How Times Change

[TemplarKormac]

Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday released a report detailing the supposed 'torture' of detainees at the hands of the CIA. That day while addressing the Senate she, at the end of her speech, said that releasing the report was "about American values and morals" further suggesting that it was also about "the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, [and] our rule of law." This is the full quote:

"It's really about American values and morals. It's about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law.

"These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.

"There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this Study on behalf of the committee, to the public, in the belief that it will stand the test of time. And with it, the report will carry the message "never again."

Now, lets hop in the time machine, to oh, about 12 years ago, roughly 9 months after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. Many of us were still angry, and wanted those who orchestrated those attacks to feel the full brunt of American fury. Not many of us cared about the human rights of those who helped murder 3000 innocent people on American soil.

After the attack, many people were blaming gaps and miscues in our intelligence for failing to stop the terrorists from carrying out their deadly task, including Dianne Feinstein, suggesting that those attacks shook us to the point where we needed "to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves." Little did we know, that some of those "things" included using enhanced interrogation techniques to bring terrorists to justice.

On May 26, 2002, the New York Times published an article which quoted Feinstein, who addressed where the US would be in the fight against global terrorism had the attacks never occurred.

First she truthfully points out that it would be 'business as usual' if those attacks had not occurred that day:

''I have no question in my mind that had it not been for 9/11 -- and I'd do anything if it hadn't happened -- that it would have been business as usual."

But then she states:

''It took that real attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let us know that the threat is profound, that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.''

In the years following, did she know about the 'torture' that took place? She's been a member of the Committee since 2001. But nobody knows, and it would be purely speculative to suggest she did or didn't. But her views now appear to be in stark contrast to the ones she held after the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Siete]

Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday released a report detailing the supposed 'torture' of detainees at the hands of the CIA. That day while addressing the Senate she, at the end of her speech, said that releasing the report was "about American values and morals" further suggesting that it was also about "the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, [and] our rule of law." This is the full quote:

"It's really about American values and morals. It's about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law.

"These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.

"There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this Study on behalf of the committee, to the public, in the belief that it will stand the test of time. And with it, the report will carry the message "never again."

Now, lets hop in the time machine, to oh, about 12 years ago, roughly 9 months after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. Many of us were still angry, and wanted those who orchestrated those attacks to feel the full brunt of American fury. Not many of us cared about the human rights of those who helped murder 3000 innocent people on American soil.

After the attack, many people were blaming gaps and miscues in our intelligence for failing to stop the terrorists from carrying out their deadly task, including Dianne Feinstein, who was rather muted on the aspect of torture, suggesting that those attacks shook us to the point where we needed "to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves." Little did we know, that some of those "things" included using enhanced interrogation techniques to bring terrorists to justice.

On May 26, 2002, the New York Times published an article which quoted Feinstein, who addressed where the US would be in the fight against global terrorism had the attacks never occurred.

First she truthfully points out that it would be 'business as usual' if those attacks had not occurred that day:

''I have no question in my mind that had it not been for 9/11 -- and I'd do anything if it hadn't happened -- that it would have been business as usual."

But then she states:

''It took that real attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let us know that the threat is profound, that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.''

Did she know about the 'torture' that took place? Possibly, since she was a member of the Intelligence Committee in 2002. But nobody knows, and it would be purely speculative to suggest she did or didn't. But her views now appear to be in stark contrast to the ones she held after the 9/11 attacks.

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

 

[TemplarKormac]

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

Sort of like how she spun that torture report? It was nothing but a politically motivated stunt, completely partisan and hardly truthful.

 

[occupied]

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

 

[Siete]

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

Sort of like how she spun that torture report? It was nothing but a politically motivated stunt, completely partisan and hardly truthful.

I rest my case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

Sort of like how she spun that torture report? It was nothing but a politically motivated stunt, completely partisan and hardly truthful.

I rest my case.

Uh, what case was that?

 

[Antares]

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

Sort of like how she spun that torture report? It was nothing but a politically motivated stunt, completely partisan and hardly truthful.

I rest my case.

You don't have a "case" son.......all you have is your own bigotry and hatred.

 

[Siete]

funny thing about conjecture .. impossible to prove and easy to spin

Sort of like how she spun that torture report? It was nothing but a politically motivated stunt, completely partisan and hardly truthful.

I rest my case.

Uh, what case was that?

don't worry, A few RW's will be along to spit on Diane, give you several "thank you " and you'll feel all warm and fuzzy before you know it.

 

[depotoo]

She tried to carry the same line Pelosi did a few years back, stating she had no idea when in fact she and others had been briefed on just that.
Pelosi I didn t know about use of waterboarding - On Congress - POLITICO.com
Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in 02 UPDATED - On Congress - POLITICO.com

I truly wonder if they are getting senile, or is it they are so good at lying they begin to think their lies are the truths?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Speaking of change -

 

[Antares]

They were briefed.

 

[Siete]

Funny too, none of the Liberals here want to honestly address the topic of this thread, instead choosing to troll it instead. Typical reactions from predictable people.

you post a thread based on conjecture the fully admit you can't prove what Diane did and begin to spin you opinion ... what the hell is there worth addressing ?

have a nice evening buttsniff.

 

[jknowgood]

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

Hey, kids aare known for being very changeable.

That's why they're called kids.

That's why conservatives are older, they grow up you stupid fuck.

 

[TemplarKormac]

you post a thread based on conjecture the fully admit you can't prove what Diane did and begin to spin you opinion

But yet you ignore what she did with this 'torture' report. You have little room to speak.

Here's the door:

 

[Ernie S.]

“There’s great hypocrisy in politicians’ criticism of the CIA’s interrogation program,” wrote Jose Rodriguez, the CIA deputy director who oversaw it, in last weekend’s Washington Post. That allegation deserves a serious response, rather than the stonewall it got from Feinstein.

“The CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times” on interrogation, according to six former CIA directors or deputy directors in an article Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal. “The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../10/the-torture-reports-one-glaring-weakness/

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me also point out that, for this supposed authoritative report released by Feinstein, it never interviewed any of the people involved in these alleged instances of 'torture.' I am being accused of spin, but the report released exemplified spin. Liberals here rush to her defense, but ignore the possibility that she now holds conflicting views of EIT's, or the fact she got caught up in the fervor brought on by the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday released a report detailing the supposed 'torture' of detainees at the hands of the CIA. That day while addressing the Senate she, at the end of her speech, said that releasing the report was "about American values and morals" further suggesting that it was also about "the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, [and] our rule of law." This is the full quote:

"It's really about American values and morals. It's about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law.

"These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.

"There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this Study on behalf of the committee, to the public, in the belief that it will stand the test of time. And with it, the report will carry the message "never again."

Now, lets hop in the time machine, to oh, about 12 years ago, roughly 9 months after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11. Many of us were still angry, and wanted those who orchestrated those attacks to feel the full brunt of American fury. Not many of us cared about the human rights of those who helped murder 3000 innocent people on American soil.

After the attack, many people were blaming gaps and miscues in our intelligence for failing to stop the terrorists from carrying out their deadly task, including Dianne Feinstein, suggesting that those attacks shook us to the point where we needed "to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves." Little did we know, that some of those "things" included using enhanced interrogation techniques to bring terrorists to justice.

On May 26, 2002, the New York Times published an article which quoted Feinstein, who addressed where the US would be in the fight against global terrorism had the attacks never occurred.

First she truthfully points out that it would be 'business as usual' if those attacks had not occurred that day:

''I have no question in my mind that had it not been for 9/11 -- and I'd do anything if it hadn't happened -- that it would have been business as usual."

But then she states:

''It took that real attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let us know that the threat is profound, that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.''

In the years following, did she know about the 'torture' that took place? She's been a member of the Committee since 2001. But nobody knows, and it would be purely speculative to suggest she did or didn't. But her views now appear to be in stark contrast to the ones she held after the 9/11 attacks.

ROFLMNAO! I suppose I will never tire of watching Leftist bray on about "American Values".

The very people who oppose the very principles that define those values...

Let the record reflect:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.​

This being the result of the natural law, wherein it is, quite simply, impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis.

 

[Ernie S.]

The way to torture Templar is to take his joystick away....

The way to torture Joe is to have an IQ over 16.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off. Zone 2.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.