So I said before:
If Obama authorized the killing of Bin Laden, some in here would criticize him for the placement location of the bullet.

This seems to be text book.

Didn't ask for permission from Pakistan, didn't use a drone strike. Just flexed some good old USA Muscle and ended it with the Navy seals. Maybe this is why Pakistan has been so pissed at us lately?

what a great day for Americans, and a day every military member should be proud (yourself included Jim) who had a part in the war on terror.

$5 says it was his bodyguards that pulled the trigger. We just helped them along...OBL had orders he was not to be taken alive and was to be immediately shot by his bodyguards if he was under threat of capture.

Happy to do the helping.......

Now on to YEMEN........

Can the USA fight 4 wars....will they now pull out of Afghanistan...considering this was the stimulus for going in to begin with...

" Based on statements given by U.S. detainees since the 9/11 attacks, they said, intelligence officials have long known that bin Laden trusted one al-Qaida courier in particular, and they believed he might be living with him in hiding.
Four years ago, the United States learned the man's identity, which officials did not disclose, and then about two years later, they identified areas of Pakistan where he operated. Last August, the man's residence was found, officials said.

"Intelligence analysis concluded that this compound was custom built in 2005 to hide someone of significance," with walls as high as 18 feet and topped by barbed wire, according to one official. Despite the compound's estimated $1 million cost and two security gates, it had no phone or Internet running into the house.

By mid-February, intelligence from multiple sources was clear enough that Obama wanted to "pursue an aggressive course of action," a senior administration official said. Over the next two and a half months, the president led five meetings of the National Security Council focused solely on whether bin Laden was in that compound and, if so, how to get him, the official said."

BTW

Yesterday marked the 8th anniversary of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speech....

:rotf2:

"Osama Bin Laden was asked to surrender by US troops before he was shot dead, Fox News is quoting intelligence sources as saying.

The terrorist leader had always said he would not be captured alive.

Bin Laden was shot dead during a raid by US ground troops on a compound in Pakistan. His body was captured by the Americans.

The troops landed in four helicopters. One of the helicopters suffered mechanical failure and was destroyed by the Americans. However none of the American soldiers were killed."

So everyone is going to give Obama all the credit?

It was all military working on a mission until it was complete, all Obama did was give approval to the op, which any president would have done...

No.
GWB deserves credit for this as well, absolutely. The intelligence used began in 2004 if the news accounts are correct.

However, in the last 2.5 years, Obama has clearly not scaled back the efforts to locate OBL, and by many accounts ramped up the efforts in the last 6 months, so yes, as C-I-C he deserves some credit, yes.

but listening to accounts of the helicopter malfunctioning and some of the potential issues as the raid began, the heroes are clearly the Seals on this mission, hands down.

BTW

Yesterday marked the 8th anniversary of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speech....

:rotf2:

Funny thing about that speech...if you read the text,nowhere does he say "mission accomplished". What he does say in that speech is that there's a lot of hard work left to do in Iraq, and that no one knows when the job will be done.

Liberals will then say "well what about the banner that said 'Mission Accomplished'? Yes, the banner. Bush's speech was delivered on the USS Lincoln, a Navy ship that was heading home after completing a tour of duty near Iraq. The banner was for the sailors of the USS Lincoln, because for them, their mission was accomplished.

But the media, and people who hate Bush,pounced on this, distorting it, and saying that Bush thought combat was over.

There were huge mistakes made with Iraq, and I have no quarrel with folks who say we shou;dn't have gone in. But it's flat-out lie to state that Bush ever claimes that the mission was accomplished.

And awesomenews about Bin Laden, I pray some of those 09/11 families can rest a bit easier.

osama bin laden dead president obama | Inside TV | EW.com (http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/05/01/osama-bin-laden-dead/)

He interrupted Celebrity Apprentice.

Think he did that on purpose? LOL

But the media, and people who hate Bush,pounced on this, distorting it, and saying that Bush thought combat was over.



"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
:smash:

The same day: Rumsfeld said that in regard to Afghanistan, Bush, U.S. Central Command Chief Tommy Franks, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai "have concluded we're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities. The bulk of this country today is permissive, it's secure."

OK I'm calling TOTAL BULL SHAT here.

Raid against Osama bin Laden captured on Twitter - Yahoo! News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/raid-against-osama-bin-laden-captured-twitter-101832783.html)

In 7 hours they're trying to tell us that they confirmed his identity...performed DNA testing which proved this...according to Obama...washed his body according to Muslim Law....wrapped in a white sheet, and dumped this guy in the ocean before anyone else had a chance to confirm this.

BULL SHAT.

I find this VERY hard to believe. Twitter doesn't lie. Didn't Obama say this happened several days ago?????

Looks like my Reynolds stock is starting to climb....:hihi:

So I said before:
If Obama authorized the killing of Bin Laden, some in here would criticize him for the placement location of the bullet.

This seems to be text book.

Didn't ask for permission from Pakistan, didn't use a drone strike. Just flexed some good old USA Muscle and ended it with the Navy seals. Maybe this is why Pakistan has been so pissed at us lately?

what a great day for Americans, and a day every military member should be proud (yourself included Jim) who had a part in the war on terror.

Well done to everyone involved and a huge Thank You!!!

Now, Brian...can we try to be a little less partisan today?:) There very well could be "water boarding" involved in getting his where abouts.:uhuh:

I haven't posted an intentionally partisan thing today.

as far as torture, who knows. it sounds like it was mostly about locating the courier... me thinks that was done as clandestine as possible to not alert OBL....

So everyone is going to give Obama all the credit?

It was all military working on a mission until it was complete, all Obama did was give approval to the op, which any president would have done...

Crazy what happens though when the focus is taken off Bush's war in Iraq and back to where the real war on terrorism should be focused.

This was a win by US intelligence. Then our Special Ops perfectly executed (pun intended) a raid based on that intelligence.

will the short form death certificate be enough or is the long form with the embossed seal required?

will the short form death certificate be enough or is the long form with the embossed seal required?
Posted this in the other thread:
http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

congrats to all involved. I give credit to O for getting it done.

I'll be waiting patiently for the crackpots to start saying they Saw Elvis buying a Big Gulp from him at a 7-11 in Tallahassee....

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
:smash:


What Bush said is indisputably true. We did prevail in the Battle of Iraq. Remember that the battle was AGAINST the Iraq led by the Sadaam Husein regime. THAT Iraq was eliminated. The Iraqi regime that followed was our ally. We fought WITH it to defeat its enemies. Jim in CT pointed out very specifically that Bush did not say "mission accomplished" in that speech, it was a sign posted by the crew of the ship whose mission was over. Bush said specifically in that speech "The war on terror is not over . . . we have difficult work to do in Iraq."

The same day: Rumsfeld said that in regard to Afghanistan, Bush, U.S. Central Command Chief Tommy Franks, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai "have concluded we're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities. The bulk of this country today is permissive, it's secure."

So then you quote Rumsfeld in regard to Afghanistan which is not related to the ship's "mission accomplished" sign to somehow twist peripheral, unrelated statements to funnel into the falsely attributed quote to Bush to make it sound as if Bush was stupid enough to sort of say that our work was done, mission accomplished, combat is over. It is that slippery, slithery kind of discussion that is also used to paint the Tea Party as racist.

Bin Laden was reportedly living in the Pakistani military equivalent of West Point. That's a little suspicious in my book. Anyone think the Pakistani's were aware that he was there and were harboring him? This could get really ugly, really fast.

I haven't posted an intentionally partisan thing today.

as far as torture, who knows. it sounds like it was mostly about locating the courier... me thinks that was done as clandestine as possible to not alert OBL....

The AP has a story stating that "detainees" gave up the relationship between Bin Laden and the courier "during interrogation".

WHo knows what that means.

Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here.

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
:smash:

The same day: Rumsfeld said that in regard to Afghanistan, Bush, U.S. Central Command Chief Tommy Franks, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai "have concluded we're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities. The bulk of this country today is permissive, it's secure."

Zimmy, my post saisd that Bush never claimed "Mission Accomplished" in his spech on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Read the speech. Assuming you can read, I also posted the intent of the banner, it was to give an "atta boy" to a bunch of heroic sailors whose mission WAS accomplished, and they deserved an acknowledgment of their service. So if you think it's acceptable to twist Bush's intent of congratulating those sailors and to attack him for it, all I can say is I find that repugnant. I also said mistakes were made in Iraq, mistakes that I'll wager impacted me more than they impacted you. But Bush never implied that the mission was accomplished, not during that speech. I'm sorry if that fact exposes how many revolting liars there are in the liberal ranks, but it's still a fact.

Pointing out what Rumsfeld and Franks said is NOT refuting my point, I was referring to what Bush said and didn't say.

The AP has a story stating that "detainees" gave up the relationship between Bin Laden and the courier "during interrogation".

WHo knows what that means.

Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here.

Word is that there was information from detainees at GITMO that helped this mission.

I'm curious to hear what all the people who wanted Gitmo closed years ago now think? Should Obama be villified for not closing it, or should he be commended for keeping it open and using information from the detainees there to help take out the worlds most dangerous terrorist?

Jim, Why do you bring this crap up if you don't want people to respond? This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim (like in most things you say). The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it. Bush was commander in chief. Revolting liars? You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished, but he did let pictures of him standing in front of it get printed everywhere. He did say we have moved from major combat to stability and re-building. Bush also said "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban..." He was wrong on those accounts. The irony of today and it's juxtaposition to the Bush speech is notable, whether you want to believe it is liberal liars distorting it. Salty bugger certainly isn't very liberal.

"NEIL CAVUTO (host): Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?

Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

Let's just give credit where credit is due: To all the military that have served and to all that have died in defense of our country!
No praise, no credit, no kudos should be given to the president, since all he did was say "go"! (I mean, if Bush isn't going to be given his just credit, certainly Obama hasn't earned any!)

congrats to all involved. I give credit to O for getting it done.

Kudos to all involved. It took years to find him. X,000s of soldiers and intelligence folks worked harder than we'll ever know to make that happen (and many prob. gave their lives). Obama was just luckily the pres. at the time. Not catching him was prob. Bush's biggest personnal disappointment but I know he was prob. thrilled to hear the news. He laid the ground work for yesterday.

Bin Laden was reportedly living in the Pakistani military equivalent of West Point. That's a little suspicious in my book. Anyone think the Pakistani's were aware that he was there and were harboring him? This could get really ugly, really fast.

They had to know - 100 yards from the military compound. I'm sure there are other compounds that are similiar but it seemed the measures (extra high walls, no phones, etc.) had to make someone extra suspicious. We'll prob. not make too much of it b/c we still need the Paks. as allies.

Gitmo- I still think it should be closed. I think it is a blight on what we as a nation stand for. I have read that most good intelligence is gotten not by tourture. We don't know if the info. was obtained by water boarding or by other means.

Obama gave his word he would close it, and any politician who doesn't keep his word deserves to have that taken into account when you enter the voting booth.

No praise, no credit, no kudos should be given to the president, since all he did was say "go"! (I mean, if Bush isn't going to be given his just credit, certainly Obama hasn't earned any!)

But I read that JimCt said that Bush s/b praised for keeping us safe after 9/11. So if you like the pres. you give credit for something that happens during his term but if you don't like him, no kudos?:rotf2:

Bin Laden was reportedly living in the Pakistani military equivalent of West Point. That's a little suspicious in my book. Anyone think the Pakistani's were aware that he was there and were harboring him? This could get really ugly, really fast.

There was a reason that this was kept very close to only a few. I agree, This is going to get interesting.

But I read that JimCt said that Bush s/b praised for keeping us safe after 9/11. So if you like the pres. you give credit for something that happens during his term but if you don't like him, no kudos?:rotf2:

Paul, if you read my posts before criticizing me, you'd see that I posted this...

"Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here."

If I say it again, will you be able to recognize that I said it? I give Obama credit for always tightening th enoose around Bin Laden, and for being aggressive with predator drone attacks. I may be an S.O.B., but I'm extremely rational and fair.

Zimmy, someone else posted that BUsh declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech. I pointed out the irrefutable fact that Bush said no such thing during the speech in question. You "responded" by posting a picture of the banner, and by posting quotes attributed to people other than Bush.

For the third time...huge mistakes were made in planning the Iraq strategy, and it's completely fair to criticize Bush for that. It is NOT FAIR to imply that he said "mission accomplished" during that speech, and anyone who claims he said that is lying. The banner was put up to help one ship celebrate the fact that their mission was accomplished. Liberals twist that to attack Bush. I don't like that, I presume you are OK with it...

No question some in the Pakistani govt. knew he was there.

Jim, Why do you bring this crap up if you don't want people to respond? This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim (like in most things you say). The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it. Bush was commander in chief. Revolting liars? You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished, but he did let pictures of him standing in front of it get printed everywhere. He did say we have moved from major combat to stability and re-building. Bush also said "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban..." He was wrong on those accounts. The irony of today and it's juxtaposition to the Bush speech is notable, whether you want to believe it is liberal liars distorting it. Salty bugger certainly isn't very liberal.

"NEIL CAVUTO (host): Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?

Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

Wow...

"This wasn't an issue of liberals distorting it, as you claim"

Bush never said "mission accomplished" during that one speech. He did, however, claim that there was a lot of hard work left to do in Iraq. Please just read the speech.

"The white house had the banner made, even if the Navy asked for it"

If what you say is true, so what? The banner was designed to help those kids celebrate their accomplishments. If liberals want to distort the intent of the banner, that's the fault of the White House?

Maybe Bush should have demonized everyone who claimed he said "mission accomplished", just like Obama likes to demonize the birthers. I mean, what's the difference? Obama provided his birth certificate, so you can't rationally claim he wasn't born here. And as for Bush, you can download the text of his speech, not only does he not say mission accomplished, he says we have a lot of work left to do. So how can you rationally claim he said "mission accomplished"?

"You have a distorted sense of reality. You are right though, he didn't say mission accomplished"

So, in the same sentence, you say (1) my view of reality is distorted, and that (2) I have my facts straight. So which is it?

Paul, if you read my posts before criticizing me, you'd see that I posted this...

"Not easy for me to admit, but Obama deserves some kudos here."

If I say it again, will you be able to recognize that I said it? I give Obama credit for always tightening th enoose around Bin Laden, and for being aggressive with predator drone attacks. I may be an S.O.B., but I'm extremely rational and fair.



I saw your quote and I was not criticizing you for anything related to this. I was crit. FishermanTim for his comments that Obama deserved no credit. I shouldn't have used your name, just the point about Bush keeping us safe after 9/11. My apologizes.

Does anyone know why seals would have been used for a land based mission? Are they considered the best trained of our special forces?

i can't believe any propaganda i see on tv. didn't osama have diabetes and was getting dialysis? i think he may have just died from complications of that. if he is even dead at all. very quick to report he was killed, identified, and already buried him at sea.

BTW

Yesterday marked the 8th anniversary of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speech....

:rotf2:



Zimmy, someone else posted that BUsh declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech. .

The original post in reference to it never said Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in a speech It is typically referred to in common vernacular as the mission accomplished speech. I don't know anyone who thinks Bush used the exact words mission accomplished in the speech. You can argue semantics all you want.

Zimmy - you ever see the Osama look alike in the area we fish this time of year? Same scruffy, unkept beard. Keeps 2 fish a day to sell. He gave me a bunch of crap last night. I think he was off his meds. If I does again, I'm going to call him Osama.

I think I know who you mean. Saw him a couple of nights ago. Maybe he won't be around anymore.

i can't believe any propaganda i see on tv. .

didn't osama have diabetes and was getting dialysis? .....didn't they report that on TV....or maybe it was on the Internet......because there's nothing but the truth on the internet.

I see my Reynolds Wrap Stock Climbing.....

I saw your quote and I was not criticizing you for anything related to this. I was crit. FishermanTim for his comments that Obama deserved no credit. I shouldn't have used your name, just the point about Bush keeping us safe after 9/11. My apologizes.

Does anyone know why seals would have been used for a land based mission? Are they considered the best trained of our special forces?

IMHO, they are far and away the best, and the operate on land...that's what SEAL stands for, by the way...SEa, Air, Land. Their mission statement includes all manner of operations in any environment. They must be seen to be believed, not entirely human.

They are the best at what they do. Each member of the Special Operations community performs a different misson. Some train friendly insurgents, some go forward and establish a toe hold ahead of a forced entry, some seize hostages, there is some cross functionality but when there is a very specific mission, you choose the unit that trains for that mission almost exclusively.

So everyone is going to give Obama all the credit?

It was all military working on a mission until it was complete, all Obama did was give approval to the op, which any president would have done...

Why Not a part of it ... If this thing went bad (bum helicopter) many would have hung it around the Presidents kneck . Congrats Seals and Obama .

Maybe Fox is a little biased!

Fox News Says President Obama Is DeadVideo (http://www.break.com/index/fox-news-says-president-obama-is-dead-2053399#)

Crazy what happens though when the focus is taken off Bush's war in Iraq and back to where the real war on terrorism should be focused.

This was a win by US intelligence. Then our Special Ops perfectly executed (pun intended) a raid based on that intelligence.

I haven't heard anything that suggests that this mission might not have happened if we hadn't reduced our presence in Iraq. I could certainly be wrong...

I'd say it's crazy (crazy = good) what happens when intelligence folks are allowed to take the gloves off, because there ARE reports that the first break in this case (the relationship between the courier and Bin Laden) was provided by Khalid Shiek Mohammad, but only after he was waterboarded.

The word "incomprehensible" rarely is used to mean exactly what it implies. In this case, it is incomprehensible to me that folks are opposed to waterboarding.

my first concern, whenever a mas murderer is killed, is that his body is handled properly and buried in strict accordance with the guidelines of the peaceful religeon that he practiced throughout his life, you wouldn't want any of the other followers of the peaceful religeon to be upset that one of it's members, no matter how rogue, devious or deadly was in any way mistreated, even in death :wall: glad to know that he was properly prepared for his trip to heaven :uhuh:

Quick quiz.
Name a time "water boarding" worked?:) Hmmmm think hard....

Quick quiz.
Name a time "water boarding" worked?:) Hmmmm think hard....

I'm at a loss. When?

-spence

I'm at a loss. When?

-spence

I'll help ya Spence.

Phone Call by Kuwaiti Courier Led to Bin Laden - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344&page=1)

"Panetta acknowledges information from waterboarded detainees was used to help plan mission at bin Laden's compound - NBC News"

So then you quote Rumsfeld in regard to Afghanistan which is not related to the ship's "mission accomplished" sign to somehow twist peripheral, unrelated statements to funnel into the falsely attributed quote to Bush to make it sound as if Bush was stupid enough to sort of say that our work was done, mission accomplished, combat is over. It is that slippery, slithery kind of discussion that is also used to paint the Tea Party as racist.

Speaking of slippery, slithery...

That mission accomplished sign was just a fashionable use in the art of power, not in the philosophy of any truth. Bush learned well. As to those who seem unwilling to acknowledge this, this is a nuisance. The philosophy of truth is at times an impediment to gaining and using power. And then truth becomes secondary to power. In your case it is the power of pursuasion. Your ability to make falsehood into a shining city on a hill to the audience is commendable. Nevetheless, I am unconvinced that your "mission accomplished sign" statements are nothing more than post hoc rationalization.

Speaking of slippery, slithery...

That mission accomplished sign was just a fashionable use in the art of power, not in the philosophy of any truth. Bush learned well. As to those who seem unwilling to acknowledge this, this is a nuisance. The philosophy of truth is at times an impediment to gaining and using power. And then truth becomes secondary to power. In your case it is the power of pursuasion. Your ability to make falsehood into a shining city on a hill to the audience is commendable. Nevetheless, I am unconvinced that your "mission accomplished sign" statements are nothing more than post hoc rationalization.

Nevertheless . . . I am unconvinced that your "mission accomplished sign" statement in response to my "mission accomplished sign" statement, which was in response to zimmy's "mission accomplished" sign statement, which was also responded to by Jim in CT's "mission Accomplished" sign statement which were all "post hoc" rationalizations of previous abundant "post hoc" statements and rationallizations and interpretations and refutations and mocking insultations and repudiations or reconfigurations of an original easily explained (and was) "mission accomplished sign" that was a "nuisance" to Bush haters who needed to conjecture an assault on the "philosophy of truth" to deny him a moment of victory so that the simple truth of the "mission accomplished" sign became secondary to belittling his power, and this never ending saga of meanings for the "mission accomplished sign" has cascaded and slithered all the way into your falsehood that I made a shining city on a hill . . . nevertheless, I am unconvinced that you said anything of substance.

What "mission" do you rationalize that the sign referred to and what actual evidence do you have of that?

I'll help ya Spence.

Phone Call by Kuwaiti Courier Led to Bin Laden - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13512344&page=1)

This article doesn't prove that waterboarding "works", in fact it doesn't even says that the name of the courier was obtained using harsh interrogation techniques. Reality seems to be that information was used from a variety of sources, one having been a person that had previously been waterboarded. This is no way implies that the waterboarding was the reason he gave up the information...

You seem to want to think that because waterboarding was present in the system at some time it must be the reason we were successful. This doesn't pass a basic smell test. Sure, it's possible, but if you don't know, and we do know there are numerous other legal interrogation techniques that could produce the same intel, you really can't say.

If you read my old posts I believe I've said that I'm not against waterboarding as much as I'm against us using it while saying we don't torture. Let's not use bad logic to justify behavior we can't reconcile with our own stated values.

-spence

If you read my old posts I believe I've said that I'm not against waterboarding.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

you should be waterboarded for some of the things that you try to run up the flag pole

Speaking of slippery, slithery...

That mission accomplished sign was just a fashionable use in the art of power, not in the philosophy of any truth. Bush learned well. As to those who seem unwilling to acknowledge this, this is a nuisance. The philosophy of truth is at times an impediment to gaining and using power. And then truth becomes secondary to power. In your case it is the power of pursuasion. Your ability to make falsehood into a shining city on a hill to the audience is commendable. Nevetheless, I am unconvinced that your "mission accomplished sign" statements are nothing more than post hoc rationalization.

:smokin: don't bogart

my first concern, whenever a mas murderer is killed, is that his body is handled properly and buried in strict accordance with the guidelines of the peaceful religeon that he practiced throughout his life, you wouldn't want any of the other followers of the peaceful religeon to be upset that one of it's members, no matter how rogue, devious or deadly was in any way mistreated, even in death :wall: glad to know that he was properly prepared for his trip to heaven :uhuh:


What hasn't been mentioned yet is that the burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson was that the burial's speed was enhanced by use of steam powered catapult when they launched the body. Its true, i read it on the innernets.

This article doesn't prove that waterboarding "works", in fact it doesn't even says that the name of the courier was obtained using harsh interrogation techniques. Reality seems to be that information was used from a variety of sources, one having been a person that had previously been waterboarded. This is no way implies that the waterboarding was the reason he gave up the information...

You seem to want to think that because waterboarding was present in the system at some time it must be the reason we were successful. This doesn't pass a basic smell test. Sure, it's possible, but if you don't know, and we do know there are numerous other legal interrogation techniques that could produce the same intel, you really can't say.

If you read my old posts I believe I've said that I'm not against waterboarding as much as I'm against us using it while saying we don't torture. Let's not use bad logic to justify behavior we can't reconcile with our own stated values.

-spence

I'm sure Eric Holder could have got the information from them.:rotf2:

This article doesn't prove that waterboarding "works", in fact it doesn't even says that the name of the courier was obtained using harsh interrogation techniques. Reality seems to be that information was used from a variety of sources, one having been a person that had previously been waterboarded. This is no way implies that the waterboarding was the reason he gave up the information...

You seem to want to think that because waterboarding was present in the system at some time it must be the reason we were successful. This doesn't pass a basic smell test. Sure, it's possible, but if you don't know, and we do know there are numerous other legal interrogation techniques that could produce the same intel, you really can't say.

If you read my old posts I believe I've said that I'm not against waterboarding as much as I'm against us using it while saying we don't torture. Let's not use bad logic to justify behavior we can't reconcile with our own stated values.

-spence

Google "Leon Penata interview" and try to spin what he said.:smash:

Google "Leon Penata interview" and try to spin what he said.:smash:
There's no spin, read my post above again.

Interestingly the report is now that KSM didn't even give any information up while being waterboarded, but that he actually lied about the link and threw us off the track. In other words, the waterboarding led to bad information.

Paneta's comment seems to be on track. Intel came from a variety of sources. Some sources had been subjected to enhanced techniques at some time, but he makes no connection between waterboarding and specific intel.

If waterboarding is ethical or legal is one argument, but the idea that it directly led (or even had a significant impact) to Bin Laden's capture doesn't seem to be based on any facts.

Because it's not possible to discount 100%, the issue is being used for political reasons.

-spence

There's no spin, read my post above again.

Interestingly the report is now that KSM didn't even give any information up while being waterboarded, but that he actually lied about the link and threw us off the track. In other words, the waterboarding led to bad information.

Paneta's comment seems to be on track. Intel came from a variety of sources. Some sources had been subjected to enhanced techniques at some time, but he makes no connection between waterboarding and specific intel.

If waterboarding is ethical or legal is one argument, but the idea that it directly led (or even had a significant impact) to Bin Laden's capture doesn't seem to be based on any facts.

Because it's not possible to discount 100%, the issue is being used for political reasons.

-spence

You are the Master Spinster Spence. Well done...

In a world that Obama preached of before becoming President, Gitmo would be closed, trials would be in NY and UBL would be free.

I heard a great analogy to this. Obama is like a teenage kid who thought he knew everything, then grew up and realized Dad (GWB) was right all along.

then grew up and realized Dad (GWB) was right all along.
Except of course about that damn Iraq mess....

Except of course about that damn Iraq mess....

Don't forget Lybia. Another war started.

Don't forget Lybia. Another war started.

W/o troops on the ground. Apples and Oranges.

If we had done the same in Iraq, I may have felt different, but I have not supported Obama on Lybia here either...

W/o troops on the ground. Apples and Oranges.

If we had done the same in Iraq, I may have felt different, but I have not supported Obama on Lybia here either...

As near as I can tell we have accomplished nothing in Lybia. Nothing.

Apples and Oranges

I heard a great analogy to this. Obama is like a teenage kid who thought he knew everything, then grew up and realized Dad (GWB) was right all along.
That's a terrible analogy. What exactly was Bush "right" about? Shifting focus away from Al Qaeda and onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence" and then thrusting us into a Trillion Dollar war that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?

Or was he right about the part where he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector.

But hey, at least he got the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy."

As near as I can tell we have accomplished nothing in Lybia. Nothing.

Apples and Oranges

First, we havene't accomplished much in Iraq. I would have rather they handled it like the seals just did with OBL. Samy with Ghaddafi.

Second, you made the bleeping comparision when you brought up Lybia as 'another war started'

That's a terrible analogy. What exactly was Bush "right" about? Shifting focus away from Al Qaeda and onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence" and then thrusting us into a Trillion Dollar war that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?

Or was he right about the part where he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector.

But hey, at least he got the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy."

And the guy who had made it his life mission to kill you and your family. Patriot Act, Gitmo, enhanced interrogation,military tribunals...all Bush policies that Obama either kept or added too.

It's not a"trillion dollar war"....get your talking points from a more reliable source.

I think there is a very good argument that Bush policies led to the unrest and action in the mid-east today. Bush's actions also led to OBL living in seclusion for over 5 years, his influence greatly reduced.

In a world that Obama preached of before becoming President, Gitmo would be closed, trials would be in NY and UBL would be free.
This doesn't make any sense, unless you think the CIA and our Armed Forces are completely incompetent. Reality is that there are a lot of very effective and legal methods to get information that the experts seem to think work quite well.

You just don't seem to be able to accept the fact that Obama get's to take credit for authorizing this mission.

-spence

It's not a"trillion dollar war"....get your talking points from a more reliable source.
Iraq? By some accounts could total 3 trillion more than the 50-60B offered by the Bush Admin at the time...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804

I believe the Iraq war is at about 800B today and will certainly pass a trillion dollars by the time the bulk of troops are out...best case.

-spence

Iraq? By some accounts could total 3 trillion more than the 50-60B offered by the Bush Admin at the time...

The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804)

I believe the Iraq war is at about 800B today and will certainly pass a trillion dollars by the time the bulk of troops are out...best case.

-spence

vanity fair?????????????? it has gotten bad:rotf2:

This doesn't make any sense, unless you think the CIA and our Armed Forces are completely incompetent. Reality is that there are a lot of very effective and legal methods to get information that the experts seem to think work quite well.

You just don't seem to be able to accept the fact that Obama get's to take credit for authorizing this mission.

-spence

I can't qoute any woman's magazines or anything, but from what I understand, since Obama's second day in office(when he banned enhanced interrogation) the information we get is not the same as we used to get. It worked.

I credit Obama with making the right choice and using the information to kill UBL. I have never said anything negative about that.

You however are in severe denial.

I can't qoute any woman's magazines or anything, but from what I understand
Ah yes, there's the issue.:rotf2:

but from what I understand,

On what is your understanding based?

On what is your understanding based?

Hey....I read! I also have listened to alot of what the peopel involved in all this are saying. Including many in the current administration.

You will just figure it's from Rush's show though.

Hey....I read! I also have listened to alot of what the peopel involved in all this are saying. Including many in the current administration.

You will just figure it's from Rush's show though.

I would think that the "people involved in all this" wouldn't be saying much about classified information gathered from classified interrogations. That is why I asked. Wouldn't have thought of Rush, if you hadn't brought it up. Apparently on your conscience?

I would think that the "people involved in all this" wouldn't be saying much about classified information gathered from classified interrogations. That is why I asked. Wouldn't have thought of Rush, if you hadn't brought it up. Apparently on your conscience?

The head of the CIA can't seem to keep his mouth shut:biglaugh:

I can't qoute any woman's magazines or anything, but from what I understand, since Obama's second day in office(when he banned enhanced interrogation) the information we get is not the same as we used to get. It worked.
Not really a womans magazine, but it was the first link that popped up. There's plenty of others...

If you want to question this being a trillion dollar war just count the Congressional appropriations on record (around 900B) and the fact that we still have tens of thousands of troops and contractors as taxpayer liabilities. Obviously, this doesn't factor in the even more dramatic soft costs.

As for the quality of intel changing dramatically the day after Obama took office...I call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&. You're either completely off your rocker or just making things up.

As for the head of the CIA not keeping his mouth shut, did he say anything else or are you going to hinge your entire argument on one statement you're simply reading into what you want to hear?

-spence

I would think that the "people involved in all this" wouldn't be saying much about classified information gathered from classified interrogations.

You would think that but instead - WAY too many people are flapping their gums. Every 5 minutes there is a Breaking News new details revealed, after a break from our sponsor...

Not really a womans magazine, but it was the first link that popped up. There's plenty of others...

If you want to question this being a trillion dollar war just count the Congressional appropriations on record (around 900B) and the fact that we still have tens of thousands of troops and contractors as taxpayer liabilities. Obviously, this doesn't factor in the even more dramatic soft costs.

As for the quality of intel changing dramatically the day after Obama took office...I call bull#^&#^&#^&#^&. You're either completely off your rocker or just making things up.

As for the head of the CIA not keeping his mouth shut, did he say anything else or are you going to hinge your entire argument on one statement you're simply reading into what you want to hear?

-spence

YouTube it Spence. It comes right from his mouth.

Not really a womans magazine, but it was the first link that popped up. There's plenty of others...

-spence

Ladies Home Journal
Teen Beat
Vogue

you should go back to comedy shows for links and info :)

YouTube it Spence. It comes right from his mouth.

you are missing the part where the administration sent a lackey right out to explain that what came out of his mouth, didn't come out of his mouth...let me be clear aaaaaand don't spike the football

YouTube it Spence. It comes right from his mouth.

What comes from his mouth? Please be more specific...

-spence

What comes from his mouth? Please be more specific...

-spence

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619//vp/42886480#42886480)

Watch please

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

First, we havene't accomplished much in Iraq. '
$4 a gallon gas.... Check.

Billions of dollars in contracts for halliburton..... Check.

Bush and chenney accomplished what THEY wanted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

$4 a gallon gas.... Check.

Billions of dollars in contracts for halliburton..... Check.

Bush and chenney accomplished what THEY wanted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
http://i.imgur.com/qiB87.jpg

$4 a gallon gas.... Check.

Billions of dollars in contracts for halliburton..... Check.

Bush and chenney accomplished what THEY wanted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2::rotf2: Ya, that's why we went in.

http://i.imgur.com/qiB87.jpg

I thought it was because Saddam tried to kill his daddy?????

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: News and videos from the evening broadcast- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619//vp/42886480#42886480)

Watch please

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

I thought we had discussed this already.

Before you can assert that waterboarding "works" you'd first want to establish if it played a signifigant part in the operation. By Panetta's own words, the information gained from detainees who had at some time (I believe years previously) been subjected to EIT's was a small piece of a large network of intel and arguably could have been gained by other means.

To give waterboarding credit for the mission success in this light doesn't seem to pass a simple logic test, and is contrary to what we do know as fact, that the primary reason we found OBL was through many years of hard work by the intelligence community.

I don't have a problem with some who believe torture is morally justified, but to use this instance as affirmation of its effectiveness is a different issue and one that doesn't seem to be supported by the known facts or the CIA Director.

-spence

I thought we had discussed this already.

Before you can assert that waterboarding "works" you'd first want to establish if it played a signifigant part in the operation. By Panetta's own words, the information gained from detainees who had at some time (I believe years previously) been subjected to EIT's was a small piece of a large network of intel and arguably could have been gained by other means.

To give waterboarding credit for the mission success in this light doesn't seem to pass a simple logic test, and is contrary to what we do know as fact, that the primary reason we found OBL was through many years of hard work by the intelligence community.

I don't have a problem with some who believe torture is morally justified, but to use this instance as affirmation of its effectiveness is a different issue and one that doesn't seem to be supported by the known facts or the CIA Director.

-spence
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said

Your logic that the information would be handed over anyway or was not usefull is contrary to what the head of the CIA believes. This is not a moral issue Spence. This is life or death.

This is a NBC report......not the evil Fox network

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said
Panetta is not denying that EIT's were in the mix at some point, but he in no way is crediting them as a substantial contributor...he actually goes pretty far to make this point clear.

Your logic that the information would be handed over anyway or was not usefull is contrary to what the head of the CIA believes. This is not a moral issue Spence. This is life or death.

For you to say that water boarding "worked" means they were able to get intel from it they wouldn't have got otherwise, and that this intel aided substantially in the hunt for Bin Laden. Cause and effect. I've yet to see anything that indicates this is the case...at all.

I did also notice that on the Sunday shows the intel people were very careful on this point...hell, even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney danced around it...

And usually Cheney doesn't dance around anything :hihi:

-spence

Actually he's been on ice for years. Obama brought him out of the freezer to move the nation away from his fake birth certificate



Red Alert: Government Had Osama bin Laden Frozen for Years Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/red-alert-government-had-osama-bin-laden-frozen-for-years/)

Panetta is not denying that EIT's were in the mix at some point, but he in no way is crediting them as a substantial contributor...he actually goes pretty far to make this point clear.



For you to say that water boarding "worked" means they were able to get intel from it they wouldn't have got otherwise, and that this intel aided substantially in the hunt for Bin Laden. Cause and effect. I've yet to see anything that indicates this is the case...at all.

I did also notice that on the Sunday shows the intel people were very careful on this point...hell, even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney danced around it...

And usually Cheney doesn't dance around anything :hihi:

-spence

They would not have been able to get the intel by other means. That is the damn point Spence.

That's a terrible analogy. What exactly was Bush "right" about? Shifting focus away from Al Qaeda and onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence" and then thrusting us into a Trillion Dollar war that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?

Or was he right about the part where he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector.

But hey, at least he got the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy."

"What exactly was Bush "right" about? "

He saved 1.2 million lives in Africa, with his single-handed pushingh for massive AIDS funding. Does that count for anything? In a fair world, Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. I believe that he also did a better job of preventing further Al Queda attacks after 09/11 (on Obama's watch, some attacks have been avoided only because bombs didn't go off, and the Fort Hood guy was obviously successful).

"onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence"'

Many, many countries (and the U.N.) felt the evidence was compelling. Back then, very few folks spoke out against the war in Iraq, not until it became politically popular.

"that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?"

Wrong, absolutely false. You need to re-think where you get your news from. I was there. I saw villages being re-built, I saw schools, roads, mosques, and hospitals being built. I spent 48 hours in a village where my entire company were treated like royalty, because these folks could not contain their joy at how much better their futures looked, thanks to us. I still get birthday cards from some of those people.

Johnny, you won't hear this on MSNBC, but Iraq is a much better place today than it was under Saddam. Many folks there know they have us to thank for it. Some of those people will keep that in mind when Al Queda tries to recruit them.

In my opinion, you have been absolutely duped by whoever you listen to.

"he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector."

OK, Johnny. So if there was an airline that didn't have any security apparatus in place...you would fly on that airline?

Panetta is not denying that EIT's were in the mix at some point, but he in no way is crediting them as a substantial contributor...he actually goes pretty far to make this point clear.



For you to say that water boarding "worked" means they were able to get intel from it they wouldn't have got otherwise, and that this intel aided substantially in the hunt for Bin Laden. Cause and effect. I've yet to see anything that indicates this is the case...at all.

I did also notice that on the Sunday shows the intel people were very careful on this point...hell, even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney danced around it...

And usually Cheney doesn't dance around anything :hihi:

-spence

Spence, I have never seen anyone so unwilling to admit facts that don't serve their personal political agenda...

Obama's CIA chief said that enhanced interrogation produced actionable intelligence in this investigation. It worked.

In an earlier post, you seemed to gloat that KSM didn't offer anything "while being waterboarded".

Newsflash...no one gets interrgoated while they are being waterboarded. Waterboarding is designed to break down resistance, so that subsequent interrogations are more productive.

Spence, for God's sake, a CHILD understands that most people will be willing to do more things under durress than they will do if you ask "pretty please". If you want to talk about whether or not it's moral, that's a different (though equally obvious) argument...but almost no one is still denying that it works. Only the completely brainwashed and ideological.

You are clearly someone who has made up his mind, and someone who ignores everything that doesn't support your established position. You cannot possibly learn anything that way...

They would not have been able to get the intel by other means. That is the damn point Spence.

I don't think anyone can say that they wouldn't have been able to get the intel another way. But what matters is, THEY GOT SOME OF THE ACTIONABLE INTEL from enhanced interrogation. You can no longer say that waterboarding doesn't work. You can still (for some Godforsaken reason) argue that it's immoral, but you can't argue that it never works. When Obama's appointed CIA chief says it worked, how does that not end the argument?

Spence, you're about as rational as the birthers, who continue their propoganda despite irrefutable evidence...

Jim just hit a Grand Slam three posts in a row. Instead of speculation it is nice to hear first hand accounts.

"What exactly was Bush "right" about? "

He saved 1.2 million lives in Africa, with his single-handed pushingh for massive AIDS funding. Does that count for anything? In a fair world, Bush gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. I believe that he also did a better job of preventing further Al Queda attacks after 09/11 (on Obama's watch, some attacks have been avoided only because bombs didn't go off, and the Fort Hood guy was obviously successful).

"onto Iraq based on shoddy, manufactured "evidence"'

Many, many countries (and the U.N.) felt the evidence was compelling. Back then, very few folks spoke out against the war in Iraq, not until it became politically popular.

"that accomplished literally nothing of value for the long-term safety of the American people?"

Wrong, absolutely false. You need to re-think where you get your news from. I was there. I saw villages being re-built, I saw schools, roads, mosques, and hospitals being built. I spent 48 hours in a village where my entire company were treated like royalty, because these folks could not contain their joy at how much better their futures looked, thanks to us. I still get birthday cards from some of those people.

Johnny, you won't hear this on MSNBC, but Iraq is a much better place today than it was under Saddam. Many folks there know they have us to thank for it. Some of those people will keep that in mind when Al Queda tries to recruit them.

In my opinion, you have been absolutely duped by whoever you listen to.

"he helped progress this country to a point where Americans are forced to live in a Police state where granny will get diddled while trying to get on a plane because her fake hip set of a metal detector."

OK, Johnny. So if there was an airline that didn't have any security apparatus in place...you would fly on that airline?
I can't believe I'm about to say this but... I can definitely appreciate all of your responses and see your side of it. I'm not going to go point-by-point because I think our difference of opinion comes down to philosophical differences.

You were there and able to see it in person so your perspective is definitely much different than mine. There is no denying that all my knowledge is based on my research of other people's accounts, sifting through information (and mis-information) and piecing together my own opinion.

Is the world a better place because of some of Bush's actions? Sure. I'll buy that. Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country.

What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. As demonstrated last week, we should have been focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing Saddam did extremely effectively is maintaining control of the populace. He ruled with an iron fist and squashed any kind of extremism that had the potential for threatening his rule. The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. The only major terrorist in Iraq was Saddam because he would not have allowed a group like al Qaeda to operate autonomously.

The Iraq war will easily surpass $1trillion dollars of primary costs and many estimate that it already far exceeds that number when you take secondary costs into consideration.

With regards to Africa and funding AIDS funding (and many people will call me a heartless bastard, which I'm fine with), my opinion is that it is not our responsibility. 3/4 of that entire continent is anarchy. The societies there are incapable of living with any kind of civility. On the other hand, we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless and sleep with their head on a bench in Boston Common, kids who don't know where their next meal is coming from, an education system that loses more and more funding every year and an infrastructure system that is crumbling apart. When we have things fixed here, then I'll consider it ok to send money to Africa. Until then, let them deal with their own self-inflicted problems.

I can't believe I'm about to say this but... I can definitely appreciate all of your responses and see your side of it. I'm not going to go point-by-point because I think our difference of opinion comes down to philosophical differences.

You were there and able to see it in person so your perspective is definitely much different than mine. There is no denying that all my knowledge is based on my research of other people's accounts, sifting through information (and mis-information) and piecing together my own opinion.

Is the world a better place because of some of Bush's actions? Sure. I'll buy that. Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country.

What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. As demonstrated last week, we should have been focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing Saddam did extremely effectively is maintaining control of the populace. He ruled with an iron fist and squashed any kind of extremism that had the potential for threatening his rule. The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. The only major terrorist in Iraq was Saddam because he would not have allowed a group like al Qaeda to operate autonomously.

The Iraq war will easily surpass $1trillion dollars of primary costs and many estimate that it already far exceeds that number when you take secondary costs into consideration.

With regards to Africa and funding AIDS funding (and many people will call me a heartless bastard, which I'm fine with), my opinion is that it is not our responsibility. 3/4 of that entire continent is anarchy. The societies there are incapable of living with any kind of civility. On the other hand, we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless and sleep with their head on a bench in Boston Common, kids who don't know where their next meal is coming from, an education system that loses more and more funding every year and an infrastructure system that is crumbling apart. When we have things fixed here, then I'll consider it ok to send money to Africa. Until then, let them deal with their own self-inflicted problems.

That was probably one of the most fair-minded posts I have read in a long time...

"Are the lives of Iraqis better today than they were ten years ago because of the US invasion? Definitely, even though they are now burning US flags and calling for the US to get out of their country."

When you say "they" are burning US flags, keep in mind that "they" do not represent everyone. People here burn flags every day...We cannot please everyone, it should not even be a goal. I like knowing that some folks hate us (like Al Queda), it means we must be doing something right...

"What I don't agree with is that the US is better off and safer today thanks to the US invasion of Iraq"

I sure can't prove you are wrong...all I can say is (1) lots of dangerous insurgents are dead, (2) lots Of Iraqiis saw first-hand (and thus appreciate) that we risked a lot to help them, and (3) Saddam is dead, and while there were no WMDs, we did find lots of wevidence to suggest that he was going down that road (lots of yellowcake uranium found).

Are we safer? I don't know. Am I proud too have helped those people? Yep. Was it worth the lives of a few thousand Americans? I can't answer that, way above my pay grade...

"The al Qaeda movement is exactly the group of radicals that Saddam would not allow in his country. "

Awesome observation, and it's one of the biggest challenges in that region. Guys like Saddam are dispicable, but they know how to keep Al Queda from establishing any presence...

Remember that we didn't go into Iraq in a rush. We gave the guy all kinds of chances to comply with the UN resolutions, and he refused. In my opinion, actions like that have to have serious consequences. What if we did nothing, and it turned out he had WMDs? What would history say about Bush then? I just get sickened by all the politicians (mostly Dems) who were all in favor of ousting Saddam, until things went bad, and then they all started acting like Bush acted on his own. I don't like politicizing war, because it's not fair to the guys sticking their necks out...

"my opinion is that it is not our responsibility."

Lots of folks would agree with you. I'm Catholic, so I tend to feel that the strong have certain obligations to the weak. That's just my $0.02. I'd rather see a tax hike to keep someone alive than see a tax hike so that cops can continue to retire at age 42, let's put it that way!

"we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless "

If they sacrificed their lives, where should they live? Only kidding, I know what you meant, and I appreciate the sentiment...

Most of that is because of mental disease, it's not because there aren't programs to help them...you'd have to round them up and strap them down to keep all of them off the streets. I'm not saying I have the solution (I wish I did), I'm just saying that problem isn't as suggestive of a heartless society as you might first think...

"we have veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country who are now homeless "

If they sacrificed their lives, where should they live? Only kidding, I know what you meant, and I appreciate the sentiment...

Most of that is because of mental disease, it's not because there aren't programs to help them...you'd have to round them up and strap them down to keep all of them off the streets. I'm not saying I have the solution (I wish I did), I'm just saying that problem isn't as suggestive of a heartless society as you might first think...
As a former EMT, I've passed through a lot of VA hospitals. I can only go by experience with the facilities near me, but every one of them in this region is a dump with poor quality of care. They use equipment, not made by the best company, but by the lowest bidder. The pay for VA staff is generally terrible and it trickles down to poor care.

As a former EMT, I've passed through a lot of VA hospitals. I can only go by experience with the facilities near me, but every one of them in this region is a dump with poor quality of care. They use equipment, not made by the best company, but by the lowest bidder. The pay for VA staff is generally terrible and it trickles down to poor care.

The issue of homeless vets (which I thought you were talking about) is diferent from the quality of medical care available to them. The quality of medical care for injured vets is one of the VERY few problems I can think of, that can likely be solved by pouring more money into it. I wouldn't mind a tax hike for that.

Homelessness is a very different animal, one that cannot begin to be cured by throwing money at it. If you built a new house for all the homeless, lots of them would end up back on the streets. Most (not all) are NOT homeless because they don't have a place to stay; the majority have serious mental issues.

I have very limited experience with VA hospitals, pretty much the time I spent in one after I got hurt. My care, I thought, was damn good. But I'd like to see it improved too.

Homelessness is a very different animal, one that cannot begin to be cured by throwing money at it. If you built a new house for all the homeless, lots of them would end up back on the streets. Most (not all) are NOT homeless because they don't have a place to stay; the majority have serious mental issues.
I did refer directly to homeless vets, but then get pissed off about the VAs. Mostly, it's upsetting that they make the ultimate sacrifice and then mostly ignored by the general public.

I completely agree that the primary issue is a mental health issue. That's not to say that there aren't programs that could benefit them. When is make references to them sacrificing their lives, it goes for those that have gone off the deep end and completely lost their minds almost as much as those that have been killed in the line of duty. Without our minds, what life really exits?

They would not have been able to get the intel by other means. That is the damn point Spence.

That's exactly the point...there's nothing that Panetta said (or has been reported to my knowledge) which indicates this is the case. In fact, he goes out of his way to make this clear.

I think the spooks seem to have a realistic viewpoint, not a political one.

-spence

That's exactly the point...there's nothing that Panetta said (or has been reported to my knowledge) which indicates this is the case. In fact, he goes out of his way to make this clear.

I think the spooks seem to have a realistic viewpoint, not a political one.

-spence

God almighty Spence! No one can say whether or not we would have been able to get the intelligence another way. No one can say that for sure...it's pure speculation. The only thing we CAN say for sure, is that we DID get actionable intelligence from enhanced interrogation in this case. There is no rational way to deny that. If you want to argue that killing Osama wasn't worth torturing KSM, fine. But if you insist on saying that waterboarding didn't produce actionable intelligence in this case, you are no different than the birthers.

Finally, Spence, let me say this. It would be immoral NOT to waterboard in very rare circumstances. It would be completely immoral to condemn innocent Americans to fiery deaths for lack of pouring water down someone's nose. It's absolutely baffling to me that any sane person could suggest otherwise. And I don't believe for one second that any of you liberals would refuse to pour water down someone's nose to save your life, of the life of someone you love.

I think the spooks seem to have a realistic viewpoint, not a political one.

-spence

Wow, Spence! That's just so wrong.:hs:

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...

Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to bin Laden, It Almost Certainly Prolonged the Hunt


We are concerned about the suggestion by some that the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden's compound.

The use of waterboarding and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information from unwilling sources like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Reports say that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Abu Faraq al-Libi did not divulge the nom de guerre of a courier during torture, but rather several months later, when they were questioned by interrogators who did not use abusive techniques.

This is not surprising. Our experience is that torture is a poor way to develop useful, accurate information.

We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

We believe that the U.S. would have learned more from Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other high value detainees if, from the beginning, professional interrogators had a chance to question them using the sophisticated, yet humane, approaches approved by U.S. law.

We are convinced that the record shows that abusive questioning techniques did not help, but only hindered, the United States' efforts to find bin Laden.

Bios

Matthew Alexander

Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) has spent more than 18 years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. He personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than a thousand. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements in Iraq, including leading the team of interrogators that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was subsequently killed in an airstrike. Alexander has conducted missions in over 30 countries, has two advanced degrees, and speaks three languages. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq (Free Press, 2008) and Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist (St. Martin's Press, 2011).

Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, U.S. Army

Stu Herrington served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he taught a seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army's 201st MI Battalion--Interrogation, during its activation at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

Joe Navarro

For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Florida's Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing, which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer, and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.

Ken Robinson

Ken Robinson served a 20-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

The issue isn't if we ever got anything of value from EITs.

The issue is if getting Bin Laden proves that water boarding "works"...that was the entire point of the discussion. To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.

While there are certainly some who advocate torture, the expert opinions seems to be weighted the other way, that coercive and abusive methods are unreliable. If you'd like I can post dozens and dozens of quotes that reinforce this position.

Here's just one set of expert opinions from a few days ago...



To put it quite simply...to assert that water boarding "works" based on this example, where intel gained by EIT's seems to have played such a small role in an operation spanning many years is simply misleading. To do so without a serious analysis of methods to determine the likeliness of similar lintel being gained via conventional means makes it quite disingenuous.

The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable...I'm sure a multitude of techniques are being used simultaneously. If you can't measure, you have no idea if the methods are successful. Again, the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom.

As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one.

-spence

"To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means. "

No, it doesn't. "Work" means that it provided something useful. No one can possibly know what would have happened if we did things differently. What we do know is, in this case, waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that we didn't get from any other sources. We know that for a fact. Spence, you have descended into the darkness where the "birthers" live, you are simply unable to process irrefutable facts that do not serve your agenda.

Spence, at least once a week, I threathen my kids with severe punishment to get them to behave. Guess what? It works. Sometimes dangling the carrot gets you what you want, sometimes you have to swing the stick. A 5 year-old grasps this concept, but not you or your liberal ilk.

"The idea that water boarding is only to break someone to get information later is laughable"

Maybe it's laughable to you, but it's still fact. Hard, irrefutable fact. KSM started singing like a canary after he was broken. They didn't need to continue waterboarding him after he was "broken"...

"the experts seem to run counter to conventional tough guy wisdom."

WRONG. Not "the" experts, just the ones you choose to listen to. Is Leon Panetta (Obama's CIA chief) not an expert? He says waterboarding gave us actionable intelligence that helped kill Bin Laden.

Sometimes you need tough guys Spence. How would you have pushed the Nazis out of western Europe in 1944? Would you have stormed the beaches at Normandy with a sign that said "Visualize Peace"?

Being strong of will does not mean one lacks reason...

"As I said before, this seems to once again be more of a political issue than a professional or scientific one."

Of course it's a political issue! Because only a brainwashed, unthinking, liberal, Kool Aid-drinking zealot could possibly suggest that torture could NEVER get a terrorist to reveal something that could save lives.

You guys are funny...and really missing the point.

To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.


-spence

I cannot get past the utter absurdity of this statement. So if something does what you hoped it would do, you can't say it "worked" unless you can prove that the result could not have been achieved any other way??

Spence, using your logic (or lack thereof)...there was a house fire in my neighborhood last year. The fire department came and put out the fire. USING YOUR LOGIC, I cannot say that calling the fire department "worked", because it might have started raining and that might have put out the fire anyway...There's no way to prove that calling the fire department was the only conceivable way to put out the fire, so Spence would not say that calling the F.D. "worked".

Is that about right, Spence? Do I have that right? You sticking by that?

No one can say for sure what would have happened if things unfolded differently. But I do know 2 things in the "here and now"...the fire department put out that fire, and enhanced interrogation (according to the current and two previous CIA chiefs) produced actionable intelligence. Spence, I am sorry if that fact spits in the face of one of the more asinine platforms of the liberal agenda...but it's still a fact.

How do we ever come together as a nation...we have crazy conservatives who still insist Obama wasn't born here, and we have liberals still saying that waterboarding never works...what do you say to people who won't concede irrefutable facts?

Spence, sometimes it is better to remain silent and let them call you a fool. Unfortunately, you keep getting sucked in to prove them right.

The classic non post. Perhaps just a trite ad hominem attack...

You should deconstruct my line of reasoning which has been made very clear in this thread. That would impress me. So far the usual suspects don't seem to be getting it...as usual.

-spence

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?

Hey Jim, a good young friend of mine looks to be heading to Parris Island soon. I told him to make sure he addresses his instructor as "you", doesn't bother with those silly drills, hymns and creed, and is sure to get his full nights rest. :devil2:

Good thing he's in great shape :hihi:

-spence

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.

As an aside, can anyone cite an instance where a spontaneous rain shower put out a house fire, or even a credible situation where it might have?



-spence

No, I cannot. But even if I could think of a credible case where that happened, you would deny it. Because there IS a credible case of someone saying waterboarding works (CIA Chief Mr Panetta), and that wasn't enough to satisfy you....so please stop pretending that you listen to credible arguments, because you do not.

And if "credibility" were a pre-requisite for posting, no one here would have ever heard of you...

YouTube - cream - i'm so glad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3GIQ86eu6c)

Trying to deconstruct your line of reasoning is like scolding a dog for chasing his tail.Your blind faith in the party yields predictable responses.Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't get it.
What was predictable was the Right jumping on this immediately in an attempt to free the Bush Admin from controversy over the use of torture. Hell, Obama's announcement wasn't even over before they were out shouting SEE! SEE!! SEE!!!.

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

What I have seen, is a quite clear assertion that states that given what is believed to be known, the success of this mission doesn't prove that torture is effective.

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html)

What I've asked is that if you disagree and believe that this event does prove torture works, present a line of reasoning that backs up your argument.

So far nobody seems to be able to accomplish this task. Instead I hear misleading over simplifications and lofty philosophical remarks which miss the question actually being asked. When challenged, the response is not facts or reasoning but ad hominem attacks...quite predictably...

-spence

I haven't seen such a response from the left...who by your logic would "predictably" assert that this proves torture doesn't work.

-spence

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.:rotf2:

Because it worked !!!
Unless you are talking about yourself and then the "left" has asserted that it didn't work.:rotf2:
I could use Dynamite to take down a tree, and you bet that it'll work. Doesn't mean it was the necessary tool for the job.

Quite honestly, I don't give a damn about putting people under the bucket. Hell, if you think they might hold valuable information that would protect this country, get out the wet sponges connected to a car battery.

On the other hand, just because waterboarding *may* have gotten them information that assisted to killing bin Laden, it doesn't mean that they would not have been able to extract the information through other, less tortuous means.

like 50 hits worth of LSD
then wear pig costumes
holding forks and knives

I did refer directly to homeless vets, but then get pissed off about the VAs. Mostly, it's upsetting that they make the ultimate sacrifice and then mostly ignored by the general public.

Absolutely right JD, I could never understand for the life of me,, why all vets
have not been treated with total and complete respect and given whatever
is needed to bring them back home whole.

Even John McCain (R) who's quite well informed on the subject (quite literally) seems to strongly reinforce this point.

-spence

maybe

Maverick Malice - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267506/maverick-malice-andrew-c-mccarthy)