You keep mentioning the word "overseers" as though you didn't pull the term from a newspaper article. So, the newspaper called them overseers. Does this somehow magically allow them to break the law and spill the beans without consequence? Does this somehow create a rule to deal with covert action in which the President limits the knowledge to a select few and they aren't allowed to discuss it even with their own counsel? Ah, the power of the media!



Once again, this doesn't illustrate an "oversight system", Ted. It is a recounting of what happened - this isn't a system of oversight. So, provide support for your argument or stop beating the horse or I call PETA.

Hey Ted, I don't know whose still following this thread... you've stopped making sense. We know for a fact that one of those "overseers" objected. She sent a letter of objections, which surprise surprise, was then classified.

Why would they classify a letter Ted?? Because to have objections to something, you must first have something to object. And objecting to practices concerning waterboarding, lets people know we are waterboarding.

Senator Harman said there was nothing she could do. No one she could talk to.

So to recap

You'll ignore the quote, you'll ignore the laws dealing with classified information, you'll ignore the fact you can't provide us with the procedures that these four people could legally undertake, you'll ignore all our supporting links, just so you can pretend that Congress did nothing to stop the President and CIA from toturing people.

Seriously, are you Karl Rove??

No my logic is clear. Everything is “classified” including here letter. But if the oversight group had strong objections there is a way to stop the CIA from doing what the House oversight folks object to. If this was not the case the CIA could call them in and say “we plan to use the most extreme methods we can think of and the murder the captives” “but it classified so you can’t say anything. Or “we plan to murder a head of state – but it’s classified”. DUH – does this make sense to you? OVERSIGHT cannot work when someone says “classified”? How stupid would that be for an agency where almost everything is "classified"

It’s a stupid argument to cover the fact that the group had only minor issues (the one letter) – they allowed it to go forward.

Ted, if there is ever an AD award for the worst argument ever, I would nominate this one.

I've had this same argument with my boss who is a died-in-the-wool Bushbot. When I call Bush a liberal because of his spending policies, he said it was not Bush's fault. It was the fault of the Congress who asked him to sign those spending bills. You are making the same type of argument.

When Hillary starts hiding files in her office in the name of national security and starts abusing the system you helped create, you're going to be as mad as some of us republicans are now. But you will have no right to complain. You've waived that right by advocating more unchecked power to the government. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't put it back in - especially if it's only to serve your political purpose.

Your sense of accountability and advocacy of unchecked power in our government is as polluted as the principles of today's republican party. You should be ashamed instead of justifying it.

Of course your logic is clear. But your argument is weak. look to show you I understand your arguement I will even represent it.

• Congress is suppossed to have oversight power over the CIA.
• Oversight must mean they have the ability to stop the CIA or there would not be a point to the oversight.
• They did not stop the practice of waterboardin, therefore they are just as much as fault.

Your second step in your logical process is where you can't prove anything. "The overseers can't do it's job if they can't stop the torture, therefore they are not restricted" is not a good argument.
For the following reasons.

• You have not shown that the this group are overseers. Entspeak has shown a law that talks about the Gang of Eight and the oversight committee. These were four people, not the gang of eight and not the committee
• Even if they were overseers., you have not shown the scope of their authority. Show us in law were these four have the explicit authority to cease and actions of the CIA. Dayton Rocker posted information disclaiming the notion that "oversight" gives them a right to stop anything.
• You have not post or shown how they are supposed to stop the CIA. You merely assert over and over "they can" "please, believe me, they can"... How, Ted? How?!?! Show us the steps they are to take. How do you legally bring action against the CIA? oh.. don't forget that they could not even talk to counsel.
• You have not shown us how if they could act individually to stop the actions of the CIA, so how is it logical to say they should be held personally responsible when they could not personally stop the actions of the CIA.
• You have not showed good logic in your assertion that inaction is, in fact, authorization.
• Entspeak has presented the laws that deal with secrecy, you have yet to counter that evidence with evidence that shows how they could break the law, legally.
• You have yet to show any evidence that counters the quoted words Rep. Jane Harman who states that there was no one she could talk to outside of the other Congress persons breifed?

Nonsense. What I am saying is you don’t get to be on “oversight” on something in 2002 and then come back later and say its torture. And make believe you could not have done something about it right after you saw it.

This is simple enough for even you to understand – I think.



They had “oversight authority” – I posted it above. The law says that this authority was put in place to prevent the CIA form overstepping their bounds in methods and operations.

You show me how in hell anyone who has oversight authority could have seen waterboarding and let it slide and then come back latrer and call it torture. Pure political crap and I hate it on both sides of the isle.

No, you can't say something is okay in 2002 and then come back later and say it's torture. As I've stated and others have stated... we agree with that concept. What you have yet to prove is that Congress was able to properly oversee these activities given that the individuals who attended them were not even allowed to speak to counsel or other members of the committees that they were the party leaders for.

Lets stop talking about it because you use the typical liberal dodge so popular with people like Vermllion.

I showed that the House has CIA oversight authority and that this activity falls under their jurisdiction. I showed that the people who saw the “waterboarding” (from both parties) were part of that oversight group. They had oversight responsibility. They did squat – repubs and dems.

Now you show ME how and why, if they thought this was “torture” they could not do anything about it. And PLEASE don’t say again “its classified” because all CIA activities are.

So show me that they were prevented from doing their jobs – and then we can look for Federal charges – for that.

“Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

You can keep quoting the same article and the same irrelevant portions of the law, Ted. It is clear that you don't understand how this works. So, yes. We'll stop talking about it. Poor dead horse, was shown absolutely no respect. I love, by the way, how you say, let's stop talking about it and then ask for information on what we aren't going to talk about anymore. Are you sure you want to stop talking about it? Sure? I mean... are you? Sure?

Yep, worst argument EVER

Ted- let's break it down like this- you don't have oversite if you have no ability to report what you don't like, no ability to talk to anybody without fear of reprisal, and no teeth to take action

bottom line is- they lacked any power to allow it to be called "oversite"

It is hilarious to watch you try to chase your tail like a puppy though.

As usual you post squat but just say I am wrong – YA RIGHT.

Ya it’s a dead horse all right. Nancy saw it and did squat and no doubt the subject will not come up again from her or anyone else since their cover was blown.


And you or anyone else can POST something that shows me that the people invited to see this – on the oversight committee could not do their damn jobs. Stop babbling and POST SOMETHING.

Here you go I posted something , Senator saying the exact same thing we are saying to you Ted



Do you need more?? Does this kill the horse yet or is it still bucking.

CIA tapes have squat to do with waterboarding – try again.

Show me where it says that the 30 briefings given (including that of the gang of 4) on waterboarding fit this statement. There is nothing

CIA tapes have squat to do with water boardin, except when CIA tapes are about, OMG, waterboarding.



Show me, show me, show me.... Ted in another debate where me and Entspeak disagree, I invoked your name as a bit of hyperbole to what I thought of Entspeak's argument. My point is this, maybe down the road Entspeak will think I have a ridiculous argument, and he'll say... "Droop stop pulling a Ted" That's is how ridiculous this has become... no matter what someone shows you you say it isn't good enough, and in return you will post something pointless and say "look what this say" You'll use circular reasoning, you'll ask people to prove negatives, you'll tell someone to prove something, when it is you that won't show anything.... You are the funniest debator I ever met next to a debator named Lord Helmet. And at the end of the day, Ted, I don't even know if I believe you are serious... I mean do you just get into Conservative character and purposefully not make any sense.

At any rate, I want to make you important,I want your screen name to live on, under my wing I would make you infamous.

I propose that anytime someone uses a debate tactic that doesn't make any sense... we address it as a TED. If you feel the reasoning is circular, nonsensical, or just out right the most ridiculous thing you ever heard, we should address it as a Ted argument, or simply a Ted.

All in favor, say Aye.

The typical debate tactic of the left does not work with me. I posted all the data about CIA oversight – who is involved, their duties – even the “manual” and you and your buddy entspeak post your opinions, personal attacks, and then your “something” on waterboarding refers only to the “tapes”.

Give me a break please sir. Try actually posing something that supports your opinions – you haven’t done it yet – and to be honest I am not holding my breath.