Obama throws Bush under the bus......accuses him of torture

[Uncensored2008]

MSN is not in the business of "linking" stories.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's the ONLY business they're in, moron. That's what a portal does.

 

[kaz]

You wanted to take Bush and his entire family, children and parents, sit them in a formal setting, and shoot them all to death. We know Comrade, we know.

What do we do with criminals who have tortured? They almost always get around 50 years in jail at least or life.

I assumed RW would grasp that historical reference.

I'm unsurprised that you did not.

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

You obviously don't know any history

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

MSN is not in the business of "linking" stories.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's the ONLY business they're in, moron. That's what a portal does.

Not how you were using the term.

 

[kaz]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You wanted to take Bush and his entire family, children and parents, sit them in a formal setting, and shoot them all to death. We know Comrade, we know.

What do we do with criminals who have tortured? They almost always get around 50 years in jail at least or life.

I assumed RW would grasp that historical reference.

I'm unsurprised that you did not.

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

You obviously don't know any history

I was born yesterday. That's why I have competently shown repeatedly that torture is wrong.

Your reasoning is torturous.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

You're talking about two different things, the original report and the final report. We won't know if that part of the report will be in the final one until it is released.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Make your own points then instead of just whining.

Or... I could just point and laugh...

Is that what they do when they torture them?

 

[kaz]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

You're talking about two different things, the original report and the final report. We won't know if that part of the report will be in the final one until it is released.

What about answering the question?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Is there anyone on this thread other than the partisan right defending torture?

If you can point out any liberals on this thread who defend America engaging in torture, I will gladly attack them

Please provide

american soldiers are waterboarded as part of their training, are we torturing our own military??????? you are a moron.

Well, its not exactly the same

They know there are medical personnel standing by, they know what it is about before it starts, they know they are going to be OK and that it will only be done once

It is different when you fear for your life and don't know what those crazy motherfuckers are going to do

Its exactly the same, there were medical personnel standing by when KSM and the others were waterboarded. None of them have any permanent physical or mental damage as a result of it.----------but it is very likely that thousands of american lives may have been saved as a result of the intel gathered from them-----maybe YOUR life was saved.

There is a great deal of dangerous training our military undergoes. The trainees' high spirits keep them going strong. No one would equate military training with torture other than a conscientious objector.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

You're talking about two different things, the original report and the final report. We won't know if that part of the report will be in the final one until it is released.

What about answering the question?

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report.

No, I didn't make it sound like that or even speak of the CIA.

So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

I didn't present it as fact, and the report cited "officials familiar with the report" which cannot be qualified as a Democratic opinion. We don't know who the officials are and probably never will. So the quote again:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation...

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

There is no way to answer your question, since you misinterpreted the post.

 

[Redfish]

Is there anyone on this thread other than the partisan right defending torture?

If you can point out any liberals on this thread who defend America engaging in torture, I will gladly attack them

Please provide

american soldiers are waterboarded as part of their training, are we torturing our own military??????? you are a moron.

Well, its not exactly the same

They know there are medical personnel standing by, they know what it is about before it starts, they know they are going to be OK and that it will only be done once

It is different when you fear for your life and don't know what those crazy motherfuckers are going to do

Its exactly the same, there were medical personnel standing by when KSM and the others were waterboarded. None of them have any permanent physical or mental damage as a result of it.----------but it is very likely that thousands of american lives may have been saved as a result of the intel gathered from them-----maybe YOUR life was saved.

There is a great deal of dangerous training our military undergoes. The trainees' high spirits keep them going strong. No one would equate military training with torture other than a conscientious objector.

so you agree that waterboarding is not torture-----good.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Is there anyone on this thread other than the partisan right defending torture?

If you can point out any liberals on this thread who defend America engaging in torture, I will gladly attack them

Please provide

american soldiers are waterboarded as part of their training, are we torturing our own military??????? you are a moron.

Well, its not exactly the same

They know there are medical personnel standing by, they know what it is about before it starts, they know they are going to be OK and that it will only be done once

It is different when you fear for your life and don't know what those crazy motherfuckers are going to do

Its exactly the same, there were medical personnel standing by when KSM and the others were waterboarded. None of them have any permanent physical or mental damage as a result of it.----------but it is very likely that thousands of american lives may have been saved as a result of the intel gathered from them-----maybe YOUR life was saved.

There is a great deal of dangerous training our military undergoes. The trainees' high spirits keep them going strong. No one would equate military training with torture other than a conscientious objector.

so you agree that waterboarding is not torture-----good.

It depends how well it is done.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The CIA couldn't have been very good at it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Obama: U.S. 'crossed a line,' tortured after 9/11 - CNN.com

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama acknowledged Friday that the United States "crossed a line" and tortured al Qaeda detainees after the 9/11 terror attacks.
The comments at a White House news conference were the President's strongest on the controversial subject since he came into office denouncing what he described as the Bush years of torturing alleged terrorists, also known as "enhanced interrogation."
"When we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line," Obama said. "And that needs to be ... understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that hopefully we don't do it again in the future."

About time our country stopped covering for the abuses of Bush/Cheney

It's an election year and Obama has really screwed the pooch on so many levels that he has to try and pull one more Boooooosh out of his ass to try and save the Senate.
It's old news and everyone knew it was going on, even pelosi. So now this is front page news? Really?

Desperate politicians make desperate speeches. Nobody is more desperate than Obama this year. Joe the Plumber could have beat Obama if he was running these numbers he's sporting.

The more the matter is pursued, the more seriously it will be taken in the future. There is nothing more important than the integrity of our country.

 

[kaz]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

You're talking about two different things, the original report and the final report. We won't know if that part of the report will be in the final one until it is released.

What about answering the question?

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report.

No, I didn't make it sound like that or even speak of the CIA.

So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

I didn't present it as fact, and the report cited "officials familiar with the report" which cannot be qualified as a Democratic opinion. We don't know who the officials are and probably never will. So the quote again:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation...

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

There is no way to answer your question, since you misinterpreted the post.

So you don't think you showed anything? OK.

 

[kaz]

The CIA couldn't have been very good at it.

According to your post which is based only on partisan Democrat points? LOL, I thought you said I misinterpreted what you are claiming? Obviously I didn't.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If we started burying people alive and letting them stay buried till they passed out from lack of oxygen before we revived them, would that be torture redfish?

No marks, no physical harm at all. Mental harm may be different but would that action be torture?
Just curious where the limits might be.

Not a valid analogy. No one has ever died from waterboarding, being buried alive has resulted in millions of deaths.

If anyone has died or will die, someone being waterboarded dies of drowning, and there have been millions of deaths from drowning too.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The CIA couldn't have been very good at it.

According to your post which is based only on partisan Democrat points? LOL, I thought you said I misinterpreted what you are claiming? Obviously I didn't.

How did you get all that from a nine-word post?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Do you understand that "the report" is a Senate Report, not a CIA report? It's a political report, not an intelligence report. The Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. Who controls the Senate?

That does not make in itself the Democrats wrong, but it sure as hell doesn't prove them right.

The final report will have to be supported by both parties. They won't release it until then.

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report. So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

You're talking about two different things, the original report and the final report. We won't know if that part of the report will be in the final one until it is released.

What about answering the question?

You said that the report said that we didn't get any intelligence from coercive interrogation we would not have gotten from uncoerrcive interrogation. You made it sound like a CIA report, it wasn't, it was a Senate committee report.

No, I didn't make it sound like that or even speak of the CIA.

So you were citing Democratic opinions and presenting it as fact coercive interrogation was useless, and your own article said Republicans weren't participating, didn't agree and were doing their own report.

I didn't present it as fact, and the report cited "officials familiar with the report" which cannot be qualified as a Democratic opinion. We don't know who the officials are and probably never will. So the quote again:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation...

What exactly do you think you just demonstrated with this?

There is no way to answer your question, since you misinterpreted the post.

So you don't think you showed anything? OK.

You certainly don't.

 

[kaz]

The CIA couldn't have been very good at it.

According to your post which is based only on partisan Democrat points? LOL, I thought you said I misinterpreted what you are claiming? Obviously I didn't.

How did you get all that from a nine-word post?

You have no critical thinking skills