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

[QuickHitCurepon]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yea, but they give it approval. If they didn't approve of the story, they wouldn't carry it. The mere fact that they carry it is what is significant.

You can't call any story on MSN a lie as you did. It's the same as calling them all liars.

They are a portal, not a source.

AP and even the DNC press is getting nowhere near this.

Epic Fail.

Right, a portal of approval. Lack of other approval doesn't mean much at all. When I said "source," I meant in general.

 

[kaz]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right, a portal of approval. Lack of other approval doesn't mean much at all. When I said "source," I meant in general.

I notice not a single news source, not the DNC controlled NY Times, not the Soros Mouthpiece MSNBC, not CNN, not the Los Angeles Times, not any of them are carrying this story - only a British tabloid known for fabrications.

Gee, i wonder why?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Right, a portal of approval. Lack of other approval doesn't mean much at all. When I said "source," I meant in general.

I notice not a single news source, not the DNC controlled NY Times, not the Soros Mouthpiece MSNBC, not CNN, not the Los Angeles Times, not any of them are carrying this story - only a British tabloid known for fabrications.

Gee, i wonder why?

For the tenth time, MSN carries it.

 

[kaz]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

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.

Who controls the CIA?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right, a portal of approval. Lack of other approval doesn't mean much at all. When I said "source," I meant in general.

I notice not a single news source, not the DNC controlled NY Times, not the Soros Mouthpiece MSNBC, not CNN, not the Los Angeles Times, not any of them are carrying this story - only a British tabloid known for fabrications.

Gee, i wonder why?

For the tenth time, MSN carries it.

No moron, MSN LINKS it,

 

[Uncensored2008]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

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.

Who controls the CIA?

Da JOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?

 

[kaz]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

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.

Who controls the CIA?

Aliens? What does that have to do with what I said? Is this your lack of reading comprehension again?

 

[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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel sorry for you, so I'll clue you in...

Your credibility has dropped so low that we are now just mocking you.

I'm just sayin...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel sorry for you, so I'll clue you in...

Your credibility has dropped so low that we are now just mocking you.

I'm just sayin...

Because I make good points which show you were wrong. Of course.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel sorry for you, so I'll clue you in...

Your credibility has dropped so low that we are now just mocking you.

I'm just sayin...

Because I make good points which show you were wrong. Of course.

Uh sure, yeah, let's go with that..

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The liberal media agrees with you, the military doesn't. They say waterboarding has clearly saved a lot of lives. But who am I to question what Rachel Maddow says...

A lot of people agree with that, but this time I was affirming how the Intelligence Report stated torture "yielded no critical intelligence," and the military believed they were following Bush's orders which is called blind devotion.

Did you read your article? It said Democrats say no critical intelligence was yielded and Republicans say it was. So what exactly do you think you showed?

No, the report stated it. Who stated it hasn't been identified yet.

For the third time:

In August, officials familiar with the report said it will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods.

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.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I obviously wasn't talking about history.

I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel sorry for you, so I'll clue you in...

Your credibility has dropped so low that we are now just mocking you.

I'm just sayin...

Because I make good points which show you were wrong. Of course.

Uh sure, yeah, let's go with that..

Make your own points then instead of just whining.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if the USA is going to use "enhanced interrogation techniques", I guess that it is only a small step from there to "termination with prejudice". Opps. I guess that we have already crossed that line, too. But, anyone knows that this is not a problem, because the government only does that to bad guys. We TRUST our government to make the determination on who should be terminated with prejudice, and who should not be, right?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Right, a portal of approval. Lack of other approval doesn't mean much at all. When I said "source," I meant in general.

I notice not a single news source, not the DNC controlled NY Times, not the Soros Mouthpiece MSNBC, not CNN, not the Los Angeles Times, not any of them are carrying this story - only a British tabloid known for fabrications.

Gee, i wonder why?

For the tenth time, MSN carries it.

No moron, MSN LINKS it,

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

Make your own points then instead of just whining.

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