Wrong

__________________
MB-less

Yes? If he did he said the opposite many more times!

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I prefer to refer to him a curious George.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Then you might need to read something a bit more intellectual, like Doonebury.
Tom

Back to the topic of the thread, if Bush/Rumsfeld been questioned by the public before going into Iraq there may have been more troops as requested by the Generals the outcome may have been better.

I'm rah rah over the success of the pirate situation but there is ALWAYS room for improvment.

Yeah, I read that too. I read almost all the comics in Newsday.

__________________
1987 W201 190D

The problem the League Of Extraordinary Obama Defenders crowd is facing is that they twist, distort, and attack every little thing any critic says or does, so their credibility is nil. Maybe these pathetic arguments will be substantiated by someone worthy of belief, meanwhile all we have is yet another rant from the Obama sheople.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0409/DNI_Blairs_highvalue_info_memo_on_web_for_days.html

Categories: Bush Administration

Obama intel chief: tough interrogations yielded "high-value info"

President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, told colleagues in an internal memo last week that the aggressive interrogation tactics approved by the Bush administration yielded "high-value information" which helped the U.S. in the war on terror.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country," Blair wrote in a memo to the intelligence community the same day Obama ordered the release of legal memos detailing the techniques, which included waterboarding, slamming detainees into "flexible" walls, and prolonged sleep deprivation.

Blair's assertion of the program's fruits was notable because while former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney and others have claimed that the program produced volumes of useful intelligence, Obama and other top aides have refused to acknowledge any benefits from the tough tactics. As recently as Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs demurred when asked about claims that the program helped break up terror plots.

Curiously, Blair's assessment that the program was to some degree a success was omitted from the public press statement he issued on Thursday. However, even that press release signaled some distance with Obama by cautioning against 20-20 hindsight prompted by reading the legal memos "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009."

Blair's internal memo has been posted on the Web since Friday, the day after Obama released the legal opinions from the Justice Department. A blog post Friday at a non-profit think tank, the U.S. Naval Institute, noted several discrepancies between the press release and the internal memo. The press release also omitted a line claiming that Congressional leaders and executive branch officials were "repeatedly" briefed on the interrogation program and allowed it to continue.
Critics who have branded the tactics as "torture" said the issue of whether the program yielded some intelligence was largely beside the point.

"The issue is not whether the CIA obtained information, but whether it was reliable, whether it was lawful, and whether the CIA could have obtained the same information and perhaps more through the use of lawful means," said Jameel Jaffer, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who pressed the lawsuit which triggered release of the legal memos.

"The issue is not whether the CIA obtained information, but whether it was reliable, whether it was lawful, and whether the CIA could have obtained the same information and perhaps more through the use of lawful means," said Jameel Jaffer, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who pressed the lawsuit which triggered release of the legal memos.

Get the point? If the CIA wants to torture people, well dude, right now, and during the time George Bush was president, torturing people was AGAINST THE LAW. If torture works as you state, then the CIA or whomever needs to get a law passed that allows them to use it. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a Hitlerite regime which disregards the law and does whatever it wants, using the security of the state as it's excuse. It is a road to fascism, and I want no part of it. In fact, in the post 9-11 environment, Bush could have easily used legal means to get the right to do this. Instead he choose the route of dictators: Executive fiat.

Is this moron suggesting that a spy agency works thru "lawful" means? That a public RFI would have elicited more intel than covert ops?

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

Are you saying you disagree with that statement? That we should have government agencies not burdened with the law?

what we did to the detainees was NOT torture..... the left wants show trials like they do whenever they "take over" This is a farce, plain and simple politics.....and it is wrong.

I said that I don't know whether Obama acted decisively. You consider that a rant?

As for the rest of your post, it appears that you missed my point. I don't know whether we got valuable information through these aggressive interrogation tactics.

I wish we had more credible, informed people on both sides of the issue. One of the big problems is that the people directly involved are people like Dick Cheney who said in March 2003 that our national security team believed that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. That is one of the biggest lies any politician has ever told and it wasn't their only falsehood. The problem this creates, aside from the damage to our reputation, is that we are deprived of reliable, first-hand witnesses to the events. Cheney was present when these decisions were made. It would be nice if he could tell us what happened and why. His comical track record of dishonesty renders him useless as a reporter of facts.

Some say torture, some say enhanced interrogation! Some say legal, some say unlawful!

The arguments of those who cry foul under these circumstances have yet to be tested by the courts, luckily these same crybabys don't possess the testicular fortitude to force their case! Only time would tell if after prosecutions, trials, and eventual appeals if the Supreme Court would rule their way.

You mean like the hearings they had investigating Bill Clinton and his people? Oh, that wasn't the left, was it?It has the potential to become a farce. Holder probably needs to find a good, Republican independent counsel to get to the bottom of this matter. It would be nice if we could just let it drop. Politically, I think that's what Obama would prefer, but I'm not sure that would be the right thing.

What are you talking about? What "case"? Is it your understanding that critics of Bush's interrogation policies are entitled to sue? What's the basis for that?