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

"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?

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...

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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...

UBL DEAD YAY!
 

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.

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

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

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.

maybe

Maverick Malice - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online