• 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...

cpwill said:
I'm saying that KSM wasn't operating under the assumption that we were going to kill him. And yes, after waterboarding (which is agreeably a pretty crappy experience), KSM became compliant - relieved even; telling us that we should waterboard "all the brothers" so as to relieve them of their religious duty to resist (you are, apparently, only required to resist up until a certain point, and then you are free do to whatever you need to).
Click to expand...

Give me a break. He didn't know if or when it would ever stop - a soldier in training knows those things. It's not the same, and you're trying hard to make the irrational claim that it is the same. As I said earlier, just because many officers trained in tasers get tased as part of their training would have NO impact on the obvious determination that using a taser during interrogation is (or would be) torture.

A) We executed a grand total of 7 Japanese from those trials - all of them for crimes involving large-scale murder. And the Japanese were performing different acts - notably, forced ingestion of water
Click to expand...

Forced 'ingestion' of water is how waterboarding works - it is drowning that is stopped, they breath the water into their lungs and cannot breath. And what difference does it make how many we executed - we tried roughly 6000, and thousands of those served jail sentences, many of them accused of the crime of waterboarding. I'm not sure what you're claiming - waterboarding, although listed among the crimes for which they were charged, shouldn't have been on that list because it's not torture, although we asserted through the tribunal that it WAS?

B) Waterboarding is indeed illegal - for uniformed members of a nation state engaged in Armed Conflict, who fall under Geneva protections. It is additionally illegal for noncombatants. Those who choose to fight in civilian clothing, however, have no such rights under the international system - we could execute every member of Gitmo out of hand tomorrow and be breaking no law other than (perhaps) our own.
Click to expand...

Again, if you want to have a discussion about whether torture is justified, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that we're talking about something else.

And as to the legal claims - they're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Just because we might be able to justify torture and fit it into some legal box says really nothing about whether it's something we should be doing. We now know there is no legal consequence for doing it anyway, unless you're a whistleblower that reveals what was done.
 
JasperL said:
Give me a break. He didn't know if or when it would ever stop - a soldier in training knows those things. It's not the same, and you're trying hard to make the irrational claim that it is the same. As I said earlier, just because many officers trained in tasers get tased as part of their training would have NO impact on the obvious determination that using a taser during interrogation is (or would be) torture.



Forced 'ingestion' of water is how waterboarding works - it is drowning that is stopped, they breath the water into their lungs and cannot breath. And what difference does it make how many we executed - we tried roughly 6000, and thousands of those served jail sentences, many of them accused of the crime of waterboarding. I'm not sure what you're claiming - waterboarding, although listed among the crimes for which they were charged, shouldn't have been on that list because it's not torture, although we asserted through the tribunal that it WAS?



Again, if you want to have a discussion about whether torture is justified, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that we're talking about something else.

And as to the legal claims - they're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Just because we might be able to justify torture and fit it into some legal box says really nothing about whether it's something we should be doing. We now know there is no legal consequence for doing it anyway, unless you're a whistleblower that reveals what was done.
Click to expand...

No, the Subject of Waterboarding does not " breath water into their lungs ".

That's DROWNING.

Water Board recipients are strapped to a board with their head lower than their feet.


Thats done to keeps water out of their lungs. Waterboarding recipients psychologically think they're drowning but they're in no danger of dying.

And what is " Forced injestion of water " ? Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to drink a glass of water ?
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
No, the Subject of Waterboarding does not " breath water into their lungs ".

That's DROWNING.

Water Board recipients are strapped to a board with their head lower than their feet.


Thats done to keeps water out of their lungs. Waterboarding recipients psychologically think they're drowning but they're in no danger of dying.
Click to expand...

Sure they are in danger - they can't breath. And they 'think' they're drowning because water in their nose and mouth prevents them from getting oxygen into their lungs, and therefore brain.

And I can either take your word for it, or the word of a person who actually conducted SERE training and waterboarded 'hundreds' by his account:

Waterboarding is Torture... Period (Links Updated # 9) | Small Wars Journal

In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'll go with the expert.
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: keep clinging, boo. the exact same techniques were used as trained to.
Click to expand...

That is sort of true, because we trained our soldiers on how to endure TORTURE at the hands of brutal enemies.

It's incredible (as well as abhorrent) that you're suggesting we say to the world that waterboarding our soldiers is a legitimate and perfectly acceptable interrogation technique to be used on them....
 
JasperL said:
Sure they are in danger - they can't breath. And they 'think' they're drowning because water in their nose and mouth prevents them from getting oxygen into their lungs, and therefore brain.

And I can either take your word for it, or the word of a person who actually conducted SERE training and waterboarded 'hundreds' by his account:

Waterboarding is Torture... Period (Links Updated # 9) | Small Wars Journal



No offense, but I'll go with the expert.
Click to expand...

Lol !!

If your'e going to be indignant about something at least make sure its not made up.

The " throat opens and Pints and pints fill up the lungs ? " Is that a excerpt from a Onion piece ?

How is that even possible ? How can " pints and pints of water " flowing UPHILL into the Lungs of someone who's lying inverted ?

Remember ? His Head is Lower than is Feet.

Where did you get that quote from ?
Some left wing Rag ?

You might want to explain to them that " pints and pints of water " cannot flow uphill into a set of lungs.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

If your'e going to be indignant about something at least make sure its not made up.

The " throat opens and Pints and pints fill up the lungs ? " Is that a excerpt from a Onion piece ?

How is that even possible ? How can " pints and pints of water " flowing UPHILL into the Lungs of someone who's lying inverted ?

Remember ? His Head is Lower than is Feet.

Where did you get that quote from ?
Some left wing Rag ?

You might want to explain to them that " pints and pints of water " cannot flow uphill into a set of lungs.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, the author was part of a team that redesigned the Navy SERE training program and participated in hundreds of waterboarding sessions in training. He's got an opinion informed by years of study and extensive experience in being waterboarded and performing the torture technique on others - you do not. So I'll go with the expert.

But I'm curious - maybe you can help me out. If your mouth and nose are full of water and you take a breath, as you must, where does the water go? In your lungs, and stomach....

Here's one account of a person subjected to it: http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf See page 16-17.

Q: And then did he take you back to your room?
A: When Yuki could not get anything out of me he wanted the interpreter ti place me down below and I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench Yuki placed some cloth on my face and then with water from the faucet they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.
COL KEELEY: You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?
A: No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way with some cloth on my face and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.
COL KEELEY: And you couldn’t breath?
A: No, I could not and so I for a time lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach and then I vomited the water from my stomach and the consciousness came back again for me.
Q: Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?
A” From my mouth and all openings of my face....and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.
Q: How many times did that happen?
A: Around four or five times from two o’clock up to four o’clock in the afternoon.When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received I told a lie to Yuki....I could not really show anything to Yuki because I was really lying just to stop the [legitimate interrogation technique that is NOT] torture...

I added the italics in that last line, because clearly the guy was NOT tortured per you. But we did prosecute a bunch of Japanese for war crimes for the crime of non-torture waterboarding, which we called torture then but were wrong about....

One more thing - cpwill says as far as he's aware, we always had medical personnel on hand during waterboarding sessions of our detainees. And I know we have medical personnel on hand when soldiers are subjected to waterboarding during training. Why do we need a medical person if there is no danger to the detainee? Seems to me if you're doing something life threatening enough to require a medical professional be on hand that it's sort of definitional - there is a real risk of DEATH, and that's as good a line of any as to what clearly constitutes torture.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm telling you the testimony said none is it was like the real thing. Just a taste. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I"m telling you you are clinging to a single testimony over the experiences of the tens of thousands who have actually gone through it. But please, describe how one can get "just a taste" of waterboarding without being waterboarded or "just a taste" of being forced to adopt stress positions until you collapse, when you were forced to adopt stress positions until you collapsed, or "just a taste" of being kept awake for 48+ hours, when you were kept away for 48+ hours.
 
JasperL said:
So we "broke" him with non-torture?
Click to expand...

Yes. We do this all the time with most of the detainees that we are able to get. It's called "Interrogation", and we have some amazingly talented professionals who serve this country by working hard to perfect it.

It's hard to square claims made with no way to verify them with testimony by people who interrogate for a living and claim that torture does not produce reliable information
Click to expand...

Well then I would refer you to the testimony of those who have been tortured, who have generally agreed that everyone eventually breaks and gives the information the questioner is looking for.

or at least it's no more useful and reliable than information we get 100 other ways. Obviously no one can claim that torture will never work - that is obviously false - but that's not the question. Traditional interrogation also works, and it doesn't have the downside of being morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

Traditional interrogation techniques have severely degraded performance against those who are trained or especially motivated to resist them (which is why we train the people who might be captured in how to do so), which is why we used the Enhanced Interrogation Technique program. As for torture, I imagine that it would also be effective against that populace. I myself have only seen it work against mid-level AQI leadership.

If we want to have a national discussion about whether we should engage in torture because it works, I am good with that. If that's what we are as a country, that's what we are I suppose - no shining beacon on a hill, just another country that will do anything that works - human rights are optional, or if you prefer, there are no rules in war, and we're in a war that will never end, so might as well get used to it. Etc.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, we've been killing innocent civilians in warfare for a couple of centuries now - would you say that is morally superior to slapping a terrorist in the face in order to shock his sensibilities (that was an EIT) or wrapping a towel around his neck to protect him from whiplash before throwing him into a fake wall that would make a loud sound, making him think he'd been thrown harder than he had been (that was also an EIT)?

But what is BS is making the chicken crap claim that we aren't torturing people, so we don't have to make that incredibly difficult moral and ethical choice.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, if the military can do it to me, I'm a little skeptical with the idea that it's torture.

Now, it's still not nice. It's still application of pain and discomfort and fear and all of those things in order to break someone's mental barriers and put them in a situation where they feel completely controlled by an omnipotent/omniscient interrogator. So if we want to say "we don't waterboard", alright - I can get why we would have moral qualms with that. But, as you say, we do need to have the conversation and accept the trade-off that comes in the form of reduced timely intelligence about those who are actively planning to mass-murder as many of our civilians as possible.

I agree that it's relevant - if we torture, and it's discovered (which is inevitable) then we have to take that into account about whether torture is, on the whole, a net positive to national security.

I don't understand the personnel versus civilians question. They're both important, but the people bearing most of the actual risk of the fallout of our various programs are IMO our personnel overseas. We should take that into account when we approve programs that put them at risk when discovered.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a single reduced-complexity example. Let us say that Mokhtar Belmokhtar has just been brought in, and we think he has just approved a plan to bomb a series of trains in France in retaliation for France's actions in the Sahel. We really need that information, and we don't have weeks or months to build up a rapport and hope that the feel-nice program works. However, if we waterboard the guy, later al-Murabitun might target US soldiers in the region in order to retaliate above what they already would do in order to retaliate against us for capturing him in the first place and being the evil Americans etc. (so that's the differentiation, not 0 risk to risk).

Do we accept the risk to French civilians on those trains in order to avoid the potential for increased risk to US personnel in the future?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, people claim they were successful. As it is their job, they have motivation to make that claim. But they did not support that claim or address rebuttals effectively.
Click to expand...

People claim they were successful just as the Democrats no interview partisan report claims it was successful, and with the same motivation. As I believe the counter reports, along with the OpEd from Bob Kerrey, firmly establishes the glaring omissions and highly partisan nature of Feinstein's boondoggle, we are at odds.

So be it. :peace
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yelling at them?

Is that what happened to Diliwar and Habibullah?
Click to expand...
Uh huh...so they were all just innocent men in the wrong place at the wrong time, is that your assertion? Look, am I saying that some things that were wrong didn't happen? No. But am I all torn up that some guys that had intel were not allowed their beauty sleep, or were smacked around? Absolutely not. They and their cohorts do much worse.
 
JasperL said:
You keep diverting attention over to some other bouncing ball. The fact is the claims that the torture program 'worked' just aren't backed by evidence. The supporters have repeatedly made claims like the two you cited and which I then provided evidence that at best the claims are vague enough to be worthless. The claim that the attack on the library in LA was thwarted by waterboarding KSM before we captured him is obviously false, made up.

BTW, you haven't seen me encourage prosecution of those involved. What I'm mainly pushing back on is the cowardly stance that what we did wasn't torture. It just was and we should be honest about it, honest about the circumstances in which we tortured detainees, and do that to inform what we do in the future. If it's waterboard someone 300 times if we think he has intelligence, insert needles into their fingernails, freeze them potentially to death, beat them, whatever it takes short of intentionally slow death or some other arbitrary line, etc. then so be it. But let's have an honest conversation about it.
Click to expand...



Mornin Jasper. :2wave: The facts are by the CIA that they worked. They would know. Not some politicians that are out in front of the cameras every two to three days. There is none, not even with this report that can say they didn't work. Well they can say it but then they wouldn't be telling the truth. Showing a few cases out of hundreds that didn't bring any benefit. Doesn't change the facts about all those others that did.

Some politicians known as the Gang of 8 were shown the enhanced techniques. They had no problem with them when they were shown. So even more validation of how this was done out of Spite over Politics.

The Justice Dept with Holder felt the same way as these Democrats do. They investigated and could not find anything criminal. What does that tell you? Or does the left want to say Holder and his Team didn't do their job?

Also What I have shown you is how these Democrats, didn't follow procedures for the Bipartisan committee that they agreed to. That they could have interviewed witnesses in 2012 and 2013. Now they were out partying to much in 2012 and half the time these Democrats didn't even try to work on anything with this issue.

Now it is understandable that Feinstein wants a little revenge with the CIA for keeping tabs on her. She should have looked to throw her tantrum in a different way.
 
Boo Radley said:
These are just quotes. They are not supported by verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah Right, a quote that Feinstein made publicly with the NY Times can't be supported by evidence. :roll:

But lets forget about what she had said Right?
 
How many children, women and civilians has America killed in out never ending war in the Middle East as opposed to how many terrorists have we deprived of sleep, stripped naked and kept in isolation? Which is more important to the liberal brain? We interrogate to learn who is out there and where they are so we can kill them before they skill our sons and daughters. I have no problems with anything the people do in order to prevent another 911. Does anyone here recall 911? "Splat, splat,splat, splat" those were the sounds of innocent American civilians crashing on to the pavement in order to avoid burning to death.
 
JasperL said:
Give me a break. He didn't know if or when it would ever stop - a soldier in training knows those things.
Click to expand...

Actually one of the purposes of the program in SERE is to disorient you so that you don't know the time, the day, or when anything will stop. And no, soldiers in training don't always know when punishment that is now associated with the EIT program will stop. I can't think of a single time I was placed in stress positions where I knew that I had any stopping point beyond the idea that eventually I would hopefully graduate boot camp. And KSM used to actually count off the seconds on his fingers in order to demonstrate to his captors that he knew that they had a time limit.

It's not the same, and you're trying hard to make the irrational claim that it is the same. As I said earlier, just because many officers trained in tasers get tased as part of their training would have NO impact on the obvious determination that using a taser during interrogation is (or would be) torture.
Click to expand...

That is actually a good point. Do you believe, then, that we torture our own military when we put them through Boot Camp or SERE?

Forced 'ingestion' of water is how waterboarding works - it is drowning that is stopped, they breath the water into their lungs and cannot breath. And what difference does it make how many we executed - we tried roughly 6000, and thousands of those served jail sentences, many of them accused of the crime of waterboarding. I'm not sure what you're claiming - waterboarding, although listed among the crimes for which they were charged, shouldn't have been on that list because it's not torture, although we asserted through the tribunal that it WAS?
Click to expand...

The waterboarding of non-combatants or uniformed personnel were among the crimes that they were charged with and/or served jail time for.

Again, if you want to have a discussion about whether torture is justified, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that we're talking about something else.
Click to expand...

The Justice Department went to pretty strenuous lengths - and were followed pretty strictly - specifically to make sure that we didn't cross that line.

And as to the legal claims - they're irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

No - this is a legal question.
 
JasperL said:
So we "broke" him with non-torture?

It's hard to square claims made with no way to verify them with testimony by people who interrogate for a living and claim that torture does not produce reliable information, or at least it's no more useful and reliable than information we get 100 other ways. Obviously no one can claim that torture will never work - that is obviously false - but that's not the question. Traditional interrogation also works, and it doesn't have the downside of being morally repugnant.

If we want to have a national discussion about whether we should engage in torture because it works, I am good with that. If that's what we are as a country, that's what we are I suppose - no shining beacon on a hill, just another country that will do anything that works - human rights are optional, or if you prefer, there are no rules in war, and we're in a war that will never end, so might as well get used to it. Etc.

But what is BS is making the chicken crap claim that we aren't torturing people, so we don't have to make that incredibly difficult moral and ethical choice.

I agree that it's relevant - if we torture, and it's discovered (which is inevitable) then we have to take that into account about whether torture is, on the whole, a net positive to national security.

I don't understand the personnel versus civilians question. They're both important, but the people bearing most of the actual risk of the fallout of our various programs are IMO our personnel overseas. We should take that into account when we approve programs that put them at risk when discovered.
Click to expand...

A piece you might like.
 
JasperL said:
One more thing - cpwill says as far as he's aware, we always had medical personnel on hand during waterboarding sessions of our detainees. And I know we have medical personnel on hand when soldiers are subjected to waterboarding during training. Why do we need a medical person if there is no danger to the detainee? Seems to me if you're doing something life threatening enough to require a medical professional be on hand that it's sort of definitional - there is a real risk of DEATH, and that's as good a line of any as to what clearly constitutes torture.
Click to expand...

I don't think I said this, however, it's worth pointing out that it doesn't mean what you are extrapolating from it. We also always have medical personnel, for example, for regular training evolutions, long runs, marches, and the like.
 
JasperL said:
That is sort of true, because we trained our soldiers on how to endure TORTURE at the hands of brutal enemies.

It's incredible (as well as abhorrent) that you're suggesting we say to the world that waterboarding our soldiers is a legitimate and perfectly acceptable interrogation technique to be used on them....
Click to expand...

No - the Geneva accords for uniformed military personnel are pretty clear. But our spies can probably expect it.
 
In a world full of false narrative, and a sliding scale for determining wrong, means nothing is wrong.
 
j-mac said:
In a world full of false narrative, and a sliding scale for determining wrong, means nothing is wrong.
Click to expand...

Anytime the leftists come with the preaching of morality. Then let them decide. Torture a terrorist or save many people. Choice is on them. Lets see what they will be about.
 
JasperL said:
As I pointed out, the author was part of a team that redesigned the Navy SERE training program and participated in hundreds of waterboarding sessions in training. He's got an opinion informed by years of study and extensive experience in being waterboarded and performing the torture technique on others - you do not. So I'll go with the expert.

But I'm curious - maybe you can help me out. If your mouth and nose are full of water and you take a breath, as you must, where does the water go? In your lungs, and stomach....

Here's one account of a person subjected to it: http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf See page 16-17.

Q: And then did he take you back to your room?
A: When Yuki could not get anything out of me he wanted the interpreter ti place me down below and I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench Yuki placed some cloth on my face and then with water from the faucet they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.
COL KEELEY: You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?
A: No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way with some cloth on my face and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.
COL KEELEY: And you couldn’t breath?
A: No, I could not and so I for a time lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach and then I vomited the water from my stomach and the consciousness came back again for me.
Q: Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?
A” From my mouth and all openings of my face....and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.
Q: How many times did that happen?
A: Around four or five times from two o’clock up to four o’clock in the afternoon.When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received I told a lie to Yuki....I could not really show anything to Yuki because I was really lying just to stop the [legitimate interrogation technique that is NOT] torture...

I added the italics in that last line, because clearly the guy was NOT tortured per you. But we did prosecute a bunch of Japanese for war crimes for the crime of non-torture waterboarding, which we called torture then but were wrong about....

One more thing - cpwill says as far as he's aware, we always had medical personnel on hand during waterboarding sessions of our detainees. And I know we have medical personnel on hand when soldiers are subjected to waterboarding during training. Why do we need a medical person if there is no danger to the detainee? Seems to me if you're doing something life threatening enough to require a medical professional be on hand that it's sort of definitional - there is a real risk of DEATH, and that's as good a line of any as to what clearly constitutes torture.
Click to expand...


" Pints and pints of water ", huh ? Flowing up hill into the lungs without being coughed or spit out ?

I don't care who that guys says he is, he's lying.

Why go through all the trouble of Waterboarding someone when you could just tie them up and lower them into a Pool ?

If Pints and pints of water go into your lungs anyway then why strap them inverted to a backboard ? Just dunk them until they talk.

They go through the trouble because Waterboarding is not drowning, its simulated drowning.

Also if Pints of pints of water flow into your your lungs your'e going to die unless you get immediate life saving medical care

So your telling me these Muslim Terrorist had to be intubated after every session ?
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I"m telling you you are clinging to a single testimony over the experiences of the tens of thousands who have actually gone through it. But please, describe how one can get "just a taste" of waterboarding without being waterboarded or "just a taste" of being forced to adopt stress positions until you collapse, when you were forced to adopt stress positions until you collapsed, or "just a taste" of being kept awake for 48+ hours, when you were kept away for 48+ hours.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't even hold water logically. There is no real way we'd ever risk the same harm to us that others experienced. Remember, one person died in a stress position. But the fact is, no one above you is really claiming it is the same. And the one called to testify clearly stated it wasn't. People we torture endured even after they collapsed, and beyond. And not one 48 hour stretch but on going bouts of it. So, no, it is hubris to think you endured the same thing.
 
ocean515 said:
People claim they were successful just as the Democrats no interview partisan report claims it was successful, and with the same motivation. As I believe the counter reports, along with the OpEd from Bob Kerrey, firmly establishes the glaring omissions and highly partisan nature of Feinstein's boondoggle, we are at odds.

So be it. :peace
Click to expand...

A claim isn't equal to fact. Looking at what you did and what you got is the objective method.
 
MMC said:
Yeah Right, a quote that Feinstein made publicly with the NY Times can't be supported by evidence. :roll:

But lets forget about what she had said Right?
Click to expand...

Yep. No matter who makes the claim, any claim, evidence is required. Evidence and not talk is what we need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom