- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 29,074
- Reaction score
- 10,177
- Location
- Columbus, OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
McLaughlin's statements are entirely true. I do not speculate.
Only if you believe that the CIA traveled back in time.
McLaughlin's statements are entirely true. I do not speculate.
Only if you believe that the CIA traveled back in time.
That is not necessary. You are so desperate to make your case that straightforward common sense eludes you.
Not at all, but for some reason you feel compelled to fabricate a narrative that isn't supported by any evidence and runs contrary to the facts.
Sorry, but it's your narrative that is contrary to the facts. Here are the details you seem not to be aware of. I suggest you read it all.
Marc Thiessen Was Right About the "Library Tower Plot ...
Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums Weekly Standard
Sep 8, 2009
In an op-ed for Sunday's New York Times, former FBI special agent Ali Soufan wrote:
Supporters of the enhanced interrogation techniques have jumped from claim to claim about their usefulness. They have asserted, for example, that harsh treatment led Mr. Mohammed to reveal the plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. But that plot was thwarted in 2002, and Mr. Mohammed was not arrested until 2003.This is not accurate. Soufan, who is a well-known critic of the CIA's so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques, is simply repeating an ill-informed critique that has been made elsewhere.
Earlier this year, in two pieces for Slate, Timothy Noah took former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen to task for claiming that the "enhanced" interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led to a plot against the "Library Tower" (now known as the U.S. Bank Tower) being foiled. Noah argued that the Bush administration itself claimed this plot was thwarted in 2002, before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003. Therefore, according to Noah, it is not possible that the same attack was averted in 2003, following the "enhanced" interrogations of KSM.
Soufan repeats this argument in his op-ed. But with the release of portions of two formerly classified CIA analyses on August 24, we know that Noah and Soufan got it wrong. Marc Thiessen got it right. . . . .
Did Dianne Feinstein torture anyone?
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.
What makes you think that the bars should be actionable intelligence? Atrocities? Like flying airplanes into buildings? Like killing stewardesses with box cutters? Those atrocities?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.
Yes. I know. But we are not the ones who committed treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.That's ok, most of us Dems think the Cons are the traitorous lot that hates America.
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.
What makes you think that the bars should be actionable intelligence? Atrocities? Like flying airplanes into buildings? Like killing stewardesses with box cutters? Those atrocities?
We made a few people uncomfortable.
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.
Sorry, but that's how Dershowitz wrote it. Any attempt to avoid the dilemma is a declaration of failure.
Do you realize that you make no sense?
They may well be honorable men, but there was nothing honorable about what they were doing. Call it a necessary evil if you must, but to call what they were doing honorable is to render the word meaningless.
That's your view and you're entitled to it. I consider the fact that after 9/11 President Bush did all within his power to protect the American people from further harm and succeeded in doing so without further incident to be entirely honorable. The man was truly struck by the loses on that day and the devastation brought to so many families and I'm sure he never wished to experience that again, at least not on his watch.
Good lord, what an embarrassing post. In response to 9/11, Bush burned down a nation that was not responsible for 9/11, making extremism exponentially worse in that region and ultimately making America less safe.
That's your view and you're entitled to it. I consider the fact that after 9/11 President Bush did all within his power to protect the American people from further harm and succeeded in doing so without further incident to be entirely honorable. The man was truly struck by the loses on that day and the devastation brought to so many families and I'm sure he never wished to experience that again, at least not on his watch. I consider it far more honorable than leaving four American patriots to die in Benghazi and then the President and the Secretary of State being unable to look a grieving mother in the face and answer her questions about why. But we all have our own personal views on the character, integrity, decency and honour of people we see acting and reacting in public.
No, Bush listened to the wrong people. It's too bad that he waited until almost the end of his second term before kicking the Neocons to the curb. Bush was actually pretty decent before he bought into the Neocon BS lies.
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.
Honorable? He ordered the CIA to spy on the Quakers, for Christ sake.
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.
Why?
Is that more or less honorable than spying on every American under President Obama?
Why?
Is that more or less honorable than spying on every American under President Obama?
Obama is not an honorable man, but neither was Bush. You defending Bush by pointing the finger at another asswipe doesn't make Bush any less of an asswipe.