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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Oh, the CIA learned their lesson, they won't get caught again.

 

[rightwinger]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Oh, the CIA learned their lesson, they won't get caught again.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Oh, the CIA learned their lesson, they won't get caught again.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Unlike others on tis board I won't even pretend to have any. I just know how these things work. The CIA didn't just stop waterboarding cuz they got caught.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Your answer to every Obama failure is to blame Bush as much as you love to think otherwise the failures of Bush don't excuse the failures of Obama maybe one day you will grow up enough to understand that. By the way we had sub three dollar a gallon gas prices under Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, hell even Carter without a catastrophic global recession so claiming that is how to get that again is beyond foolish.

Are you accounting for inflation? When I started buying gas it was $.33/gal.

And to put that in perspective...as Obama was mocking ISIS as the "JV"...they had ALREADY taken control of Anbar Province in Iraq. Barry probably didn't hear about that from the main stream media...right?

Are you sure ISIL took control of Anbar Province in Iraq on January 20 2014?

Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence: They're JV | TheBlaze.com
Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence They 8217 re JV TheBlaze.com
Jan 20, 2014 ... In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior ...

ISIS was on January 20 trying to get locals to join them. They were not committing genocide as they started doing in June. Up until January 20 ISIS gains were not that clear. Some Sunni tribes were aligning with the Iraq government to help drive them out. So that early it would have been tough to know exactly whom to bomb if US air strikes were in order. Obama could allow the USAF and NAVY be seen as Maliki's air force.

On 17 January, the ISIS militants in Fallujah called on people to join them in their fight against the government, but earlier in the day, Iraqi media reported that security forces had retaken several key areas of Ramadi.[46] On 19 January, the Iraqi army launched an operation in Ramadi.[47] The advance was halted after eight police and tribal militia members were killed in clashes.[48] The next day, an unnamed Iraqi official suggested that the ISIS had sufficient heavy weapons[where?] capability to threaten Baghdad.[49] On 21 January, the Iraqi army, backed by Sunni tribesmen, continued to attack key neighbourhoods of Ramadi in attempt to retake control from ISIS.[50] The next day, the defence ministry claimed that at least 50 militants were killed in air strikes against militant targets in Anbar.[51]
On 26 January, according to witnesses, ISIS militants were reported to have captured five Iraqi soldiers near Fallujah. ISIS also seized six army Humvees and set fire to some of them after clashes with security forces near the city of Fallujah which was captured by militants a few weeks ago.[52] It was further reported that at least seven people were killed by Iraqi army airstrikes and artillery fire.[53] On 30 January, Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad al-Askari said that security forces and their allied tribal fighters regained control of Albu Farraj, north of Ramadi, as well as Al-Nasaf, on the western outskirts of Fallujah; he called these areas an "important base" for ISIS.[54] On 31 January, according to a statement by Ministry of Defence, the 39th Brigade of the Iraqi army, reinforced by the Iraqi Air Force with support from tribal fighters, killed 40 militants and captured ISIS' headquarters in Fallujah.[55]
On 1 February, the Iraqi army and police, with the support of pro-government militias, launched another offensive against ISIS in Ramadi and Fallujah. At least 35 militants were killed and large amounts of weaponry were seized in the clashes in the militant-held neighborhoods of Malaab, Dhubat, and Street 60 in Ramadi.[56] On 3 February, the Ministry of Defence reported that the Iraqi army and its allied tribesmen killed 57 ISIS militants in advance of a possible assault on Fallujah, which was held by the rebels.[57] On 8 February, Anbar Governor Ahmed Khalaf Dheyabi sent an ultimatum to ISIS calling on them to surrender within a week.[58]
On 9 February, 13 ISIS members were killed in Ramadi's Malab area.[59] On 12 February, a senior ISIS leader, Abo Majid al-Saudi, was killed alongside seven other members of the group in eastern Ramadi.[60] On 15 February, the Iraqi Joint Command announced that during a raid in the al-Milahma, Albu Shihab and Khalidiya areas several ISIS members were killed.[61] On 18 February, 45 ISIS gunmen were killed, including Syrian and Afghan fighters.[62] On 19 February, an ISIS leader, Abd Khaliq Mahedi, turned himself to the Chairman of Sons of Iraq Council, Mohamed al-Hayis, and declared his support to the security forces in combating ISIS.[63] On 28 February, a bomb attack in Haditha killed the pro-government Sunni tribal Sheikh and councilman Fleih al-Osman and six of his fighters, while five civilians were wounded, according to police chief Colonel Farouq al-Jughaifi.[64]

March–May – Government counter-attack[edit]
On 16 March, Iraqi Security Forces recaptured Ramadi and parts of Fallujah.[65][66]
On 13 April, pro-government tribal fighters took control of the Fallujah Dam.[67]
On 7 May, reports emerged that Iraqi Security forces were planning a major strike to reclaim territories in Fallujah, Garma, Duwylieba and Jurf al-Sakhar.[24] At this time, it was confirmed that ISIS took full control of Fallujah.[68]
On 9 May, the military launched its offensive[69] and by 18 May, security forces regained control of the international expressway east of Fallujah and captured 16 villages and towns around the city.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbar_campaign_(2013–14)

Finishing W's plan in Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, bombing in Libya, bombing in Iraq, one neocon President followed another. You don't object to the policy, you just want to be behind the steering wheel.

I don't know of any lefties or Dems that opposed Dubya's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2012 and out of Iraq's cities by June of 2009. So you have missed reality again. I told you this before. When Obama took office Americans, including the majority of Dems continued supporting the US military mission in Afghanistan. The hard core Code Pink & antiwar.com crowd, and World Socialists have attacked Obama on Afghanistan as much as they attacked Bush. Code Pink took a second look early in 2009 because girls have been attending school in the millions since Bush drove out the Taliban in 2002. But they decided to continue opposition to the war no different then when Bush was in charge. Strike Two Kaz. You whiffed that one.

Libya? When did Bush 43 take part in a UNSC endorsed NFZ enforcement over a country where the government was committing genocide at the time? Where is the Bush parallel to Obama's Libya? There is none. Strike three. Your are out whiffing?

 

[kaz]

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

LOL, do as you say, not as you do? You don't answer questions or back up any of your crap. If I had a link already copied, I wouldn't bother pasting it in a post for you.

You don't know what torture even is. You think it's when your government check is a day late arriving in the mail.

 

[Oldstyle]

And to put that in perspective...as Obama was mocking ISIS as the "JV"...they had ALREADY taken control of Anbar Province in Iraq. Barry probably didn't hear about that from the main stream media...right?

Are you sure ISIL took control of Anbar Province in Iraq on January 20 2014?

ISIS backed fighters were taking control of Falujah and major parts of Ramadi on January 2'nd through the 4th of 2014. They were able to do so because ISIS jihadists had been infiltrating the anti-Maliki forces in Iraq since way back in 2012. The warning signs were all there but when you're pushing a narrative of "Iraq is stable...and we're no longer needed there" as the Obama Administration was (despite what was obviously NOT a stable situation!) you're going to ignore problems like ISIS because you're the President who stops wars![/QUOTE]

 

[Oldstyle]

Your answer to every Obama failure is to blame Bush as much as you love to think otherwise the failures of Bush don't excuse the failures of Obama maybe one day you will grow up enough to understand that. By the way we had sub three dollar a gallon gas prices under Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, hell even Carter without a catastrophic global recession so claiming that is how to get that again is beyond foolish.

Are you accounting for inflation? When I started buying gas it was $.33/gal.

And to put that in perspective...as Obama was mocking ISIS as the "JV"...they had ALREADY taken control of Anbar Province in Iraq. Barry probably didn't hear about that from the main stream media...right?

Are you sure ISIL took control of Anbar Province in Iraq on January 20 2014?

Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence: They're JV | TheBlaze.com
Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence They 8217 re JV TheBlaze.com
Jan 20, 2014 ... In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior ...

ISIS was on January 20 trying to get locals to join them. They were not committing genocide as they started doing in June. Up until January 20 ISIS gains were not that clear. Some Sunni tribes were aligning with the Iraq government to help drive them out. So that early it would have been tough to know exactly whom to bomb if US air strikes were in order. Obama could allow the USAF and NAVY be seen as Maliki's air force.

On 17 January, the ISIS militants in Fallujah called on people to join them in their fight against the government, but earlier in the day, Iraqi media reported that security forces had retaken several key areas of Ramadi.[46] On 19 January, the Iraqi army launched an operation in Ramadi.[47] The advance was halted after eight police and tribal militia members were killed in clashes.[48] The next day, an unnamed Iraqi official suggested that the ISIS had sufficient heavy weapons[where?] capability to threaten Baghdad.[49] On 21 January, the Iraqi army, backed by Sunni tribesmen, continued to attack key neighbourhoods of Ramadi in attempt to retake control from ISIS.[50] The next day, the defence ministry claimed that at least 50 militants were killed in air strikes against militant targets in Anbar.[51]
On 26 January, according to witnesses, ISIS militants were reported to have captured five Iraqi soldiers near Fallujah. ISIS also seized six army Humvees and set fire to some of them after clashes with security forces near the city of Fallujah which was captured by militants a few weeks ago.[52] It was further reported that at least seven people were killed by Iraqi army airstrikes and artillery fire.[53] On 30 January, Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad al-Askari said that security forces and their allied tribal fighters regained control of Albu Farraj, north of Ramadi, as well as Al-Nasaf, on the western outskirts of Fallujah; he called these areas an "important base" for ISIS.[54] On 31 January, according to a statement by Ministry of Defence, the 39th Brigade of the Iraqi army, reinforced by the Iraqi Air Force with support from tribal fighters, killed 40 militants and captured ISIS' headquarters in Fallujah.[55]
On 1 February, the Iraqi army and police, with the support of pro-government militias, launched another offensive against ISIS in Ramadi and Fallujah. At least 35 militants were killed and large amounts of weaponry were seized in the clashes in the militant-held neighborhoods of Malaab, Dhubat, and Street 60 in Ramadi.[56] On 3 February, the Ministry of Defence reported that the Iraqi army and its allied tribesmen killed 57 ISIS militants in advance of a possible assault on Fallujah, which was held by the rebels.[57] On 8 February, Anbar Governor Ahmed Khalaf Dheyabi sent an ultimatum to ISIS calling on them to surrender within a week.[58]
On 9 February, 13 ISIS members were killed in Ramadi's Malab area.[59] On 12 February, a senior ISIS leader, Abo Majid al-Saudi, was killed alongside seven other members of the group in eastern Ramadi.[60] On 15 February, the Iraqi Joint Command announced that during a raid in the al-Milahma, Albu Shihab and Khalidiya areas several ISIS members were killed.[61] On 18 February, 45 ISIS gunmen were killed, including Syrian and Afghan fighters.[62] On 19 February, an ISIS leader, Abd Khaliq Mahedi, turned himself to the Chairman of Sons of Iraq Council, Mohamed al-Hayis, and declared his support to the security forces in combating ISIS.[63] On 28 February, a bomb attack in Haditha killed the pro-government Sunni tribal Sheikh and councilman Fleih al-Osman and six of his fighters, while five civilians were wounded, according to police chief Colonel Farouq al-Jughaifi.[64]

March–May – Government counter-attack[edit]
On 16 March, Iraqi Security Forces recaptured Ramadi and parts of Fallujah.[65][66]
On 13 April, pro-government tribal fighters took control of the Fallujah Dam.[67]
On 7 May, reports emerged that Iraqi Security forces were planning a major strike to reclaim territories in Fallujah, Garma, Duwylieba and Jurf al-Sakhar.[24] At this time, it was confirmed that ISIS took full control of Fallujah.[68]
On 9 May, the military launched its offensive[69] and by 18 May, security forces regained control of the international expressway east of Fallujah and captured 16 villages and towns around the city.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbar_campaign_(2013–14)

Finishing W's plan in Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, bombing in Libya, bombing in Iraq, one neocon President followed another. You don't object to the policy, you just want to be behind the steering wheel.

I don't know of any lefties or Dems that opposed Dubya's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2012 and out of Iraq's cities by June of 2009. So you have missed reality again. I told you this before. When Obama took office Americans, including the majority of Dems continued supporting the US military mission in Afghanistan. The hard core Code Pink & antiwar.com crowd, and World Socialists have attacked Obama on Afghanistan as much as they attacked Bush. Code Pink took a second look early in 2009 because girls have been attending school in the millions since Bush drove out the Taliban in 2002. But they decided to continue opposition to the war no different then when Bush was in charge. Strike Two Kaz. You whiffed that one.

Libya? When did Bush 43 take part in a UNSC endorsed NFZ enforcement over a country where the government was committing genocide at the time? Where is the Bush parallel to Obama's Libya? There is none. Strike three. Your are out whiffing?

Did you REALLY just make the point that the anti-war crowd have attacked Barack Obama as much as they did George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY!!!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm looking forward to the next administration stopping covering for the abuses of Obama/Biden.

Will that be Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Dr. Ben Carson?

So the administration can kill, injure, maim and disfigure people by shooting them from the sky with no evidence or trial, kill their families or anyone with them, but they can't waterboard them causing no permanent harm to save lives. Liberals have no ability to recognize your own hypocrisy, it's sad.

Shooting them from the sky is a long accepted act of war, (Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?) even with all its collateral damage. And it was acceptable for Bush to most to kill known terrorist individuals that have declared war on us and all the other civilized countries in the world that have been attacked by al Qaeda type terrorists.

To waterboard someone first you have to take them prisioner (POW) first and hold them in captivity. What is sad is that you can't recognize the difference between a POW and a terrorist roaming the world at will, but usually in lawless ungoverned regions like SWAT Valley used to be and other areas on the Afghan/Pak border.

Killing them, their friends and family and anyone who happens to be near them from an automated weapon that fires at them from the air without being legally at war and with no accountability for the man making the decision to do it.

Who says besides you that we are not 'legally at war' with terrorists? Not even Rand Paul would say that if he wants to be President someday. Perhaps his daddy would say it, but he is quite irrelevant to the discussion.

I opposed the Iraq war on it's merits, which is why I don't like these BS diversion. You don't care about the war, you are on a get Bush campaign, so the diversions to the discussion are your point.

Bush decided to invade Iraq - No one other than he made that decision. Why would anyone 'not get Bush' for deciding to kick UN inspectors out and verify disarmament in Iraq by military force, violence and destruction and the quagmire that ensued? Bush had better options than war. You seem to accept his excuse that he was a victim of bad intelligence. That is a lie. It is a pro-Iraq-war Republican lie. And it is not easy to understand why an anti-war libertarian sides with the pro-war Republican Bush defenders as you are doing.

The word "torture" is just a cheap political game played by liberals. ....... Nothing W did was torture. It's the beauty of my not being a partisan hack like you. I can oppose Iraq without having to twist what happened for the benefit of a political party.

You don't have a political party? What about "Politicians Suck"? Are there any members besides yourself? But your argument is what sucks. John McCain and David Petraeus are not liberals. They oppose waterboarding as torture. Many non-liberals would say that waterboarding is torture.

Can you refute that the Tokyo War Crimes trials did not happen?

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. .

. . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime


Do you think former Republican Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr is a liberal? He wrote this:

Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim’s lungs fill with water. At the same
time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim’s mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer’s best friend—easy, quick, and nonevidentiary. It had always been considered torture by civilized governments such as ours—until, of course, this administration.

The fundamental value of waterboarding to an interrogator lies in the pain it inflicts and the fear of death by drowning it engenders. Why else would it be used? However, in typical Bizarro World fashion, the Bush administration refuses to concede that the technique even exists as torture.

Vice President Cheney is certainly entitled to his opinion that even discussing waterboarding is “silly,” but in the real world in which we live, and according to the norms of behavior according to which participants in a civilized society are supposed to operate, use of sophistry such as this would never be countenanced, and would certainly not hold up as a lawful defense in a court of law.

Yet, even though the director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell, admitted recently that being subjected to waterboarding would to him be torture, like others in the administration he refuses to discuss the issue intelligently, and dismisses such questions as little things unworthy of his time.

Bob Barr on torture is as far from being a partisan hack as any one politician can get. Do you know what that makes you? Your partisan hack crap that blames criticism of waterboarding as torture as liberal partisanship is now exposed. What do you say to that?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Did you REALLY just make the point that the anti-war crowd have attacked Barack Obama as much as they did George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY!!!

Bush had 92% favorability when he sent US troops into Afghanistan. The support of all except Code Pink and Antiwar.com types. On Afghanistan I'd say the left more universally oppose Obama's policy in Afghanistan than they did Bush.

You were responding to this were you not?

I wrote, "When Obama took office Americans, including the majority of Dems continued supporting the US military mission in Afghanistan. The hard core Code Pink & antiwar.com crowd, and World Socialists have attacked Obama on Afghanistan as much as they attacked Bush."

The antiwar protest of course was strong against Bush's 'dumb' invasion of Iraq as it should have been. I believe that you have confused yourself into thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq were one war. You need to get your mind right and figure out they are two separate wars - with different level and timelines of US protests and opposition.

If you beg to differ bring me some facts.

 

[kaz]

Your partisan hack crap that blames criticism of waterboarding as torture as liberal partisanship is now exposed. What do you say to that?

LOL, this is the summary of the inane crap you post, FooledbyO.

You: When the parties did the same thing, I blame W!

Me: I blame both!

You: OMG, you are so partisan!

What a tool, run along and play junior, this is what all your ranting post says, it's partisan to blame ... both parties.

This word, partisan, I do not think it means what you think it means... BTW, you're on the internet, dumb ass, Google words you show yourself to be the idiot you are.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

We have and continue to torture terrorists under Obama to, don't kid yourself.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Oh, the CIA learned their lesson, they won't get caught again.

I'm afraid I'll have to ask for proof

Unlike others on tis board I won't even pretend to have any. I just know how these things work. The CIA didn't just stop waterboarding cuz they got caught.

Which bear are you smarter than? Polar, Grizzly? So far I see little intelligence behind anything you post.

 

[Camp]

Your partisan hack crap that blames criticism of waterboarding as torture as liberal partisanship is now exposed. What do you say to that?

LOL, this is the summary of the inane crap you post, FooledbyO.

You: When the parties did the same thing, I blame W!

Me: I blame both!

You: OMG, you are so partisan!

What a tool, run along and play junior, this is what all your ranting post says, it's partisan to blame ... both parties.

This word, partisan, I do not think it means what you think it means... BTW, you're on the internet, dumb ass, Google words you show yourself to be the idiot you are.

The difference is that the Bush administration formally rejected the Geneva Convention and formally announced that torture under the name of "ENHANCED INTERROGATION" was legal according to memo's and opinions issued by the administration. American and international legal experts mocked the decision and memo's and warned that the methods of interrogation to be used would constitute war crimes. The warnings were ignored, the methods adapted and America lost it credibility as a world leader of moral authority. In addition it was instrumental in causing the disgraces that occurred at Abu Graib which became the biggest recruiting tool the Iraqi insurgency had. It canceled out the good work done by American troops and caused them to be portrayed as evil monsters. Even after the soldiers responsible were convicted of going to far, the insurgents simply pointed out that only the low ranked soldiers were punished and the big shots were let go. There is no way to even estimate the number of American troops that were killed and how many American veterans returned home with missing limbs due to the stupidity of writing those memo's allowing for institutionalized torture.

And the difference between Bush and Obama is that on the 2nd day of Obama being in office he made the memo's null and void and issued an Executive Order that brought America back in line with international law and the Geneva Convention.

www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html

 

[kaz]

Your partisan hack crap that blames criticism of waterboarding as torture as liberal partisanship is now exposed. What do you say to that?

LOL, this is the summary of the inane crap you post, FooledbyO.

You: When the parties did the same thing, I blame W!

Me: I blame both!

You: OMG, you are so partisan!

What a tool, run along and play junior, this is what all your ranting post says, it's partisan to blame ... both parties.

This word, partisan, I do not think it means what you think it means... BTW, you're on the internet, dumb ass, Google words you show yourself to be the idiot you are.

The difference is that the Bush administration formally rejected the Geneva Convention and formally announced that torture under the name of "ENHANCED INTERROGATION" was legal according to memo's and opinions issued by the administration. American and international legal experts mocked the decision and memo's and warned that the methods of interrogation to be used would constitute war crimes. The warnings were ignored, the methods adapted and America lost it credibility as a world leader of moral authority. In addition it was instrumental in causing the disgraces that occurred at Abu Graib which became the biggest recruiting tool the Iraqi insurgency had. It canceled out the good work done by American troops and caused them to be portrayed as evil monsters. Even after the soldiers responsible were convicted of going to far, the insurgents simply pointed out that only the low ranked soldiers were punished and the big shots were let go. There is no way to even estimate the number of American troops that were killed and how many American veterans returned home with missing limbs due to the stupidity of writing those memo's allowing for institutionalized torture.

And the difference between Bush and Obama is that on the 2nd day of Obama being in office he made the memo's null and void and issued an Executive Order that brought America back in line with international law and the Geneva Convention.

www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html

You didn't read my post, did you, Skippy?

BTW, the Geneva convention doesn't apply, do you know what the criteria is? Probably not.

Also, nothing we did was "torture," that is liberals being "partisan" for your party.

No matter how you slice it, blaming both parties means I'm "partisan" is just the butt hurt stupidity of the left.

Your post demonstrates my whole point. Those of us who understand the Constitution and the role of the military in it know that nation building and wars not in our defense is not Constitutional, and for good reason, it just leads to more enemies and more wars.

But you people voted for it. So now you have to slice and dice blame. Your whole line of crap is rejected as the crap it is. Democrats did this hand in hand, and your tactics to evade and place blame are driven by that.

You want to come into the light? Recognize your own fault, and advocate we change the role of the military to defensive. Just stop the butt hurt you're exhibiting every time you try to parse blame.

 

[rightwinger]

Your answer to every Obama failure is to blame Bush as much as you love to think otherwise the failures of Bush don't excuse the failures of Obama maybe one day you will grow up enough to understand that. By the way we had sub three dollar a gallon gas prices under Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, hell even Carter without a catastrophic global recession so claiming that is how to get that again is beyond foolish.

Are you accounting for inflation? When I started buying gas it was $.33/gal.

And to put that in perspective...as Obama was mocking ISIS as the "JV"...they had ALREADY taken control of Anbar Province in Iraq. Barry probably didn't hear about that from the main stream media...right?

Are you sure ISIL took control of Anbar Province in Iraq on January 20 2014?

Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence: They're JV | TheBlaze.com
Obama Dismisses Al-Qaeda Resurgence They 8217 re JV TheBlaze.com
Jan 20, 2014 ... In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama compared Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Iraq and Syria to junior ...

ISIS was on January 20 trying to get locals to join them. They were not committing genocide as they started doing in June. Up until January 20 ISIS gains were not that clear. Some Sunni tribes were aligning with the Iraq government to help drive them out. So that early it would have been tough to know exactly whom to bomb if US air strikes were in order. Obama could allow the USAF and NAVY be seen as Maliki's air force.

On 17 January, the ISIS militants in Fallujah called on people to join them in their fight against the government, but earlier in the day, Iraqi media reported that security forces had retaken several key areas of Ramadi.[46] On 19 January, the Iraqi army launched an operation in Ramadi.[47] The advance was halted after eight police and tribal militia members were killed in clashes.[48] The next day, an unnamed Iraqi official suggested that the ISIS had sufficient heavy weapons[where?] capability to threaten Baghdad.[49] On 21 January, the Iraqi army, backed by Sunni tribesmen, continued to attack key neighbourhoods of Ramadi in attempt to retake control from ISIS.[50] The next day, the defence ministry claimed that at least 50 militants were killed in air strikes against militant targets in Anbar.[51]
On 26 January, according to witnesses, ISIS militants were reported to have captured five Iraqi soldiers near Fallujah. ISIS also seized six army Humvees and set fire to some of them after clashes with security forces near the city of Fallujah which was captured by militants a few weeks ago.[52] It was further reported that at least seven people were killed by Iraqi army airstrikes and artillery fire.[53] On 30 January, Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad al-Askari said that security forces and their allied tribal fighters regained control of Albu Farraj, north of Ramadi, as well as Al-Nasaf, on the western outskirts of Fallujah; he called these areas an "important base" for ISIS.[54] On 31 January, according to a statement by Ministry of Defence, the 39th Brigade of the Iraqi army, reinforced by the Iraqi Air Force with support from tribal fighters, killed 40 militants and captured ISIS' headquarters in Fallujah.[55]
On 1 February, the Iraqi army and police, with the support of pro-government militias, launched another offensive against ISIS in Ramadi and Fallujah. At least 35 militants were killed and large amounts of weaponry were seized in the clashes in the militant-held neighborhoods of Malaab, Dhubat, and Street 60 in Ramadi.[56] On 3 February, the Ministry of Defence reported that the Iraqi army and its allied tribesmen killed 57 ISIS militants in advance of a possible assault on Fallujah, which was held by the rebels.[57] On 8 February, Anbar Governor Ahmed Khalaf Dheyabi sent an ultimatum to ISIS calling on them to surrender within a week.[58]
On 9 February, 13 ISIS members were killed in Ramadi's Malab area.[59] On 12 February, a senior ISIS leader, Abo Majid al-Saudi, was killed alongside seven other members of the group in eastern Ramadi.[60] On 15 February, the Iraqi Joint Command announced that during a raid in the al-Milahma, Albu Shihab and Khalidiya areas several ISIS members were killed.[61] On 18 February, 45 ISIS gunmen were killed, including Syrian and Afghan fighters.[62] On 19 February, an ISIS leader, Abd Khaliq Mahedi, turned himself to the Chairman of Sons of Iraq Council, Mohamed al-Hayis, and declared his support to the security forces in combating ISIS.[63] On 28 February, a bomb attack in Haditha killed the pro-government Sunni tribal Sheikh and councilman Fleih al-Osman and six of his fighters, while five civilians were wounded, according to police chief Colonel Farouq al-Jughaifi.[64]

March–May – Government counter-attack[edit]
On 16 March, Iraqi Security Forces recaptured Ramadi and parts of Fallujah.[65][66]
On 13 April, pro-government tribal fighters took control of the Fallujah Dam.[67]
On 7 May, reports emerged that Iraqi Security forces were planning a major strike to reclaim territories in Fallujah, Garma, Duwylieba and Jurf al-Sakhar.[24] At this time, it was confirmed that ISIS took full control of Fallujah.[68]
On 9 May, the military launched its offensive[69] and by 18 May, security forces regained control of the international expressway east of Fallujah and captured 16 villages and towns around the city.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anbar_campaign_(2013–14)

Finishing W's plan in Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, bombing in Libya, bombing in Iraq, one neocon President followed another. You don't object to the policy, you just want to be behind the steering wheel.

I don't know of any lefties or Dems that opposed Dubya's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2012 and out of Iraq's cities by June of 2009. So you have missed reality again. I told you this before. When Obama took office Americans, including the majority of Dems continued supporting the US military mission in Afghanistan. The hard core Code Pink & antiwar.com crowd, and World Socialists have attacked Obama on Afghanistan as much as they attacked Bush. Code Pink took a second look early in 2009 because girls have been attending school in the millions since Bush drove out the Taliban in 2002. But they decided to continue opposition to the war no different then when Bush was in charge. Strike Two Kaz. You whiffed that one.

Libya? When did Bush 43 take part in a UNSC endorsed NFZ enforcement over a country where the government was committing genocide at the time? Where is the Bush parallel to Obama's Libya? There is none. Strike three. Your are out whiffing?

Did you REALLY just make the point that the anti-war crowd have attacked Barack Obama as much as they did George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY!!!

Do you mean the same Bush that actually ordered the invasion?

 

[RKMBrown]

Did Obama prosecute Bush's war crimes? If not, isn't Obama guilty of negligence for failure to perform his duties as commander and chief in prosecuting the war on republicans?

 

[rightwinger]

Did Obama prosecute Bush's war crimes? If not, isn't Obama guilty of negligence for failure to perform his duties as commander and chief in prosecuting the war on republicans?

Yes, he is

He is guilty of giving Bush a free pass on his war crimes. I doubt if Republicans would have been as generous

 

[kaz]

Did Obama prosecute Bush's war crimes? If not, isn't Obama guilty of negligence for failure to perform his duties as commander and chief in prosecuting the war on republicans?

Yes, he is

He is guilty of giving Bush a free pass on his war crimes. I doubt if Republicans would have been as generous

We'll find out in 2 1/2 more years. I think you're wrong though, I think they will give Obama a free pass on his war crimes.

We need a President for peace.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Did Obama prosecute Bush's war crimes? If not, isn't Obama guilty of negligence for failure to perform his duties as commander and chief in prosecuting the war on republicans?

Yes, he is

He is guilty of giving Bush a free pass on his war crimes. I doubt if Republicans would have been as generous

Because they weren't war crimes under US law. Just the same as Obama uses Executive Orders to do as he pleases. We may disagree about the need for what each President did , but we MUST agree that each could legally do what they have done, or neither could.

I don't agree with about half of Obama's EOs, but then again I didn't agree with about half of Bush's, but that is irrelevant, either President's have that power or they don't. Assuming they remain within the current law of course, and remember at the time there was no applicable law stating we couldn't waterboard terrorists.