Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Smear?I know...there are several threads about the democrats smearing the CIA
None. The Republicans have already concluded that there was no scandal, no wrongdoing.When Republicans found no mishandling of the Benghazi attack, you blamed it on dems as well.
We'll see what Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee find....
Huh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
By reading it , dummyYou must hate that people care about Americans and not terroristsWhen Republicans found no mishandling of the Benghazi attack, you blamed it on dems as well.
We'll see what Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee find....
Huh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
tapatalk
How did you get that from his posts?
tapatalk
You must hate that people care about Americans and not terroristsWhen Republicans found no mishandling of the Benghazi attack, you blamed it on dems as well.
We'll see what Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee find....
Huh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
tapatalk
By reading it , dummyYou must hate that people care about Americans and not terroristsWhen Republicans found no mishandling of the Benghazi attack, you blamed it on dems as well.
We'll see what Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee find....
Huh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
tapatalk
How did you get that from his posts?
tapatalk
I have been discussing itBy reading it , dummyYou must hate that people care about Americans and not terroristsWe'll see what Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee find....
Huh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
tapatalk
How did you get that from his posts?
tapatalk
Because you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
I have been discussing itBy reading it , dummyYou must hate that people care about Americans and not terroristsHuh???? How many goddamned reports on Benghazi do need???
tapatalk
How did you get that from his posts?
tapatalk
Because you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Hoekstra pointed to the hypocrisy of some of the very people protesting the loudest about the tactics employed.
"Republicans and Democrats, in 2004, were briefed in a room," Hoekstra said, "some of the same Democrats who today are so viciously attacking the former vice president, the Bush administration and the CIA.
"In 2003 and 2004, they were as enthusiastic about this program as the former vice president was. They had the opportunity to stop it and they didn't."
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is especially furious because "it was an agonizing decision for him to move forward with this enhanced interrogation," Hoekstra added.
Flanagan recalled then Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel coming into work each day asking "'who did we get today' as if he were part of the war effort himself."
"He was talking about droning and he was talking about killing off the context that the Bush administration had developed over the years. Horrible people who needed to die, but maybe people we weren't done mining information from them yet."
By "droning" those people for "quick victories," Flanagan said the Obama administration has allowed terror groups to grow by "leaps and bounds."
"They (the Obama administration) have a blithe attitude about the droning where Cheney agonized over whether or not to have the enhanced interrogation with the people that we had captured," Flanagan said.
"Obama sends them out of Guantanamo, the Bush administration put them in so we could find out information from them. The Democrats have nowhere to stand on this and this report does not help them at all.
"It is rank hypocrisy and it's sad to watch," Flanagan added.
I have been posting the truthI have been discussing itBy reading it , dummyYou must hate that people care about Americans and not terrorists
tapatalk
How did you get that from his posts?
tapatalk
Because you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Bull crap, you have been badmouthing "libs."
Get on topic or please leave.
I have been posting the truthI have been discussing it
Because you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Bull crap, you have been badmouthing "libs."
Get on topic or please leave.
tapatalk
Only those useful idiots dont see the truth of thisI have been posting the truthI have been discussing itBy reading it , dummy
tapatalk
Because you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Bull crap, you have been badmouthing "libs."
Get on topic or please leave.
tapatalk
No. You don't have any truth.
Only those useful idiots dont see the truth of thisI have been posting the truthI have been discussing itBecause you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Bull crap, you have been badmouthing "libs."
Get on topic or please leave.
tapatalk
No. You don't have any truth.
tapatalk
Only those useful idiots dont see the truth of thisI have been posting the truthI have been discussing itBecause you have no vested issue in discussing the OP, you avoid it by hurling insults.
tapatalk
Bull crap, you have been badmouthing "libs."
Get on topic or please leave.
tapatalk
No. You don't have any truth.
tapatalk
Let me clarify....I did not mean we keep those countries as our own territory...I meant keeping them from going back to the muslim terrorists like isis. We fought hard and lost lives taking this territory to keep the muslim terrorists from using them, and as a side line, it also gave the people of those countries a chance at real peace and freedom...and obama just cleared out our troops and handed them back over to the head choppers...
That is what I was trying to say....
We should water board him and see if he changes his story.I know...there are several threads about the democrats smearing the CIA and redefining harsh interrogation techniques as torture.....but this is a response from the man who looked at the legalities and helped make policy. It didn't seem right to let his response get buried in another thread....
John Yoo A torture report for the dustbin - NY Daily News
As a Justice Department lawyer who worked on the legality of the interrogation methods in 2002, I believed that the federal law prohibiting torture allowed the CIA to use interrogation methods that did not cause injury — including, in extraordinary cases, waterboarding — because of the grave threat to the nation’s security in the months after the 9/11 attacks.
I was swayed by the fact that our military used waterboarding in training thousands of its own soldiers without harm, and that the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots.
CIA officers have said that they used waterboarding on only three terrorist leaders, and that the interrogations yielded valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda.
I would want to know if they lied to me and other Bush administration officials, as the Feinstein report asserts. If it turned out that the facts on which I based my advice were wrong, I would be willing to change my opinion of the interrogation methods. As economist John Maynard Keynes reportedly said to a critic, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
But given its profoundly partisan tenor and fiercely disputed details, I have significant reason to doubt this report’s veracity.
Take, for example, an absolutely critical fact related to the utility of enhanced interrogation tactics — about how the U.S. tracked down and ultimately killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
According to several former CIA directors, harsh interrogations and waterboarding of Al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allowed U.S. analysts to identify Bin Laden’s courier (he would not use electronic communications). Tracking the courier then led us to Bin Laden’s hideout.
The Feinstein report alleges that other sources had already provided the name of the courier independently.
But the CIA’s rebuttal — signed by Obama’s appointee Director John Brennan — makes clear this information “was insufficient to distinguish him from many other Bin Laden associates until additional information from detainees put it into context and allowed CIA to better understand his true role and potential in the hunt for Bin Laden.”
Its not torture and it is effective. Not 100%, but nothing is 100%. You are wrong.I know...there are several threads about the democrats smearing the CIA and redefining harsh interrogation techniques as torture.....but this is a response from the man who looked at the legalities and helped make policy. It didn't seem right to let his response get buried in another thread....
John Yoo A torture report for the dustbin - NY Daily News
As a Justice Department lawyer who worked on the legality of the interrogation methods in 2002, I believed that the federal law prohibiting torture allowed the CIA to use interrogation methods that did not cause injury — including, in extraordinary cases, waterboarding — because of the grave threat to the nation’s security in the months after the 9/11 attacks.
I was swayed by the fact that our military used waterboarding in training thousands of its own soldiers without harm, and that the CIA would use the technique only on top Al Qaeda leaders thought to have actionable information on pending plots.
CIA officers have said that they used waterboarding on only three terrorist leaders, and that the interrogations yielded valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda.
I would want to know if they lied to me and other Bush administration officials, as the Feinstein report asserts. If it turned out that the facts on which I based my advice were wrong, I would be willing to change my opinion of the interrogation methods. As economist John Maynard Keynes reportedly said to a critic, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
But given its profoundly partisan tenor and fiercely disputed details, I have significant reason to doubt this report’s veracity.
Take, for example, an absolutely critical fact related to the utility of enhanced interrogation tactics — about how the U.S. tracked down and ultimately killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
According to several former CIA directors, harsh interrogations and waterboarding of Al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed allowed U.S. analysts to identify Bin Laden’s courier (he would not use electronic communications). Tracking the courier then led us to Bin Laden’s hideout.
The Feinstein report alleges that other sources had already provided the name of the courier independently.
But the CIA’s rebuttal — signed by Obama’s appointee Director John Brennan — makes clear this information “was insufficient to distinguish him from many other Bin Laden associates until additional information from detainees put it into context and allowed CIA to better understand his true role and potential in the hunt for Bin Laden.”
It's torture. Not enhanced interrogation techniques. It doesn't work. If it was 100% foolproof then we wouldn't be calling it torture. But, it's not. If I torture you then you will tell me anything and everything that I want to hear whether it is true or not. You are not going to give a flying fuck.
I guarantee that every single cotton picking one of those clowns knew this in advance. Torture 9 out of 10 times will not elicit truth. Knowing this in advance, like they do, it can be said that it was designed to elicit false confessions.
I don't give a damn how many times they repeat the shit: it gave us very critical information. It doesn't show a damn thing besides an advert as good as Shannon Miller on a box of Wheaties. So and so said that it gave us critical information, therefore, it must be true.
Now, the CIA has received all kinds of money to create all kinds of mayhem for a very long time. There is no moral line in the sand and hasn't been for some 40 + years. So, maybe we can drop the bullshit.
If we focus on this and spend hours arguing a bunch of petty bullshit then we can pretend that the US wasn't behind or wasn't instigating much of the revolts in other countries in our current and recent past for another twenty years. How bloody convenient is that.
