• 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!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

They gained a lot of ground when they were allowed into Iraq after the American invasion. Even more when we left, and the power vacuum became complete. What are we to conclude from that?
No they gained a lot of ground after the American withdrawal. Perhaps that was a slip.
 
All I have to say is

button_clinton_030609.jpg



But if you'd like to list off Hillary Clinton's many brilliant accomplishments as SecState which demonstrated the real long-term success of "Smart Power", I'd be happy to read through it.

At least she has a brain. It beats the others I listed.
 
At least she has a brain. It beats the others I listed.

You are mistaking "says things I agree with" with "has a brain"


For example, I think Ted Cruz is a harmful influence (net). Junior Senators have no business attempting to direct national policy. However, the guy is legitimately top IQ. Ditto for Bill Clinton, Rand Paul, and plenty of others I disagree with.



Hillary's ability to think rapidly on her feet, however, doesn't appear to have been demonstrated anywhere. Can you point to examples of her demonstrating intellectual depth?
 
You are mistaking "says things I agree with" with "has a brain"


For example, I think Ted Cruz is a harmful influence (net). Junior Senators have no business attempting to direct national policy. However, the guy is legitimately top IQ. Ditto for Bill Clinton, Rand Paul, and plenty of others I disagree with.



Hillary's ability to think rapidly on her feet, however, doesn't appear to have been demonstrated anywhere. Can you point to examples of her demonstrating intellectual depth?

No not at all. And you have simply let your bias blind you to it. If republicans don't choose well, and she wins the democrat nomination, she'll be the next president.

I don't know about Cruz's IQ. If it is as high as you say, then he's a disingenuous manipulator. He says stupid things.
 
No not at all. And you have simply let your bias blind you to it. If republicans don't choose well, and she wins the democrat nomination, she'll be the next president.

Hillary may win. But she is overhyped. Which is why you are avoiding listing off her accomplishments.

I don't know about Cruz's IQ. If it is as high as you say, then he's a disingenuous manipulator. He says stupid things.

Ted Cruz was selected to clerk for the Supreme Court, and then argued before it on multiple occasions. He's no dummy. Nor, do I think, is he disingenuous. I think Paul has been. That being said, Hillary also says stupid, awkward things.
 
I said that.

There was also no AlQaeda Iraq until after the invasion.

Oh, then it seems there was a slip! On my part!

But of course once the military were there Al Q could enter and be killed off. When the military left they had free access.
 
Oh, then it seems there was a slip! On my part!

But of course once the military were there Al Q could enter and be killed off. When the military left they had free access.

Sure, they just flocked in to be killed. If we'd only stayed, they'd all have been killed off by now, now doubt.
 
Hillary may win. But she is overhyped. Which is why you are avoiding listing off her accomplishments.

She may be overhyped, but accomplishments can be listed. I just don't believe you really want to see them.

Ted Cruz was selected to clerk for the Supreme Court, and then argued before it on multiple occasions. He's no dummy. Nor, do I think, is he disingenuous. I think Paul has been. That being said, Hillary also says stupid, awkward things.

No, it doesn't tell me anything that would excuse the things he has said. And it's not just awkward or misspeaking. It's stupid and if he is smart, pandering and disingenuous in the worse possible way.
 
Sure, they just flocked in to be killed. If we'd only stayed, they'd all have been killed off by now, now doubt.
That's better odds than what we see now.. I doubt ISIS would be as powerful as it is or that the Middle East would in the shape it's in with 30,000 troops still stationed there.
 
That's better odds than what we see now.. I doubt ISIS would be as powerful as it is or that the Middle East would in the shape it's in with 30,000 troops still stationed there.

Maybe, maybe not. The chaos in Syria would still have happened, and that's the birthplace of ISIS. How many nations do we need to occupy?
 
Maybe, maybe not. The chaos in Syria would still have happened, and that's the birthplace of ISIS. How many nations do we need to occupy?
A strong foothold in Iraq, along with the most advanced 'Embassy' in the world, would be all that was needed. Access would be rapidly gained to anywhere in the region.
 
A strong foothold in Iraq, along with the most advanced 'Embassy' in the world, would be all that was needed. Access would be rapidly gained to anywhere in the region.

Imperial America?
 
Would you prefer "Imperial" ISIS?

Whose side are you really on?

It's not an either or choice. ISIS has limited range and possibilities. That's the trouble with this discussion. Someone of you believe the threat to be larger than it is and always have. You're in a panic mode that doesn't exist.
 
It's not an either or choice.
Actually it is.
ISIS has limited range and possibilities.
That's not true. They are recruiting from areas all over the world, including the democracies. You can also see the propaganda sites which encourage these 'lone wolf attacks in Europe, Australia, Canada and, most recently, Australia.
That's the trouble with this discussion. Someone of you believe the threat to be larger than it is and always have. You're in a panic mode that doesn't exist.
Nobody is in 'panic mode'. What's clear is that you're not familiar with the topic under discussion..
 
Actually it is.

No it isn't.

That's not true. They are recruiting from areas all over the world, including the democracies. You can also see the propaganda sites which encourage these 'lone wolf attacks in Europe, Australia, Canada and, most recently, Australia.

Which doesn't make them the type of threat you push. Their ideology has a limited appeal and can only garner in so many. Like an insect, they can sting, but they cannot beat us.

Nobody is in 'panic mode'. What's clear is that you're not familiar with the topic under discussion..

I'm sorry, but if you think we need to throw our morality and ideals out the window over insects, you are in panic mode.
 
Which doesn't make them the type of threat you push. Their ideology has a limited appeal and can only garner in so many. Like an insect, they can sting, but they cannot beat us.
The leftists are siding with Islam and Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Between leftism and Islam the future, in a couple of generations, seems clear.
I'm sorry, but if you think we need to throw our morality and ideals out the window over insects, you are in panic mode.
What 'deals' are you talking about?
 
Now it's official that KSM wasn't the only one, and that waterboarding wasn't the only form of sharpened interrogation that took place, so we know now that our government, the one that is supposed to stick up for human rights and stand for freedom and limited government and yadayadayada actually suborned tor.. I mean sharpened interrogation of prisoners.

What we don't know is that said torture actually produced any useful information.

Now that the report is out, the only refuge of the "Oh, our government would never do that" folks is to say that the report was produced by Democrats, and is ipso facto flawed, and/or that the end justified the means and kept us safe.

And that's simply a crock.
Nope, you're wrong on that too
 
When various journalists have volunteered to get taped getting the waterboard, we count that as ONE because not one that I've seen has lasted more than a few seconds, and I've seen no one have that repeated. It's the same way the 183 was counted.

How should it be counted? Let's say you're on the receiving end, the water was poured over your face, you're unable to breath, ingest a bunch of water, choke, gag, vomit, before they quit pouring, and then they let you rest for a few minutes before doing it again. It would make a helluva lot of difference whether that "application" happened once that day or 40 times. Apparently, the right wing apologists want to count 1 "application" and 40 as equivalent, and just count it as one "waterboard." Which number better reflects what happened? One or 40? If it was you, I can promise it's 40.

BTW, the report is extensively documented with hundreds or thousands of footnotes. Every important statement is supported by an original document. It's legitimate journalism to quote from that kind of document - that's what journalists DO. And as many have pointed out, I've seen almost no allegations that any facts cited in the report are false. And if they're false, then the underlying documents contemporaneously prepared by CIA or other officials and cited in the report were false.
If you've seen no allegations which were cited as false then you just haven't been looking. We know ths is a partisan report, that those who were for it are now against it, that the CIA wasn't interviewed now those in the room, that guidelines were set, that legal counsel was involved and the Eric Holder investigated and found that all was legal.

Here's the account from one of those who participated and he seems appears to be quite an honest man, certainly moreso than those who issued the report. Man Who Interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Speaks Out
 
The leftists are siding with Islam and Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Between leftism and Islam the future, in a couple of generations, seems clear.

That is stupid Fox propaganda. We should not be so fearful.

What 'deals' are you talking about?

The word was ideals. Like being good, moral people who believe in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among other things.
 
Back
Top Bottom