It's a little ironic that a GOPer would accuse anyone else of non-cooperation.
My posts are here for all to see.Sorry radio, not what I was doing...But kind of telling that you think so...
Check'em out.....oh that's right....you already did.
More irony.Ah name calling...Ain't it great when you have nothing?
How many Benghazi "investigations" have we had now?And I wouldn't count the chickens on Benghazi until all the investigating is done...
Five?..six?....I've lost count....but this next one....yeah....this next one will expose Obama...or Hillary...or something.
Nothing new. Why all the apoplexy?Agreed, but please point out for us what in this report is anything new concerning how liberals feel about EIT?
More name calling, more irony.Good to hear, because that made you libs look kind of crazy.
Well, I wouldn't say great.....good, maybe....but not great.That's great.
No matter how cynical I become toward politicians, it's never enough.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
"If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
Break, By Three days grace
Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016
Dianne Feinstein committed a treasonous act that will result in unnecessary American deaths.
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
--Albert Einstein, 1929
And of course treasonous Democratic Party senators like Dianne Feinstein.
I don't disagree that the CIA acting the way they did with respect to alleged spying, and hacking into the committee's work, but, as you say there are repubs that don't like that as well, and Feinstein has tremendous sway among her repub colleagues on the committee largely because up to now she has been very fair concerning matters of national security. She could have easily convened hearings on the CIA with repub support because as you say, repubs wouldn't stand for it either. Instead she chose to drop a bomb just before jumping out of the plane...Kind of cowardly if you ask me.
I have no problems with studies when they are done correctly, and when there is participation from both sides of the isle, then you have something to agree upon. Now, much like the Church report in the 70s not much will come of it, other than rendering aid to the enemy in this case.And obviously those involved in a project for six years intended to release the findings and did. That should surprise exactly no one. It might be true that it was rushed a bit because of the change in control, but the committee has been fighting the WH and CIA for months at least over the details. At some point those involved just have to release it.
Again no...By releasing it as a one sided, questionable, tirade it settles nothing but for partisans, and the divide they hope to further...Like I said, Church tried after Nam to do this, and did it change anything that happened today? No, not really....Neither will this.Finally, I think it's a good thing to know what happened, so we go into this decision the next time with our eyes wide open about what will likely happen. We can't do that if we only know half or 1/4 or 1/10th of the story. And I can't see how this release has any long term bad effects on the ME. The damage was done with Abu Ghraib, complete with pictures, and continues with GITMO, with a steady drip of former detainees from there for the last few years to tell their story. And if there is any real damage from this release, it's a bunch of people defending torture as a legitimate interrogation technique, and denying that we did anything wrong during that period.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville