• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John McCain CIA Torture Report Senate Speech

Napoleon said:
Another specious claim but the argument being made proves my point. The Library Tower plot was successfully foiled in 2002 as acknowledged in your own source. Where it derails into the realm of fantasy is its devolution into assertions that the facts don't count because someone floated a theory that others MIGHT have tried it at some undisclosed point in the future even though no such plot actually existed.
Click to expand...

The facts are the facts, no matter how much you deny.
 
Misterveritis said:
The damage was done by a treasonous democrat. People who object have given this very little serious thought. Or they are bedwetters.
Click to expand...

No, the bedwetters were the treasonous lot that had so little faith in America and American justice that they over-reacted to 9/11 by surrendering basic rights and basic dignity that characterized America in favor of "anything goes" (like torture). The faith of these people was so shallow that they were willing to sacrifice freedoms so they would not die..... they would laud the Marines for dying for our freedoms; but these cowards were quick to give back the freedoms so they would not die....

These people walked away from everything America stood for because they had an irrational fear of being killed by an Arab boogeyman. Rather than deal with things rationally, they chose hysteria, supporting absurd and ugly things (by 20th century American standards) the supported things like Gitmo, torture, the Patroit Act. They did so because they were cowards, they were bedwetters, and, because they were so willing to sacrifice our Constitution for such a paltry price, they were a treasonous lot.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Thank you for your useless piece of unrelated and irrelevant information and your gratuitous, totally typical, personal garbage.
Click to expand...

Unrelated? It totally skewered your contention that the majority feel Bush acted honorably post 9-11, especially as we learn further just how horrible his administrations were. This report is NOT going to increase his standing with the American public.....or most Canucks....of course your mileage will vary.....a lot....but then that is the point.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Unrelated? It totally skewered your contention that the majority feel Bush acted honorably post 9-11, especially as we learn further just how horrible his administrations were. This report is NOT going to increase his standing with the American public.....or most Canucks....of course your mileage will vary.....a lot....but then that is the point.
Click to expand...

If you think anyone other than the typical Democrat hack and Gruber voters you rely upon is going to give credence to the Senate Democrat report, you're nuts.
 
X Factor said:
Is there really a "right" way to conduct war? Should we ever even enter a war without the intent to win it outright? It's a little scary to me that if events occurred now similar to the 30s and 40s, we would not have anyone with the intestinal fortitude or resolve to actually end the war and if war is actually brought to our soil? Well God help us then if we're not permitted to do anything necessary to repel that.
Click to expand...

The GWOT is meant to be waged, not won. Anyone with minimal understanding of terms knows that. One cannot defeat a tactic.

The GWOT is meant to be waged so that $ can be made. Gold is the reason for the wars we wage. War is a racket. GWOT is a hoax, brought under fraud and deception.
 
CanadaJohn said:
All Presidents have advisers that on occasion lead them astray. One could argue that President Obama's disastrous Presidency can be laid at the feet of his inner White House counselors as opposed to the experts in the various fields who advised him differently.

That said, if a person, a President, acts with honour and sincerity of purpose and the outcome is less than what others may have wanted or expected, that doesn't mean the person or President is any less honorable. I still believe that President Bush was and is an honorable man and he acted most honorably in carrying out his duties as President. In my view, President Bush was one of the least political Presidents ever to hold the office - that is quite honorable too.
Click to expand...
This is beyond blindness, W surrounded himself with neocons that carried out their agenda (re: ideological goals, ie politically motivated goals) and he did not move away from the multiple follies until very late in the game and only to the slightest degree.....without regret.

And yet we still have his supporters here and outside of the US (!!!) who still claim he was honorable in light of so many HUGE failures. The blindness brought about by confused loyalty is unbelievable.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you think anyone other than the typical Democrat hack and Gruber voters you rely upon is going to give credence to the Senate Democrat report, you're nuts.
Click to expand...
John, it is no surprise to any of us that even in Canada there are folk who will in the face of overwhelming evidence still claim that the Bush administrations were honorable while engaging in state sponsored torture, creating a huge increase in domestic surveillance, getting caught not in just one but two military quagmires (that President* Cheney himself identified as such back in 1992!).....and that is just for starters!

I suspect we have VERY different ideas about what we should award with honors.
 
Torturing someone makes you literally a terrorist.
 
Re: Liberal denial

"What makes you think that the bar should be actionable intelligence?

Atrocities? Like flying airplanes into buildings? Like killing stewardesses with box cutters? Those atrocities?
Napoleon said:
Like snatching innocent civilians off the street to be repurposed as human punching bags. Like torturing and falsely imprisoning people for years on end. Etc.
Click to expand...
So the bad guys, people who hate the US somewhat more than you do murdered people. We made them uncomfortable. You sided with them against us. Understood.

Uncomfortable is probably the understatement of the year.
Click to expand...
I believe it fits. No process of politely asking one's enemies to tell us what they know is perfect.

"If you haven't the stomach for war I will understand.

But at least you should be thanking the people involved who kept you safe."

Kept me safe? Thats a laugh.
Click to expand...
If One could be certain that only the leftists would be targets I could get behind your kumbaya attitude.




If they want to keep me safe then they can come to Columbus and widen 270 by a few lanes. Maybe take out Hilltop while they're at it. Milling around Afghanistan and anally raping people you've bought from a shady Pakistani bounty hunter doesn't keep me safe let alone from something less likely to happen to me than being struck by lightning while holding a winning lotto ticket.
Click to expand...

The liberal denial is strong in this one.
 
danarhea said:
Honorable? He ordered the CIA to spy on the Quakers, for Christ sake.
Click to expand...
Well, no, Dan. He really didn't. For Christ's sake.

I started to go down the path of explaining military counterintelligence activities but then I realized it really would not make any difference.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not at all.

I just don't think sitting your (the collective "your") fat ass on your couch and second guessing those who took charge in such times is honorable or constructive.
Click to expand...

Also, sitting on your (the collective "your") fat ass and cheering someone on who does the torturing you are not willing to do yourself, is anything but honorable and constructive.
 
upsideguy said:
No, the bedwetters were the treasonous lot that had so little faith in America and American justice that they over-reacted to 9/11 by surrendering basic rights and basic dignity that characterized America in favor of "anything goes" (like torture). The faith of these people was so shallow that they were willing to sacrifice freedoms so they would not die..... they would laud the Marines for dying for our freedoms; but these cowards were quick to give back the freedoms so they would not die....

These people walked away from everything America stood for because they had an irrational fear of being killed by an Arab boogeyman. Rather than deal with things rationally, they chose hysteria, supporting absurd and ugly things (by 20th century American standards) the supported things like Gitmo, torture, the Patroit Act. They did so because they were cowards, they were bedwetters, and, because they were so willing to sacrifice our Constitution for such a paltry price, they were a treasonous lot.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the majority of Americans were manipulated after 9/11 using very skillfully crafted propaganda (with the media's help) into supporting everything the Bush (Cheney) administration did. I don't blame the manipulated so much, I blame the manipulators who used the tragedy of 9/11 to carry out plans that were in the waiting long before the attacks took place.

The neocons said it would take a 'Pearl Harbor event' to get America on board with their conquest of the Middle East. Well, they got it, and they took advantage of it.
 
Napoleon said:
Like snatching innocent civilians off the street to be repurposed as human punching bags. Like torturing and falsely imprisoning people for years on end. Etc.



Uncomfortable is probably the understatement of the year.



Kept me safe? Thats a laugh. If they want to keep me safe then they can come to Columbus and widen 270 by a few lanes. Maybe take out Hilltop while they're at it. Milling around Afghanistan and anally raping people you've bought from a shady Pakistani bounty hunter doesn't keep me safe let alone from something less likely to happen to me than being struck by lightning while holding a winning lotto ticket.
Click to expand...

They did the same thing after Pearl Harbor was attacked, the government rounded people up, and either incarcerated them or placed them in internment camps, the Bush took a page from history and repeated it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/nyregion/23detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Japanese-American Internment [ushistory.org]
 
Texmex said:
Also, sitting on your (the collective "your") fat ass and cheering someone on who does the torturing you are not willing to do yourself, is anything but honorable and constructive.
Click to expand...

I see - so in your view, if you can't do a job you have no right to respect and honour that job.

I totally disagree.
 
This report was written by Democrat members on the Intelligence committee. It was comprised of third, fourth, fifth parties. At what point does it become hearsay or at the very least questionable/unreliable? These Democrats did not gather any testimony from those directly involved starting with three different CIA directors. The Republicans issued a minority report that differs from the Democratic version. They don't seem to suffer from amnesia on being briefed on the interrogation techniques used and the results they produced and funded this "torture by proxy" program for the CIA.

I find some of the methods of interrogation very disturbing. But on the other hand if I had intelligence of an attack planned that could kill thousands of people, how much pain would any of us be willing to inflict on an individual to get the information that could thwart it? To not honestly answer that question makes one a self-righteous hypocrite.





CIA report: A travesty from the Senate Intelligence Committee - Gate House
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is beyond blindness, W surrounded himself with neocons that carried out their agenda (re: ideological goals, ie politically motivated goals) and he did not move away from the multiple follies until very late in the game and only to the slightest degree.....without regret.

And yet we still have his supporters here and outside of the US (!!!) who still claim he was honorable in light of so many HUGE failures. The blindness brought about by confused loyalty is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

.....but not nearly as unbelievable as the blindness brought about by partisanship.
 
Amadeus said:
To be fair, the majority of Americans were manipulated after 9/11 using very skillfully crafted propaganda (with the media's help) into supporting everything the Bush (Cheney) administration did. I don't blame the manipulated so much, I blame the manipulators who used the tragedy of 9/11 to carry out plans that were in the waiting long before the attacks took place.

The neocons said it would take a 'Pearl Harbor event' to get America on board with their conquest of the Middle East. Well, they got it, and they took advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Now, I too disagree with the sensibility of the redesign of the middle east and find this interrogation report troubling, but this assessment seems rather infantile. You blame the "manipulators" for carrying "out plans that were in the waiting long before the attacks took place." What, may I ask, do you presume most policy analysts and former government officials do in the course of their advocacy? Of course there was a platform for what they wanted. I would expect nothing less. Are we lead to believe that sensible liberals (in the past or currently) have no policy prescriptions for how to deal with Israel or America's position in foreign affairs and if these folks get into positions of influence they won't try to shape foreign policy? Get real, Amadeus.
 
Fiddytree said:
Now, I too disagree with the sensibility of the redesign of the middle east, but this assessment seems rather infantile. You blame the "manipulators" for carrying "out plans that were in the waiting long before the attacks took place." What, may I ask, do you presume most policy analysts and former government officials do in the course of their advocacy? Of course there was a platform for what they wanted. I would expect nothing less. Are we lead to believe that sensible liberals have no policy prescriptions for how to deal with Israel or America's position in foreign affairs and if these folks get into positions of influence they won't try to shape foreign policy? Get real, Amadeus.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your point is, or what you're defending.

Do you think that the government using the tragedy of 9/11 to manipulate the public into waging war on an innocent nation is just politics as usual? Maybe I read your post incorrectly.
 
Amadeus said:
Do you think that the government using the tragedy of 9/11 to manipulate the public into waging war on an innocent nation is just politics as usual? Maybe I read your post incorrectly.
Click to expand...

An "innocent nation" is overly generous, but yes, I do. Liberals would be correct to presume that the problems with a Bush administration overreach would likewise require them to develop a coherent series of recommendations for an interventionist, but internationalist American foreign policy. It's not as if sections of American liberalism haven't had "long standing plans" themselves. Are you somehow expecting advocacy groups (made up of the previously mentioned demographics) would not think their platform would do America service for the challenges it experienced?
 
tech30528 said:
Well as I've said I'm glad we have some people capable of doing the dirty work. I would much rather get information from these terrorists to prevent another attack than have to apologize to the families of the next victims because we wanted to make a show of being nicer than they are. The people being tortured for information would think nothing of doing the same to any of us just because we do not follow their religion. This is not a black and white world. Sometimes all the options are less than ideal. I suppose the guy in black in the beheading videos should be rehabilitated, right?
Click to expand...

It is stunning how many like you do not grasp the difference between our fighting in Iraq and the occupation - and the current matter of ISIS.

Do you also think the American Civil War and WWII were the same with the same enemies too? :roll:
 
Fiddytree said:
An "innocent nation" is overly generous, but yes, I do. Liberals would be correct to presume that the problems with a Bush administration overreach would likewise require them to develop a coherent series of recommendations for an interventionist, but internationalist American foreign policy. Are you somehow expecting advocacy groups (made up of the previously mentioned demographics) would not think their platform would do America service for the challenges it experienced?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between being an interventionist, and even a neocon, and using a national tragedy to manipulate the American public into supporting a war against an innocent (of the attack) nation. Are you arguing that this wasn't done, or that I'm naive in believing that every government wouldn't do the exact same thing?

If it's the latter, then we have no argument on substance. I'm just not as cynical as you.
 
vesper said:
But on the other hand if I had intelligence of an attack planned that could kill thousands of people, how much pain would any of us be willing to inflict on an individual to get the information that could thwart it? To not honestly answer that question makes one a self-righteous hypocrite.
Click to expand...

These "ifs" don't work, do they?

IF a tortured person's relative undertook a terrorist attack that killed thousands would that then change your mind to opposing torture?

It was Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who asked the question that I think we are increasingly seeing the answer to: "Are we killing them faster than we are creating them?" That also applies to torture.

If some foreign power invaded the USA and took one of my family members and tortured that family member? I would want to kill every person of that foreign country I could.

The false claim of those defending torture in this instance is 2-fold.

First, most were not terrorists. They were suspected of being terrorists and the torture was to determine if they were or were not. It was decided most were not, so it was torturing (for months and years) innocent people - people of another country we invaded claiming we were doing so to help them.

Second, it is massively counter productive as it is a massive recruitment tool for fighters including acts of terrorism of "the enemy."

It is possible the self righteous hypocrite is those of your view, as there is nothing showing significant benefits of torture, and mounting evidence that it causes more violence, more terrorism, more opposition within the other country, more domestic opposition here at home, is a recruit tool for the enemy, creates lifelong hatred and causes more American casualties. It also replaced our claim that we are the good guys to instead define us as brutal conquerors and foreign invaders of evil actions and intentions.
 
Amadeus said:
There's a difference between being an interventionist, and even a neocon, and using a national tragedy to manipulate the American public into supporting a war against an innocent (of the attack) nation. Are you arguing that this wasn't done, or that I'm naive in believing that every government wouldn't do the exact same thing?

If it's the latter, then we have no argument on substance. I'm just not as cynical as you.
Click to expand...

The people you are looking at had thought that an expanded war was necessary to deal with the long-standing threat of international terrorism. This concern of theirs had existed since the 1980s, when they were looking at whether or not the Soviet Union supported such efforts (dubiously). Nevertheless, they had long believed that terrorism was a social and ideological problem which required a new method of dealing with it in comparison with the previous police model. In addition to other recommendations, they thought that this was the best path to dealing with the pathologies that plagued the West and international governance. As such, yes, they developed a coherent set of policy recommendations over 20 years and several years before coming to positions of power, had drafted them up to American legislators and the President. When 9/11 happened they saw it as a vindication of their world view and the need to act vigorously in a new direction.

So no, I expect former officials and analysts to not only think about what America should do about any given set of issues it deals with, but also advocate for that. It's not at all uncommon for the more successful members of these groups to find themselves scattered throughout any given administration and helping influence the tone of an administration's policy outlook. It's been a staple of 20th century American foreign (and domestic) policy. It's nothing sinister. It's just the way it works. We think we know what's right and we organize like-minded people to move in the direction we think is best. It's just that because of the internet, left-wingers and internet libertarians started creating ghost stories out of PNAC. It was completely out of proportion and relied on this stupid idea that having an agenda is a bad thing. They may not even see that the organizational efforts more to their liking had agendas in the same way and often had influence with politicians as well. Are we supposed to believe that liberals wouldn't see 9/11 through their prism and entertain ideas that other advocates for certain policy changes thought were prudent? I mean, really. That's how government is supposed to work. :lol:

That they were largely wrong about what they thought was sensible and needed is another matter.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
It is stunning how many like you do not grasp the difference between our fighting in Iraq and the occupation - and the current matter of ISIS.

Do you also think the American Civil War and WWII were the same with the same enemies too? :roll:
Click to expand...

Nice try at baiting there. Not anywhere near truth, but that doesn't really matter to you does it?
 
Fiddytree said:
The people you are looking at had thought that an expanded war was necessary to deal with the long-standing threat of international terrorism. This concern of theirs had existed since the 1980s, when they were looking at whether or not the Soviet Union supported such efforts (dubiously). Nevertheless, they had long believed that terrorism was a social and ideological problem which required a new method of dealing with it in comparison with the previous police model. In addition to other recommendations, they thought that this was the best path to dealing with the pathologies that plagued the West and international governance. As such, yes, they developed a coherent set of policy recommendations over 20 years and several years before coming to positions of power, had drafted them up to American legislators and the President. When 9/11 happened they saw it as a vindication of their world view and the need to act vigorously in a new direction.

So no, I expect former officials and analysts to not only think about what America should do about any given set of issues it deals with, but also advocate for that. It's not at all uncommon for the more successful members of these groups to find themselves scattered throughout any given administration and helping influence the tone of an administration's policy outlook. It's been a staple of 20th century American foreign (and domestic) policy. It's nothing sinister. It's just the way it works. We think we know what's right and we organize like-minded people to move in the direction we think is best. It's just that because of the internet, left-wingers and internet libertarians started creating ghost stories out of PNAC. It was completely out of proportion and relied on this stupid idea that having an agenda is a bad thing. They may not even see that the organizational efforts more to their liking had agendas in the same way and often had influence with politicians as well. Are we supposed to believe that liberals wouldn't see 9/11 through their prism and entertain ideas that other advocates for certain policy changes thought were prudent? I mean, really. That's how government is supposed to work. :lol:

That they were largely wrong about what they thought was sensible and needed is another matter.
Click to expand...

The law enforcement model of counterterrorist operations is inherently reactive, and limited by the requirement to bring cases to court. The warfare model allows counterterrorist operators to seize and retain the initiative, and dispenses with the complications brought on by legal proceedings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom