• 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

Misterveritis said:
You don't support any kind of torture. That is a nice, safe, easy statement with no actual meaning. But you do have the luxury of making statements that have no actual meaning.
Click to expand...

The same can be applied to supporters of torture and murder of detainees. They continue to insist that such atrocities result in actionable intelligence but have thus far been unable to cite a specific and detailed example. Hollow statements from morally bankrupt people.
 
Misterveritis said:
Why not just admit that you like the traitorous Democrats and, if truth be told, are one yourself?
This was a democratic party hit piece against the CIA and the nation.
Click to expand...

That's ok, most of us Dems think the Cons are the traitorous lot that hates America.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you think repetition will improve your statement?

I do not.

You don't support any kind of torture. That is a nice, safe, easy statement with no actual meaning. But you do have the luxury of making statements that have no actual meaning.

But you believe this somehow makes a difference...

"not really. our country is still engaged in perpetual war, even though history proves that strategy to be a potential road to even more conflict, and eventual collapse."

It is as if you went to sleep, woke up and typed the first thing that came into your mind.

In addition, can you explain your statement?

" Our country is still engaged in perpetual war..."

Okay. Nearly all of history is the history of mankind at war with mankind.

"...even though history proves that strategy to be a potential road to even more conflict..."
Is perpetual war a strategy? To what end?

If war is perpetual doesn't that mean more conflict?
Click to expand...

yes. if we maintain a state of perpetual war it will lead to more conflict, as it has for several decades now. if we continue participating, there will be another war even if IS is defeated. and it doesn't matter who we torture; the result will be the same.

the US has to get out of the pro bono global police business and instead concentrate on rebuilding our own country.
 
Napoleon said:
The same can be applied to supporters of torture and murder of detainees. They continue to insist that such atrocities result in actionable intelligence but have thus far been unable to cite a specific and detailed example. Hollow statements from morally bankrupt people.
Click to expand...

Unless you are on the inside I cannot imagine how you can make such a statement. But it is clear that you have read and accepted the traitorous Democratic Party talking points. Good for you.

I do agree that the Left's echo chamber effect where one traitor says something and the rest of you suck it up and regurgitate it on command does equal hollow statements from morally bankrupt people.
 
Helix said:
yes. if we maintain a state of perpetual war it will lead to more conflict, as it has for several decades now. if we continue participating, there will be another war even if IS is defeated. and it doesn't matter who we torture; the result will be the same.

the US has to get out of the pro bono global police business and instead concentrate on rebuilding our own country.
Click to expand...

I believe you fell asleep again.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no such narrative.
Click to expand...

Of course there is; its what the author of the article you posted refers to as the "second wave" plot, more commonly known as the Library Tower plot. The narrative by torture apologists goes that waterboarding Sheikh Mohammed 183 times yielded some or all of the intelligence needed to prevent it. What the author of this article, like all of the other apologists, neglects to mention is the fact that this plot was foiled in 2002 and Sheik Mohammed wasn't even captured until 2003. These people have been lying all along in the hope that the truth would be forever buried under censor blocks so they can never be fact checked. They can't count on that anymore.
 
Misterveritis said:
And yet it was a Democrat, the traitorous Dianne Feinstein, who did this damage to this nation at this time.
Click to expand...

Again, the damage was done in the actions. This is only a bunch of words on a page (well, many pages actually) describing the actions.

You may chose to hate/shoot the messenger, but its misguided anger. If the underlying objectionable actions never happened, then Dianne Feinstein's pen (figuratively speaking) would have NO clout.
 
Napoleon said:
Of course there is; its what the author of the article you posted refers to as the "second wave" plot, more commonly known as the Library Tower plot. The narrative by torture apologists goes that waterboarding Sheikh Mohammed 183 times yielded some or all of the intelligence needed to prevent it. What the author of this article, like all of the other apologists, neglects to mention is the fact that this plot was foiled in 2002 and Sheik Mohammed wasn't even captured until 2003. These people have been lying all along in the hope that the truth would be forever buried under censor blocks so they can never be fact checked. They can't count on that anymore.
Click to expand...

The 2002 arrest disrupted but did not eliminate the threat. That's the problem with disruptions: they only buy time. Detainee information was critical in subsequent successful elimination of the threat. That's why GWB did not speak of it until years later.
 
Jack Hays said:
The 2002 arrest disrupted but did not eliminate the threat. That's the problem with disruptions: they only buy time. Detainee information was critical in subsequent successful elimination of the threat. That's why GWB did not speak of it until years later.
Click to expand...

An interesting but untrue narrative. When GWB and Frances Townsend announced in 2007 that the threat had been eliminated they stated that it had been eliminated in 2002. Capturing and torturing Sheikh Mohammed a year later had nothing to do with it. The CIA's own internal documents reveal that they didn't get anything of value out of him except for an alleged confession that he was the one who beheaded Daniel Pearl and even that couldn't be verified.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
An interesting but untrue narrative. When GWB and Frances Townsend announced in 2007 that the threat had been eliminated they stated that it had been eliminated in 2002. Capturing and torturing Sheikh Mohammed a year later had nothing to do with it. The CIA's own internal documents reveal that they didn't get anything of value out of him except for an alleged confession that he was the one who beheaded Daniel Pearl and even that couldn't be verified.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have it wrong, just like the Senate. The immediate threat was stopped in 2002 but the countermeasures continued. GWB was accurate in discussing what had been the immediate threat, but it is unreasonable to expect the POTUS would have tracked the very complex and wide ranging operations thereafter. The timing of his statement, however, indicates how long those follow ups lasted.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong, just like the Senate. The immediate threat was stopped in 2002 but the countermeasures continued. GWB was accurate in discussing what had been the immediate threat, but it is unreasonable to expect the POTUS would have tracked the very complex and wide ranging operations thereafter. The timing of his statement, however, indicates how long those follow ups lasted.
Click to expand...

LOL. What next? You going to claim that the counter-terrorism czar Frances Townsend didn't know what she was talking about either?
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
LOL. What next? You going to claim that the counter-terrorism czar Frances Townsend didn't know what she was talking about either?
Click to expand...

She was never in the operational chain of command. She would have had no reason to be involved in, or even have knowledge of, operational activities. Moreover, the important thing from her perspective (and GWB's) was the 2002 disruption.
 
Jack Hays said:
She was never in the operational chain of command. She would have had no reason to be involved in, or even have knowledge of, operational activities.
Click to expand...

So your claim is now that the chairperson of the Homeland Security Council was completely unaware of a homeland security threat you claim existed? What a fascinating web you're trying to weave.
 
Napoleon said:
So your claim is now that the chairperson of the Homeland Security Council was completely unaware of a homeland security threat you claim existed? What a fascinating web you're trying to weave.
Click to expand...

If you will re-read McLaughlin's article, and try to understand it, you will notice that it concerns wide ranging activity outside the US. She would certainly have been aware of threats, but absolutely not aware of operational details (which are generally not germane to threat assessments in any case). So no, she would not have been aware of the provenance of lead information across hundreds of sources, leads and targets.
 
Napoleon said:
So your claim is now that the chairperson of the Homeland Security Council was completely unaware of a homeland security threat you claim existed? What a fascinating web you're trying to weave.
Click to expand...

Moreover, such details would have been inappropriate for public remarks.
 
Jack Hays said:
If you will re-read McLaughlin's article, and try to understand it, you will notice that it concerns wide ranging activity outside the US. She would certainly have been aware of threats, but absolutely not aware of operational details (which are generally not germane to threat assessments in any case). So no, she would not have been aware of the provenance of lead information across hundreds of sources, leads and targets.
Click to expand...

Your claims are just speculation in an attempt to perpetuate McLaughlin's assertions which have already been proven to be lies.

Jack Hays said:
Moreover, such details would have been inappropriate for public remarks.
Click to expand...

Lies usually are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom