OBL(UBL) Killed

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

then grew up and realized Dad (GWB) was right all along.

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

Don't forget Lybia. Another war started.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

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...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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/f...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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I can't qoute any woman's magazines or anything, but from what I understand

Ah yes, there's the issue.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by buckman

but from what I understand,

On what is your understanding based?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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