Whoops! CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding

[CurveLight]

Follow your own advice.

I can back up everything I say. You can't.

Dude, you cited fucking newsmax. Newsmax! Who the fuck cites newsmax and expects to be taken seriously?

Dude, the newmax link has an audio with Clinton himself talking about the reasons he passed up on Sudan's offer. It's called internal documentation.

If the clinton audio is reliable then cite a worthwhile source. Anyone who's been net active for even a few months knows newsmax is a fucking joke. Moreover, Sudan never offered bin laden to the US yet you try to pass off that bullshit.

 

[CMike]

Dude, you cited fucking newsmax. Newsmax! Who the fuck cites newsmax and expects to be taken seriously?

Dude, the newmax link has an audio with Clinton himself talking about the reasons he passed up on Sudan's offer. It's called internal documentation.

If the clinton audio is reliable then cite a worthwhile source. Anyone who's been net active for even a few months knows newsmax is a fucking joke. Moreover, Sudan never offered bin laden to the US yet you try to pass off that bullshit.

I did. The source is the audio link of Bill Clinton talking about it.

Why don't you listen to it.

 

[CurveLight]

Hello? We are discussing the war with Al Qaida.

All 3 terrorist attacks in the US under Obama are linked to Al Qaida.

Actually, we're discussing the "War on Terrorism" which you are desperate to define as strictly a war with Al Queda.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the Global War on Terrorism or the War on Terror) is the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism, Islamic militants and the regimes and organizations tied to them or that supported them, and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It doesn't single out Al Queda.

Okay, I'll be more specific, I am only talking about Al Qaida attacks.

We had 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We had none for the previous seven years under Pres. Bush.

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

 

[CMike]

Actually, we're discussing the "War on Terrorism" which you are desperate to define as strictly a war with Al Queda.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the Global War on Terrorism or the War on Terror) is the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism, Islamic militants and the regimes and organizations tied to them or that supported them, and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It doesn't single out Al Queda.

Okay, I'll be more specific, I am only talking about Al Qaida attacks.

We had 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We had none for the previous seven years under Pres. Bush.

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

 

[CurveLight]

Dude, the newmax link has an audio with Clinton himself talking about the reasons he passed up on Sudan's offer. It's called internal documentation.

If the clinton audio is reliable then cite a worthwhile source. Anyone who's been net active for even a few months knows newsmax is a fucking joke. Moreover, Sudan never offered bin laden to the US yet you try to pass off that bullshit.

I did. The source is the audio link of Bill Clinton talking about it.

Why don't you listen to it.

Just as you won't open up factcheck I won't open newsmax. One more time: do you have a reliable source for the clinton audio?

You have dodged the same question repeatedly so let's see if you dodge it again:

So do you support secret prisons being run by any nation? It's a simple fucking yes or no.

 

[CurveLight]

Okay, I'll be more specific, I am only talking about Al Qaida attacks.

We had 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We had none for the previous seven years under Pres. Bush.

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Holy fuck. You're a fox news swimming oreilly piss drinking partisan Nationalist. How the fuck can you seriously blame obama for unaffiliated individuals going postal?

It is also a false dilemma to say bush protected us. You have no idea how much damage that fucked up administration has caused and because you are blinded by fear you cannot grasp the concept of what goes around....really goes around. If we got attacked tomorrow you'd do two things: blame Obama only and cry foul because America is "innocent."

 

[Coyote]

PUWEASE. Factcheck is a hard left organization, it's not even worth opening up.

FactCheck.org is Sponsored by Decidedly LEFTIST Organization: ANNENBERG Public Policy Foundation

"The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. "

HARD LEFT? Are you nuts or so wedded to your talking point sources you can no longer think critically? Do you ever like...seriously CHECK sources? Free Republic? That's like the rightwing version of the NYT you despise.

Do you realize that the Walter and Leonore Annenberg (founders and chair of the Annenburg Foundation) donate almost exclusively to Republican candidates and causes? You'd think if there was a bias it would be to the RIGHT.

Once again, the link I gave gives a link to the audio of Bill Clinton himself in a program talking about why he rejected Sudan's offer for Sudan to arrest and extradite OBL to America.

Do you believe Clinton admitting that he did it or didn't do it in this case?

Once again, that is an incomplete story - factcheck provides the context and the 9/11 Commission made the final statement on it.

Funny that you choose to believe Clinton..."depends on the definition of...."

 

[Coyote]

Okay, I'll be more specific, I am only talking about Al Qaida attacks.

We had 3 Al Qaida terrorist attacks within the US in Obama's first year.

We had none for the previous seven years under Pres. Bush.

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Exactly what was dismantled that specifically led to these three attacks?

One of the changes in procedures that was implicated in letting the underwear bomber through had to do with changes in the no-fly-lists in an attempt to reduce the unweildy number of names and that change actually occurred under the Bush administration.

Also, exactly which of those "dismantled safeguards" have prevented the Fort Hood Shooting and the Little Rock shooting?

I'd really like to see some cause and effect here.

 

[CMike]

If the clinton audio is reliable then cite a worthwhile source. Anyone who's been net active for even a few months knows newsmax is a fucking joke. Moreover, Sudan never offered bin laden to the US yet you try to pass off that bullshit.

I did. The source is the audio link of Bill Clinton talking about it.

Why don't you listen to it.

Just as you won't open up factcheck I won't open newsmax. One more time: do you have a reliable source for the clinton audio?

You have dodged the same question repeatedly so let's see if you dodge it again:

So do you support secret prisons being run by any nation? It's a simple fucking yes or no.

The audio IS the source. Newsmax provided the link to it.

I already answered your question. I don't agree with your premise.

 

[CMike]

PUWEASE. Factcheck is a hard left organization, it's not even worth opening up.

FactCheck.org is Sponsored by Decidedly LEFTIST Organization: ANNENBERG Public Policy Foundation

"The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. "

HARD LEFT? Are you nuts or so wedded to your talking point sources you can no longer think critically? Do you ever like...seriously CHECK sources? Free Republic? That's like the rightwing version of the NYT you despise.

As I keep saying what I look for is internal documentation. Publications should not be sources. The sources are who the publications quote, or what information the publication provides to backup its claims.

With the NewsMax it provides the link to the audio clip of Clinton on a radio talk program speaking about why he didn't take Sudan's offer to take OBL into american custody

The NYT didn't provide any credible sources. It made outrageous claims and attributed it to unnamed sources. The people who believe that are the left who want to believe it and the rest of the guillible who don't know better. Unfortunately, this stuff works for the left. It's based on lies.

Once again, INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION.

Do you realize that the Walter and Leonore Annenberg (founders and chair of the Annenburg Foundation) donate almost exclusively to Republican candidates and causes? You'd think if there was a bias it would be to the RIGHT. .

And you got this from? Let me guess. Factcheck?

The Founding Chairman of this left wing organization was Barak Hussein Obama, and Obama's pal and notorious terrorist Bill Ayers was co-chair for it's two operating arms.

Yeah...why would I think it's biased?

And yanno, what really ticks me off. Factcheck is based on lies. The lies that it's a neutral source when it's nothing of the sort.

I remember in one message board site on comcast. Some left wing moderator named wonder woman when we were having a discussion, posted from the left wing fact check and locked the thread when there was a disagreement about a political issue.

Liberalism is based on lies. The lies that are spread by the sources, and the lies about what the sources truely are.

Once again, the link I gave gives a link to the audio of Bill Clinton himself in a program talking about why he rejected Sudan's offer for Sudan to arrest and extradite OBL to America.

Do you believe Clinton admitting that he did it or didn't do it in this case?

Once again, that is an incomplete story - factcheck provides the context and the 9/11 Commission made the final statement on it.

Funny that you choose to believe Clinton..."depends on the definition of...."

It's so nice we have the left wing sources to change the truth into what the left wants the truth to mean.

The context is clear. Bill Clinton in the audio clips speaks about it.

Sudan twice offered to arrest and extradite OBL when he was in Sudan and turn OBL over to America. Bill Clinton didn't take the offer.

If he did there is a good shot 911 would never have occurred.

 

[CMike]

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Exactly what was dismantled that specifically led to these three attacks?

One of the changes in procedures that was implicated in letting the underwear bomber through had to do with changes in the no-fly-lists in an attempt to reduce the unweildy number of names and that change actually occurred under the Bush administration.

Also, exactly which of those "dismantled safeguards" have prevented the Fort Hood Shooting and the Little Rock shooting?

I'd really like to see some cause and effect here.

This is what's so scary. It's that the left doesn't get it.

The time to stop the undy bomber was not when he was in the airport trying to board, it was when his father turned him in. He should have been put in surveillance and caught before he even got out of Yemen.

The time to stop the recruiting station terrorist was when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

The time to stop the Fort Hood terrorist is when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

The intelligence agencies already had information about these Al Qaida terrorists before the terrorist attacks. The failure was the lack of aggresiveness to capture them before it even got to the point of an attack.

Why weren't the intelligence agencies more aggresive? Because Obama made them timid. Why were they made timid? Here you go, this is the former director of the CIA & NSA explaining why HAYDEN: Time for CIA to move ahead, not back - Washington Times

Liberals and Obama got what they want. They got US' intelligence services a lot more concerned about "terrorist rights" than stopping terrorist attacks.

 

[CMike]

We had four alkida attacks in Bush's first year.

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Holy fuck. You're a fox news swimming oreilly piss drinking partisan Nationalist. How the fuck can you seriously blame obama for unaffiliated individuals going postal?

It is also a false dilemma to say bush protected us. You have no idea how much damage that fucked up administration has caused and because you are blinded by fear you cannot grasp the concept of what goes around....really goes around.

They were not unaffiliated individuals going postal. They were all connected with Al Qaida as I showed in previous articles

If we got attacked tomorrow you'd do two things: blame Obama only and cry foul because America is "innocent."

STOP THE PRESSES!!!! You are saying that America's terrorist attacks are becasue America deserved them?

 

[CurveLight]

I did. The source is the audio link of Bill Clinton talking about it.

Why don't you listen to it.

Just as you won't open up factcheck I won't open newsmax. One more time: do you have a reliable source for the clinton audio?

You have dodged the same question repeatedly so let's see if you dodge it again:

So do you support secret prisons being run by any nation? It's a simple fucking yes or no.

The audio IS the source. Newsmax provided the link to it.

I already answered your question. I don't agree with your premise.

Holy shit dude. Where did newsmax get the audio?

 

[CurveLight]

I agree.

The difference is that Pres. Bush implemented safeguards that kept the US safe from AL QAIDA ATTACK for the next 7, and Obama dismanteled them, and that's why we then had 3 in one year.

All Obama had to do is keep the safeguards in place, instead he went on a pro-Al Qaida rights crusade

Exactly what was dismantled that specifically led to these three attacks?

One of the changes in procedures that was implicated in letting the underwear bomber through had to do with changes in the no-fly-lists in an attempt to reduce the unweildy number of names and that change actually occurred under the Bush administration.

Also, exactly which of those "dismantled safeguards" have prevented the Fort Hood Shooting and the Little Rock shooting?

I'd really like to see some cause and effect here.

This is what's so scary. It's that the left doesn't get it.

The time to stop the undy bomber was not when he was in the airport trying to board, it was when his father turned him in. He should have been put in surveillance and caught before he even got out of Yemen.

The time to stop the recruiting station terrorist was when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

The time to stop the Fort Hood terrorist is when he was meeting with Al Qaida.

The intelligence agencies already had information about these Al Qaida terrorists before the terrorist attacks. The failure was the lack of aggresiveness to capture them before it even got to the point of an attack.

Why weren't the intelligence agencies more aggresive? Because Obama made them timid. Why were they made timid? Here you go, this is the former director of the CIA & NSA explaining why HAYDEN: Time for CIA to move ahead, not back - Washington Times

Liberals and Obama got what they want. They got US' intelligence services a lot more concerned about "terrorist rights" than stopping terrorist attacks.

You totally fucking dodged the question like you avoided mine then fluff with predictable partisan rhetoric. I absolutely hate it when Americans pretend to care about America when really all they care about is themselves and saying the world is fucked up due to everyone else.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

Good...people like you need to just shut the fuck up and let the country get back to business.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

Good...people like you need to just shut the fuck up and let the country get back to business.

Lol..........the fat lady has sung!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I also have to point out how Bush dickwackers always fucking ignore Bush never got bin laden in the SEVEN YEARS after 9E. They always gloss right over it. Here's some advice: grow some fucking courage and have the audacity required to not walk lock-step. The best part is if you do you will probably enjoy the new scenery of no longer looking at nothing but the back of someone else's head.

Looks like Obama isn't too concerned with Bin Laden either....perhaps you should start bitching about him too.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

Good...people like you need to just shut the fuck up and let the country get back to business.

Lol..........the fat lady has sung!

Projecting again I see.

 

[CurveLight]

I also have to point out how Bush dickwackers always fucking ignore Bush never got bin laden in the SEVEN YEARS after 9E. They always gloss right over it. Here's some advice: grow some fucking courage and have the audacity required to not walk lock-step. The best part is if you do you will probably enjoy the new scenery of no longer looking at nothing but the back of someone else's head.

Looks like Obama isn't too concerned with Bin Laden either....perhaps you should start bitching about him too.

Nobody pulled your tampon string.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I also have to point out how Bush dickwackers always fucking ignore Bush never got bin laden in the SEVEN YEARS after 9E. They always gloss right over it. Here's some advice: grow some fucking courage and have the audacity required to not walk lock-step. The best part is if you do you will probably enjoy the new scenery of no longer looking at nothing but the back of someone else's head.

Looks like Obama isn't too concerned with Bin Laden either....perhaps you should start bitching about him too.

Nobody pulled your tampon string.

You really need therapy for your "issues".