How Times Change

[LoneLaugher]

Moreover, the very title of the report 'torture' undermines any of the conclusions it made in the process. Calling it torture is assertion without a basis.

Seriously, Templar?

I don't think you can call it anything EXCEPT torture.

Here's the problem with your argument, that in the aftermath of 9/11 Feinstein and others were willing to write Bush a blank check.

In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, we rounded up an interned 110,000 Americans who had the bad luck of either being born in Japan or having ancestors born there. Some of them were children.

Because we went along with something because we were frightened does not make it okay.

Especially since a lot of these guys weren't actually guilty of what we thought they were.

You must remember that TK is one of those special people who used images of Americans jumping to their deaths on 9-11 as justification for torture. That's when he isn't denying that torture occurred or complaining that people are calling torture......torture.

 

[jwoodie]

Feinstein is an aging politician who is trying to rewrite history for her own benefit. Disgraceful.

 

[LoneLaugher]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

What do you know? Please stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

The "findings" of the White House Counsel's office hold no legal weight. They're not judges.

Nor are you. Yet you tout this report as irrefutable fact. Nothing that comes from Washington is irrefutable.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

The "findings" of the White House Counsel's office hold no legal weight. They're not judges.

Nor are you. Yet you tout this report as irrefutable fact. Nothing that comes from Washington is irrefutable.

I haven't touted anything as "irrefutable", I've just pointed out that no one has refuted it.

Or even really challenged it's validity.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

Perhaps in your eyes.

You do know this is fairly common practice in committee reports, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

The "findings" of the White House Counsel's office hold no legal weight. They're not judges.

Nor are you. Yet you tout this report as irrefutable fact. Nothing that comes from Washington is irrefutable.

I haven't touted anything as "irrefutable", I've just pointed out that no one has refuted it.

Or even really challenged it's validity.

Actually six members of the committee challenged it's validity. The CIA director challenged its validity, three prior CIA directors challenged the assertion that such techniques didn't yield any actionable intelligence. A lot of people have challenged it.

You basically called the report irrefutable by saying "nobody has refuted it."

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. I amount that to hearsay.

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

Perhaps in your eyes.

You do know this is fairly common practice in committee reports, right?

Yes I do. And thusly I believe none of these reports are objective. Personal opinions have no place in reports that claim to be an objective analysis of persons or events.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But the title isn't "The Torture Report".

I know what the title is. But the report within its pages makes many references of torture, hence the moniker.

Also - she didn't call the White House Counsel "liars", she just disagreed with them.

I'm sorry, the insinuation is there. She supplants the findings of the Legal Counsel with her own personal conclusions. "I'm right, you're wrong" in other words. A personal conclusion is insufficient in rebutting the findings of the legal counsel. Whether they are the President's lawyers or not, I amount her 'personal conclusion' to hearsay.

The "findings" of the White House Counsel's office hold no legal weight. They're not judges.

Nor are you. Yet you tout this report as irrefutable fact. Nothing that comes from Washington is irrefutable.

I haven't touted anything as "irrefutable", I've just pointed out that no one has refuted it.

Or even really challenged it's validity.

Actually six members of the committee challenged it's validity. The CIA director challenged its validity, three prior CIA directors challenged the assertion that such techniques yielded any actionable intelligence. A lot of people have challenged it.

You basically called the report irrefutable by saying "nobody has refuted it."

I used the wrong words. People have challenged the report's validity. But they haven't challenged it's truthfulness.

And no, "nobody has refuted it" has an entirely different meaning than "irrefutable".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty much exactly what she said. She's expressing her opinion. What's the problem with that?

She states that it's her "personal conclusion" pretty clearly.

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

Perhaps in your eyes.

You do know this is fairly common practice in committee reports, right?

Yes I do. And thusly I believe none of these reports are objective. Personal opinions have no place in reports that claim to be an objective analysis of persons or events.

Where does the report claim to be "objective"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

Perhaps in your eyes.

You do know this is fairly common practice in committee reports, right?

Yes I do. And thusly I believe none of these reports are objective. Personal opinions have no place in reports that claim to be an objective analysis of persons or events.

Where does the report claim to be "objective"?

It doesn't. If any report of this nature claim they did, they would be discredited immediately. But they are crafted under the basis that they are, that people will not readily challenge the assertions they make. When I post, I want to be objective, but sometimes I let my personal feelings leak into the post, thus making it less credible and objective than it otherwise would have been. Same goes for these Senate reports, personal or political opinions get in the way of actual facts and makes the report harder to believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But they haven't challenged it's truthfulness.

Once again, when you question the validity, you question the truthfulness of said report. Parts of it may in fact be true, yes. But all of it? Extremely unlikely.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're missing the point. In a report of this formal nature, you should never taint it with personal feelings or opinions. All objectivity is lost in the process.

It's in the forward, not the report itself - and she clearly labels it her personal conclusion.

She's allowed to have opinions on it, in fact it's her job to have opinions on it.

Well then, she does so at the expense of her own credibility, and that of the report.

Perhaps in your eyes.

You do know this is fairly common practice in committee reports, right?

Yes I do. And thusly I believe none of these reports are objective. Personal opinions have no place in reports that claim to be an objective analysis of persons or events.

Where does the report claim to be "objective"?

The report was created wholly by the Ideological Left.

The Ideological Left rests entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and as such are never the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

As such relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth. And with truth being essential to trust and both being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and a soundly reasoned morality being essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people that Relativism can never serve justice.

Therefore, it becomes an axiomatic certainty that the report lacks any kinship with objectivity, thus has no relationship with the truth.

 

[JoeB131]

The report was created wholly by the Ideological Left.

The Ideological Left rests entirely upon Relativism.

I'm sorry, there's a relativism where torture is okay?

Seriously?

We tortured people. There was no good reason for it, as torture never provides reliable information.

 

[Meathead]

You've moved from torture denier to torture apologist, that's progress, I guess.

The only one apologizing is Obama. It perhaps what he does best. Still, it is a very low standard.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP and other partisan rightists are attempting to discredit the report solely because it reflects poorly on republican officials, the Bush WH, and Bush himself.

This is a mistake.

 

[Meathead]

The OP and other partisan rightists are attempting to discredit the report solely because it reflects poorly on republican officials, the Bush WH, and Bush himself.

This is a mistake.

Considering that the report is partisan left and issued solely because it attempts to reflect poorly on Bush and Republicans, what did you expect?

 

[JoeB131]

The OP and other partisan rightists are attempting to discredit the report solely because it reflects poorly on republican officials, the Bush WH, and Bush himself.

This is a mistake.

Considering that the report is partisan left and issued solely because it attempts to reflect poorly on Bush and Republicans, what did you expect.

There's a scenario where this reflects WELL on Bush and the GOP?

 

[occupied]

You've moved from torture denier to torture apologist, that's progress, I guess.

The only one apologizing is Obama. It perhaps what he does best. Still, it is a very low standard.

You need to look up what "apologist" means in this context.