George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Grant said:

Perhaps her loved ones are the terrorists.

Click to expand...

How did you guess?
My distant relative is Al Qaeda's head. Ignore the ethnic differences, that is just there to fool everyone. :roll:

Laila said:

I've answered this question before on a previous thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/47095-would-you-utilize-torture-save-life-6.html#post1058000550

I would not utilize torture at all so why would I support my Government doing it?

Click to expand...

You certainly have a different relationship with your loved ones than I do with mine. I would support it in a heartbeat to keep my family members alive and that is the view of the majority in this country. I have the greatest respect for the people of Britain who have always been our closest ally. I don't however have any respect for nearsighted people who have 20-20 hindsight.

Conservative said:

Answering direct questions is something you and all other liberals never seem to do. What is it about liberalism that motivates individuals to ignore actual reality?

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

I don't get it, what is it about liberalism that prevents them from admitting when wrong and running from the tough questions. Liberals feel and don't seem to think.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

What is it about liberalism that prevents you from ever admitting that you could be wrong?

Click to expand...

What is it about conservatism that causes them to make blanket statements about people who have other political ideologies?

(Bonus points if you recognize the intentional irony in the above statement.)

President Bush never looked so good. Next to the current buffoon, Bush looks like the second coming of George Washington.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans agree with that statement now. Perhaps a return to sensible thinking is taking place, 2/3 of this forum notwithstanding. LOL

Erod said:

President Bush never looked so good. Next to the current buffoon, Bush looks like the second coming of George Washington.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans agree with that statement now. Perhaps a return to sensible thinking is taking place, 2/3 of this forum notwithstanding. LOL

Click to expand...

The term for this is "damning with faint praise." :lamo

Coronado said:

What is it about conservatism that causes them to make blanket statements about people who have other political ideologies?

(Bonus points if you recognize the intentional irony in the above statement.)

Click to expand...

I asked questions as I am trying to understand liberals. Seems almost like a cult whose members cannot admit when wrong.

Erod said:

President Bush never looked so good. Next to the current buffoon, Bush looks like the second coming of George Washington.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans agree with that statement now. Perhaps a return to sensible thinking is taking place, 2/3 of this forum notwithstanding. LOL

Click to expand...

I watched both the NBC and Fox interviews with President Bush and wish he had been this open during his Administration although I knew there was more going on behind the scenes than the media was reporting. GW Bush did what was right for the American people and those with BDS will never get over it and have typical liberal arrogance that prevents them from giving him any credit at all.

Coronado said:

The term for this is "damning with faint praise." :lamo

Click to expand...

History will treat the man very, very well.

Jefferson was treated much the same at the end of his term, as was Lincoln, Adams, and others.

Once time squelches the foolish rhetoric and partisan emotion from the truth, Bush will be remembered in an entirely different light.

And Obama will go down with Buchanan and Carter.

Conservative said:

I asked questions as I am trying to understand liberals. Seems almost like a cult whose members cannot admit when wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, because asking loaded questions always yields accurate results. :roll:

Conservative said:

I watched both the NBC and Fox interviews with President Bush and wish he had been this open during his Administration although I knew there was more going on behind the scenes than the media was reporting. GW Bush did what was right for the American people and those with BDS will never get over it and have typical liberal arrogance that prevents them from giving him any credit at all.

Click to expand...

You saw a man who was comfortable in his skin because he did what he believed was right. That doesn't mean he did everything right, just that he did what he truly felt was right, politics be damned.

I still don't know what he was thinking those past two years with Medicare and TARP, though. My fear is that our current economic situation is vastly more dire than we know, perhaps even past the point of no return.

Erod said:

History will treat the man very, very well.

Jefferson was treated much the same at the end of his term, as was Lincoln, Adams, and others.

Once time squelches the foolish rhetoric and partisan emotion from the truth, Bush will be remembered in an entirely different light.

And Obama will go down with Buchanan and Carter.

Click to expand...

Don't be so confident. The thing about history is that it will not guarantee vindication or repudiation. A great amount of the time, perspective gives us more of a grey area. Then one also has to keep in mind that historians write for the people that exist currently. Our morals, our perceptions of gender, class, and even our virtues may change. When these things change, historians and biographers use that to filter how they view a specific person or a group of people.

Coronado said:

Yes, because asking loaded questions always yields accurate results. :roll:

Click to expand...

Loaded questions? Asking someone how they would respond if one of their loved ones died because the Govt. didn't do what they could to prevent it? Liberals always have 20-20 hindsight but never think ahead. It is live for today and forget about tomorrow.

Erod said:

History will treat the man very, very well.

Jefferson was treated much the same at the end of his term, as was Lincoln, Adams, and others.

Once time squelches the foolish rhetoric and partisan emotion from the truth, Bush will be remembered in an entirely different light.

And Obama will go down with Buchanan and Carter.

Click to expand...

Placing Dubya up with Jefferson and Lincoln already? Wow. :shock:

Bartender, I'll have what he's having.

Fiddytree said:

Don't be so confident. The thing about history is that it will not guarantee vindication or repudiation. A great amount of the time, perspective gives us more of a grey area. Then one also has to keep in mind that historians write for the people that exist currently. Our morals, our perceptions of gender, class, and even our virtues may change. When these things change, historians and biographers use that to filter how they view a specific person or a group of people.

Click to expand...

The issue here is objective review of the Bush Administration and there aren't many here that are objective. That is why it will take time to truly evaluate President Bush as there is too much bias today on both sides. The actual facts from non partisan sources however will play a major role.

Conservative said:

Loaded questions? Asking someone how they would respond if one of their loved ones died because the Govt. didn't do what they could to prevent it? Liberals always have 20-20 hindsight but never think ahead. It is live for today and forget about tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Okay, loaded questions and appeals to emotion. Sorry about leaving that fallacy off.

Coronado said:

Okay, loaded questions and appeals to emotion. Sorry about leaving that fallacy off.

Click to expand...

Sorry but what President Bush did was save someone's loved ones from dying in another terrorist attack. I remember well how liberals attacked him for not preventing 9/11 but when he prevents another one it is ignored and he is demonized. he isn't going to win with people like you.

Coronado said:

Placing Dubya up with Jefferson and Lincoln already? Wow. :shock:

Bartender, I'll have what he's having.

Click to expand...

No, just making a point that presidents we hold in extremely high regard weren't at all during their times in office and immediately after.

Conservative said:

Sorry but what President Bush did was save someone's loved ones from dying in another terrorist attack. I remember well how liberals attacked him for not preventing 9/11 but when he prevents another one it is ignored and he is demonized. he isn't going to win with people like you.

Click to expand...

How is that remotely related to the point I was trying to make?

And who exactly are "people like" me?

Conservative said:

Noticed again that you ignored when I gave you a link to another source that refutes what you posted. What makes the NY Times more credible?

Click to expand...

It doesn't do that. Both it and the Washington post story, if you look it, say this was claimed, not supported. If you look, you will find that we knew aboutt he second wave before KSm, so his telling us was not new intel, not something we didn't get another way. What they are refering to was tharted before KSM was even captured.

. . . In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

The Washington Monthly

You might also read this:

If the detainee doesn't immediately respond by giving information, for example he asks: "what do you want to know?" the interviewer will reply: "you know," and walk out of the interrogation room. Then the next step on the force continuum is introduced, for example sleep deprivation, and the process will continue until the detainee's will is broken and he automatically gives up all information he is presumed to know.
There are many problems with this technique.

A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.
This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. In a democracy there is a glass ceiling of harsh techniques the interrogator cannot breach, and a detainee can eventually call the interrogator's bluff.

In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.

A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD.

Testimony


Washington Post Hires Cheneyite Marc Thiessen

Coronado said:

How is that remotely related to the point I was trying to make?

And who exactly are "people like" me?

Click to expand...

So you have respect now for President Bush?

Conservative said:

The issue here is objective review of the Bush Administration and there aren't many here that are objective. That is why it will take time to truly evaluate President Bush as there is too much bias today on both sides. The actual facts from non partisan sources however will play a major role.

Click to expand...

That is indeed a very valuable aim, however, as many historians (especially those with an emphasis in historiography) can tell you through reading a book or conversation with them-it isn't so simple. Historians, to a significant degree, are qualified individuals who are unqualified with the task they are given, and as a result, are often-times fumbling around trying to make it work. We do use partisan sources, we do use those polemical statements, along with memos and "objective analysis" of policy and decision-making...we try to use it all. The problem is, we have to use partisan sources and polemical statements. We are dealing with human beings, and objectifying the perceptions of others who do matter is immensely difficult if not to some certain extent, impossible.

Conservative said:

I am waiting for an answer, how would you feel about a govt. that could have prevented the killing of one of your loved ones but didn't? How do you know that "waterboarding" didn't save a lot of lives and if one of those was someone you loved would it have been worth it?

Click to expand...

One mistake is believing that torture would do that. But what is raping a child a would prevent an attack, would you suggest we do that? Where's your line?

Conservative said:

So you have respect now for President Bush?

Click to expand...

Do you read a post before you respond to it, or do you just hit "Reply" and start typing in hopes that what comes out might somehow be related?

Coronado said:

Oh, goodie! Let's start throwing around unsubstantiated accusations in an attempt to derail the argument into the territory of ad hominem! Brilliant! :sarcasticclap

Click to expand...

I included "perhaps".

If the poster is against Islamic terrorism then it is easily resolved.

I'm against shariah law, and Islamic crusades against children, women, Gays, and non Musims.

What about you?

Coronado said:

Do you read a post before you respond to it, or do you just hit "Reply" and start typing in hopes that what comes out might somehow be related?

Click to expand...

For some reason I'm thinking of magnetic words the hard core republican edition