees would be tortured? no, no rational person would. Same goes for his little adventure with the US. Is there speculation (if not evidence) of torture being used at gitmo, yes. and the Liberals did nothing for how long?

Plus we have ignatieff who has published works justifying viewpoints that you guys consider the "right" to have. Show me where Harper published something saying he justifies torture.