February 8, 2016, - 1:53 pm

What Ted Cruz Said @ GOP Debate That PO’d Me – VIDEO

By Debbie Schlussel

*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***

abcnewsdebate

Watching Saturday night’s GOP Presidential Debate, I noted something Ted Cruz said that really disappointed me–something he said that showed me he’s really one of the GOP RINO Senators, not a rebel and maverick. Here’s the video . . .


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Follow me on Twitter . . .

Related to this, I don’t have a problem with Cruz being “hated” in the Senate, a criticism often leveled against him by critics, mostly loudly Donald Trump. Being hated by liberal Republican establishment types is a badge of honor. But Cruz has shown that, in fact, he’s a lot more chummy with the those RINO establishment Senators than he’s given credit for. He campaigned for many of them against Tea Party challengers (including for RINO Pat Roberts against a conservative in Kansas, as reader Little Al has pointed out), and, now, he’s bragging, “I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels.” As you’ll notice, there is an audible gasp from many Republican audience members when he says that.

Cruz tries to rescue himself by saying that in an emergency he would allow enhanced interrogations to prevent destruction of cities, etc. But that’s ridiculous. There is no way of knowing if there is an imminent terrorist attack that can be prevented, until after you know it’s being planned and about to be implemented. Until then, it’s an unknown–information that can only be gleaned from interrogating the terrorists. And, in general, it’s the “line officers” Cruz wants to prohibit from waterboarding, who conduct those interrogations. By the time it’s determined that we must go to someone at the “higher levels,” it’s far too late. That’s the same problem with the warrants and so on that Cruz voted for, which now make it harder for the feds to look at phone records of terrorists. Cruz adds layers of bureaucratic BS to things that–when they are needed–are needed immediately to prevent imminent attack. Edward Snowden national security isn’t national security.

Donald Trump has it exactly right on torture. But I don’t believe he’ll do anything close to what he’s saying he will. Again, as I’ve been saying on this site for months, Trump will say anything–and everything–that he knows we conservatives want to hear. The question is, whether we will get that Trump in the White House. I don’t believe we will, but if we get even a fraction of this current Trump, I’ll take it. I don’t like pals of John McCain. On the other hand, I don’t like pals of Nancy PelosticSurgery, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer–which Trump bragged that he is–either. It’s two equally annoying sides of the same coin that we’re being give here as a choice (the rest are wholly unacceptable choices to me).

By the way, note that lightweight JEB! Bush a/k/a John Ellis Bush Bush is essentially dissing his brother–you know, his former Prez bro who has put away the cheesy paintings for a spell in order to campaign for his brother in New Hampshire. Who was the one who used waterboarding against Islamic terrorists (with a good deal of success in extracting info)? Who was the one against whom the “legislation” JEB! is praising, was aimed at stopping? His brother, George W. Bringing mommy to New Hampshire to be his attack dog didn’t work, so now he’s throwing his brother and his Presidency under the bus for the 427th time. Whatta putz.

We know that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods do, in fact, work, despite what Ted Cruz said about “bad things happen[ing].” Just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was waterboarded. Repeatedly. And that’s why he gave up information. From CBS News’ “60 Minutes”:

Jose Rodriguez has no regrets about using the “enhanced interrogation techniques” – methods that some consider torture — on al Qaeda detainees questioned after 9/11 and denies charges they didn’t work. The former head of the CIA’s Clandestine Service talks to Lesley Stahl about those methods, including waterboarding, for the first time and defends their use – even comparing them to the current policy of killing al Qaeda leaders with drone strikes. . . .

Rodriguez says everything his interrogators did to top-level terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah was legal and effective. “We made some al Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days,” he tells Stahl. “I am very secure in what we did and am very confident that what we did saved American lives,” says Rodriguez, who has written a book on the subject called “Hard Measures.”

Pressed by Stahl about charges that Zubaydah, who was waterboarded and sleep deprived, gave false information that wasted U.S. resources, Rodriguez replies, “Bull****!, He gave us a roadmap that allowed us to capture a bunch of al Qaeda senior leaders,” says the ex-spy.

Rodriguez says the interrogation program, which also included stress positions, nudity and “insult slaps,” was “about instilling a sense of hopelessness…despair…so that he [the detainee] would conclude on his own that he was better off cooperating with us.” He says that even Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom he termed “the toughest detainee we had,” eventually gave up information.

KSM, as the mastermind of 9/11 was known, would not cooperate at first. “He eventually told us, ‘I will talk once I get to New York and I get my lawyer,'” Rodriguez recalls. But KSM was subjected to the enhanced techniques, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and Rodriguez believes, “it was the cumulative effect of waterboarding and sleep deprivation and everything else that was done that eventually got to him.”

Rodriguez maintains he got information from the interrogations of KSM and others that enabled the CIA to disrupt at least 10 large-scale terrorist plots. But when Stahl reminds him the CIA’s own inspector general said that his enhanced interrogation program did not stop any imminent attack, Rodriguez says, “We don’t know. …if, for example, al Qaeda would have been able to continue on with their anthrax program or nuclear program…or sleeper agents …working with Khalid Sheik Mohammed to take down the Brooklyn Bridge, for example.”

I think I’ll trust Jose Rodriguez’s expertise on whether waterboarding works over the claims of Ted Cruz (and his newly-claimed ally Juan McCain).

Again, when terrorists have planned an imminent attack on Chicago, we won’t know about it until it’s too late because Ted Cruz, like the liberals, won’t allow “line officers” in the federal law enforcement and the CIA to do what needs to be done.

This bothers me . . . a lot.

Edward Snowden’s and Anwar Awlaki’s ghost’s fave GOP candidate, Rand Paul, is already out of the race. For a reason. We don’t need another Paulistinian as the GOP nominee.

And we don’t need someone who is on the same page as Bernie Sanders when it comes to Islamic terrorists.

**** UPDATE: Reader Worry01 sends this video, in which Trump further elaborates:

Again, he’s spot on, but the question remains: will he do as he says he will?






30 Responses

Yup.

Part of the problem is as the Democrats are moving left, the GOP is moving to occupying their territory.

As a conservative, I expected Cruz to stand athwart against it. Instead he thinks waterboarding to terrorists is cruel.

Even though Trump doesn’t believe a word he says and won’t do what he promised, he has the right instincts on what we should do.

Americans prefer someone who has the right instinct rather than someone who tries to be politically correct.

If you want to know why Cruz is getting only 16% of the vote in NH tomorrow, you can thank his opposition to waterboarding terrorists in part for it.

I wish we had we had someone more principled than Trump in the race – but as it is, he’ll have to do. No one else, Cruz included, can beat Hillary.

And no doubt NH voters will see that too, tomorrow when they go to the polls to vote.

NormanF on February 8, 2016 at 2:39 pm

Ho, Hum, … yawn!

Waterboarding? Some of us, I am certain, have had worse experiences while taking SCUBA Classes.

Perhaps our guys could take some hints from the ancient Egyptians and encase the bad-ass dudes in a SARCOPHAGUS filled with SCARABS.

It worked in the “MUMMY MOVIES”.

Dennis on February 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm

Just remember, now that freedom loving, God fearing, Constitution following patriots are domestic terrorists, that could happen to us to make us rat on our fellow Americans.

Buddy on February 8, 2016 at 2:50 pm

I agree that Trump may not be sincere about many of the things he is saying; I’m not a mind-reader. I do know that many of the things he is proposing are potentially doable, e.g. vetoing bad trade deals, and building a wall,something the others say nothing about, or just say them in response to Trump.

He doesn’t really present a lot of pollyanish schemes like Flat Tax, or abortion proposals that, given the state of the law, have no chance of being enacted, and are rhetorical, only. Negotiating better trade terms, although daunting, is within the realm of possibility.

A more serious concern to me is the lack of any organizational accountability in his political movement. It is essentially a one-man movement; without Trump it disappears. If he is elected and disappoints those who vote for him, there is no intra-organizational way they can call him to order.

In a labor union, for instance, if the members are dissatisfied with what a leader is doing, they can vote him out or make local decisions to take work actions(within the organizational structure of the union that they can use.

But if Trump is President, what can his 2016 supporters do if they do not like what he is doing? It has become crystal clear that voters have no really control over the Republican Party mechanism; it rests with the bureaucrats, the poitical hacks and the donors. Supporters can complain on their internet sites, and hope that a new Trump comes along, but not much else.

Ideally, there would have been a strong, coherent political movement, with clear organizational mechanisms in place, along which power is distributed where an officeholder could be held accountable.

That is not happening though, and under the current conditions, Trump is the best choice out there. Cruz, as was pointed out, is a demagogue; even his definition of conservatism as small government; what workable solutions has he proposed to downsize government? Granted Trump hasn’t either, but Cruz and the hacks working under Murdoch and others like him are the ones making all the noise about smaller government.

I will say though, that with all the things Trump is saying, he would put himself in a very awkward position if he didn’t try to do at least some of them.

Little Al on February 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm

PS, Cruz’ comments about his half-sister were pathetic. Yes I sympathize with both him and his sister, but his comment was completely devoid of policy, and by making statements like that in place of policy, he is showing his contempt for his supporters and potential supporters, and, in essence, confirming that he will just be another hack.

Perhaps the utter irrelevance of his discussion of his half-sister is part of the reason the liberals have ridiculed his statement, although of course the despicable attacks and ridicule against his sister are completely out of order.

Little Al on February 8, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Granted Trump’s sincerity is open to question. One positive thing about many of his positions is that they are not pollyanish; i.e. it is actually possible to implement them. Examples are building a wall, preventing the Pacific Trade Deal, instituting waterboarding and other methods of information retrieval, etc.

Little Al on February 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Ted Cruz is looking more and more like the others. Would he really be that different than a Jeb Bush? Speaker Ryan once talked tough not so very long ago, but all of that proved to be a lie. Does Ted Cruz think that aligning himself with John McCain on any issue will gain him any credibility? Has Ted Cruz been putting on a show, as Paul Ryan once did?

Worry on February 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm

What concerns me more is the lack of organizational accountability that he would be subject to. As a comparison, look at labor unions. If a leader does not do what the rank-and-file want, they can recall him (ideally), or, at least at times, take their own work actions or similar remedies.

Little Al on February 8, 2016 at 3:52 pm

That last debate did not help Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio: 7NEWS/UMass Lowell Poll NH Tracking Poll day 8 http://www.whdh.com/story/31164312/7newsumass-lowell-poll-nh-tracking-poll-day-8#.VrkA5EYwPNc.twitter

Worry on February 8, 2016 at 3:57 pm

I don’t know why everyone is so high on Cruz. My background does not allow me to believe talkers and that’s all he is. Why become a Senator other than liking to just talk and blame others? Rush and Beck have a bromance with him which makes me like them significantly less. I am not saying Trump is the man but please don’t tell me that Cruz’s actual work and background is any different from McCain or Graham. That goes quadruple for Rubio.

TrumpMaybe? on February 8, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Ted was reminding Libtards that they are to the whacky wingnut left of John McCrazy. Those who were really paying attention noted that tRUMP had not limits on what might be done, including full torture. Cruz in stark contrast quite properly said that only very high-level officials should be able to authorize enhanced interrogation.

Mark Buse on February 8, 2016 at 5:28 pm

I had been leaning towards Cruz and away from Trump the last couple of weeks, due to things like Trump’s endorsement from Dole & Carter. But this answer @ the debate by Cruz turned me back towards Trump

I think Cruz – like the GOP congressmen that he routinely denounces – was trying to pivot a bit to the center, given the perception of him as being too conservative/hard right. Except that this was not the right issue on which to do it. If he wanted to soften on something else, like trade or economic regulations or some such thing, that would have been fine, but this was a bad choice on which to shift left, and even worse, wrap himself around McCain. Actually, the biggest thing I admire about Trump is his willingness to denounce RINOs like McCain, Boehner…

The other thing about Cruz that struck me was his absence in the Senate Judiciary hearings on the drug problem in NH. I’m no fan of Rubio, but if people denounce Rubio for missing major votes and hearings, why is Cruz given a pass on this one?

Also, Cruz’s answer on the carpet bombing – why not just say plainly that when we are in a war, the purpose of a war is to kill people and destroy property. If the Islamic countries do not care about their people, why is it the prerogative of the US president to care? He should say that he’s prepared to carpet bomb Raqqa, even if it involves their civilians

As Iraq showed, one can’t win the hearts and minds of people who have neither

Infidel on February 8, 2016 at 11:12 pm

As for the debate itself, I thought Trump came out the best. I don’t fully agree on Eminent Domain, but I prefer someone w/ an honest disagreement than someone like Bush 43 who did NOTHING after the Kelo case

Incidentally, I don’t agree w/ those who thought that Rubio got pummeled, even though I don’t support him. I think Rubio was right in his assertion 4 times that Obama wanted to remake America in a way that it had never been. Just on Foreign policy alone, for example, making the US pro-Iran, as well as pro-Islamic is not something that one does by accident!!! And I wish Rubio could have brought up Christie’s appointment of Suhail Khan as a judge in NJ – an ex Hamas defendant lawyer.

But yeah, for the first time, I thought Cruz did really badly in a debate. It was funny when he bragged about defying the Ethanol lobby in his closing statement, and Trump then popping him w/ mugging Ben Carson of his votes 🙂

Infidel on February 8, 2016 at 11:21 pm

As for the debate itself, I thought Trump came out the best. I don’t fully agree on Eminent Domain, but I prefer someone w/ an honest disagreement than someone like Bush 43 who did NOTHING after the Kelo case

Incidentally, I don’t agree w/ those who thought that Rubio got pummeled, even though I don’t support him. I think Rubio was right in his assertion 4 times that Obama wanted to remake America in a way that it had never been. Just on Foreign policy alone, for example, making the US pro-Iran, as well as pro-Islamic is not something that one does by accident!!! And I wish Rubio could have brought up Christie’s appointment of Suhail Khan as a judge in NJ – an ex Hamas defendant lawyer.

But yeah, for the first time, I thought Cruz did really badly in a debate. It was funny when he bragged about defying the Ethanol lobby in his closing statement, and Trump then popping him w/ mugging Ben Carson of his votes 🙂

Infidel on February 8, 2016 at 11:23 pm

I consider your opinion of Ted Cruz to be a RINO based on this matter to be overboard. Plus, he’s the best we have.

Robo on February 9, 2016 at 12:09 am

Robo, like I said above, had Cruz shifted left on a different issue, such as deregulation, it might have been okay. This is an issue on which NO conservative – particularly one committed to US leadership – should compromise

After giving us all those lectures about how he opposed McConnell and Boehner, for him to claim to be in full agreement w/ someone who was to the Left of Obama – McCain – is really inane. As someone who constantly talks of bold colors vs pale pastels, he should know better

Infidel on February 9, 2016 at 12:37 am

Cruz (who I worked tirelessly for to get elected as Senator here in Texas) is simply not eligible. And when asked to explain his he didn’t know he was a Canadian citizen until two years ago when he renounced it, said this….https://youtu.be/2U3CfFf279g

Deb is right about the RINO complicity. And after two weeks of research, I’m convinced it is Cruz, not Trump, who will say anything to get elected. http://www.politijim.com/2016/02/why-are-cruz-christians-allowing.html

PolitiJim on February 9, 2016 at 7:48 am

I’m not too worried about this one.

The strategic view is more important than any one tactic.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on February 9, 2016 at 8:34 am

Schlussel is 100% correct.

Phil Lipofsky on February 9, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Isn’t she always?

    Todd Preston on February 9, 2016 at 11:02 am

I was also very disappointed that Trump told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he “questioned whether Israel had the right to claim all of Jerusalem”. I trust his daughter, Ivanka, more than I trust Trump BUT the other candidates are unthinkable choices…

NB: Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Rodham Clinton-Mezvinsky (or as Adam Taxin calls her, Chelsea Hubbell-Mezvinsky) continue to brag about their close friendship with each other. Barf. Otherwise, agreed. DS

Nancy B on February 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    “questioned whether Israel had the right to claim all of Jerusalem”

    Where is this quote from? Trump never said that. In fact, he said Israel has already sacrificed so much and haven’t gotten credit for it.

    Bee on February 10, 2016 at 4:50 pm

The real answer is:

The Constitution ONLY APPLIES TO CITIZENS OF THE USA. So technically we can do anything to any terrorist anywhere in the world……period. If a US citizen is terrorist he can be declared an enemy combatant and dealt with in the same way we would deal with a foreign terrorist.

Doc Holiday on February 9, 2016 at 1:05 pm

Wow, surprised so many people feel the same way I do about Cruz’s lawyerly, cowardly response to the waterboarding question.

Cruz is definitely not the conservative purist he claims to be: In 2011, when he was running for Senate, this lawyer that birthright citizenship for illegals born in the U.S. is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and could only be reversed by a constitutional amendment – something he reversed recently when Trump (CORRECTLY!) challenged this notion.

I’m done with Goldman Sachs Ted, like Debbie said he’s just another RINO.

Jay on February 9, 2016 at 1:10 pm

I know that I only went to public school, but isn’t waterboarding a violation of international law – the same international law that the US government accused Iran of violating with those Navy sailors? Aren’t Western bombing flights over Syria, without the permission of the legitimate Assad government, also a violation of international law? Wasn’t the illegal invasion of Iraq also a violation of international law? They hung people at Nuremuburg for the same crimes. Or is it totally legal when the 500+ year-old Western system of White Supremacy does it? Aren’t all the Presidents in US history merely war criminals?

Remember: the CIA since its inception is directly responsible for the murder of over 6 million people, making it the most murderous organization in the history of the world. The Einzatzgruppen in Russia, by comparison, only murdered 2 million.

BTW, Malcolm X was the greatest American that this country ever produced. What did he ever say that was anti-semitic? Legally, statements can’t be slander if they are true? And if Confederate soldiers can be revered by whites, why can’t African-Americans honor the Black Panthers? Who are you to tell us who we have permission to honor?

Disclaimer: not a lawyer; just read a lot…

Kermit Vick on February 10, 2016 at 10:02 pm

I know that I only went to public school, but isn’t waterboarding a violation of international law – the same international law that the US government accused Iran of violating with those Navy sailors? Aren’t Western bombing flights over Syria, without the permission of the legitimate Assad government, also a violation of international law? Wasn’t the illegal invasion of Iraq also a violation of international law? They hung people at Nuremuburg for the same crimes. Or is it totally legal when the 500+ year-old Western system of White Supremacy does it? Aren’t all the Presidents in US history merely war criminals?

Remember: the CIA since its inception is directly responsible for the murder of over 6 million people, making it the most murderous organization in the history of the world. The Einzatzgruppen in Russia, by comparison, only murdered 2 million.

BTW, Malcolm X was the greatest American that this country ever produced. What did he ever say that was anti-semitic? Legally, statements can’t be slander if they are true? And if Confederate soldiers can be revered by whites, why can’t African-Americans honor the Black Panthers? Who are you to tell us who we have permission to honor?

Disclaimer: not a lawyer; just read a lot…

Kermit Vick on February 10, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    Kermit: ” just read a lot… ”

    Reading is like food – if it seems too delicious, it’s bad for you. Try reading up on something not connected to the U.S. For example, check out the story of Tippu Tip.

    Guardian Angel on February 11, 2016 at 2:26 am

REPOSTING (previously posted on Debbie’s site – updated)

Cruz’s CITIZENSHIP issue could sink him, procedurally if not substantively. He may NOT BE A U.S. CITIZEN AT ALL.

POSSIBLE “NATURAL BORN” PROBLEM: Factually, it is possible that Cruz’s mother – then living in Calgary, Saskatchewan – became a Canadian citizen BEFORE his birth. If so, she would have lost her U.S. citizenship automatically that instant. Without his mother, Canadian-born Cruz had no claim to U.S. citizenship at all. In that case, even under the loosest interpretation of the “natural born” requirement, Cruz would be no more eligible to be U.S. president than is fellow Cuban Fidel Castro.

Under this “Canadian naturalization” scenario, Cruz could still argue in *a court of law* that that his mother’s rash act should not be held against him, that U.S. authorities always regarded him as a citizen, that he paid taxes, etc. However, simply having to EXPLAIN these points in a campaign against vicious Democrats would guarantee defeat.

*ONLY* an immediate, full and direct investigation of primary Canadian government records can show whether or not Mrs. Cruz was in fact naturalized in Canada. The dates and other details given by Cruz himself about his parents are somewhat vague and need real substantiation. Unlike Barry Davis/Dunham/Obama/Soetoro/X, Cruz will *NOT* get a pass in the media or in public opinion.

LEGAL BACKGROUND: A U.S. citizen was actually held to have lost citizenship simply by swearing the Canadian oath of allegiance (which renounces allegiance to foreign powers, i.e. the U.S.) within the same timeframe:

Richards v. Secretary of State, Dept. of State, 752 F. 2d 1413 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1985

KEY HOLDING (QUOTE): Nevertheless, the district court’s application of the presumption in this case was not erroneous. Here, the act that the Secretary alleges demonstrates a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship — i.e., the explicit renunciation of United States citizenship under oath — was an integral part of both of the alleged expatriating acts — i.e., becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath of allegiance to Canada. Because the presumption of voluntariness extended to both of those acts, it also of necessity applied to the act demonstrating specific intent. (END QUOTE)

PROCEDURAL PROBLEM: Whatever the facts, the day after Cruz becomes the Republican candidate, multiple Dem operatives posing as concerned independents would launch a blizzard of lawsuits throughout the country “just to be sure” about Cruz’s “natural born” status, purely as a public service, you understand.

At exactly the same time, the Dem media (PBS, NPR, CNN, the alphabet networks) will start an ongoing drumbeat of “dispassionate” reporting about the “independent” lawsuits. Telegenic “experts” have already been shortlisted. We will suddenly hear the term “Founding Fathers” again on PBS.

Guardian Angel on February 11, 2016 at 2:17 am

Debbie Debbie …..Why do you not think Donald will say what he is going to do???? He builds buildings , thats tangible. He builds things ….what makes you think he wont do what he says he is going to do?

PANCAKE RACHEL CORRIE on February 11, 2016 at 2:33 pm

Didn’t love the lawyerly hedge but what he said was: waterboarding is not torture, it’s advanced interrogation; he co-sponsored a bill that would prohibit advanced interrogation by line officers; but would allow waterboarding or any other legal interrogation technique in a case like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. What’s wrong with that? You want the doofi at abu ghraib to have the authority to waterboard? Do you think we should be waterboarding low level prisoners?

NH Guy on February 12, 2016 at 4:59 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field