Thank God for Waterboarding

[SoonerNate]

Without it and other enhanced interrogation tactics Osama Bin Laden would still be alive. Obama and the other leftists owe the Bush administration an apology for thumbing their noses where they didn't belong.

[SoonerNate]

This man deserves the award and all the credit

http://www.topnews.in/files/dick-cheney.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

Don't ya know??? Obama deserves all the credit!!

[lexsooner]

Without it and other enhanced interrogation tactics Osama Bin Laden would still be alive. Obama and the other leftists owe the Bush administration an apology for thumbing their noses where they didn't belong.

You owe all Americans an apology for your petty politicizing of a great American victory. It's a shame you hate your President and love your political party more than you love this country. God Bless America!

[Fraggle145]

You owe all Americans an apology for your petty politicizing of a great American victory. It's a shame you hate your President and love your political party more than you love this country. God Bless America!

Nate is a moron. He could **** up a wet dream.

[The Profit]

This man deserves the award and all the credit

http://www.topnews.in/files/dick-cheney.jpg





That should be a mug shot and his azz should be in a federal penitentiary.

[sappstuf]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/vindication.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

and, the investigations by Obear and Eric(the Red)Holder continue against those who helped locate Bin Laden

[delhalew]

We will ensure the intelligence officers who aided in the killing of UBL are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They will not get away with this under Holder's watch.

[REDREX]

We will ensure the intelligence officers who aided in the killing of UBL are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They will not get away with this under Holder's watch.----The SEALS had no intention of taking him alive---Barack had no place to put him----I have no problem with the outcome but don't think that the orders were not shoot to kill

[A Sooner in Texas]

This thread = :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

This thread = :rolleyes:

Yea well in Chucks words yer just an old Poopy Head.:P

[soonercruiser]

You owe all Americans an apology for your petty politicizing of a great American victory. It's a shame you hate your President and love your political party more than you love this country. God Bless America!

Lex,
Tell that to all the LWers that still diss GW, and do give Obama all the credit!

[soonerloyal]

Yeah, never mind that even Rumsfeld admitted the intel didn't come from torture.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dona...mo_code=C30F-1
But then again, it's not like that whole tirade bothered with facts or truth. Besides - Intel experts readily state that torture doesn't extract reliable information; it's simply a mind & body fu** to the enemy.

It's the height of hypocrisy, this attitude that torture's fine because America's doing it. Bull****. It would be those asses first out of the Barcalounger screaming for intervention and charges of crimes against humanity if our troops were captured & tortured.

God, y'all are gonna choke on sour grapes. It's quite unattractive & pathetic.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yeah, never mind that even Cheney admitted the intel didn't come from torture.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dona...mo_code=C30F-1
But then again, it's not like that whole tirade bothered with facts or truth. Besides - Intel experts readily state that torture doesn't extract reliable information; it's simply a mind & body fu** to the enemy.

It's the height of hypocrasy, this attitude that torture's fine because America's doing it. Bull****. It would be those asses first out of the Barcalounger screaming for intervention and charges of crimes against humanity if our troops were captured & tortured.

God, y'all are gonna choke on sour grapes. It's quite unattractive & pathetic.Whatever, burnt out hippy...

[soonerloyal]

I don't need to smoke weed or wear Birkenstocks (and don't) to be intelligent & informed. I'm the mom of two Marines who by the way are smart as whips & will tell you the same thing, baby boy. You poor little thing, didn't your mommy teach you better?

Make sure those grapes are seedless. The bitter juice will go down easier if you don't have something sticking in your throat.

[TIMB0B]

Well, I preferred Ron Paul's proposal back in 2002 from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. "A Letter of Marque and Reprisal," which is specifically in the Constitution for situations like this where we're not fighting a government, but a faction. What Dr. Paul proposed was a task force to go in and get OBL, similar to what obama just order.

However, it wouldn't have taken us 10 years, killed 6,000 of our troops (twice as many people lost on 9/11), and over a trillion dollars (not to mention fighting in 2 wars with no exit strategy). But that's just me.

:pop:

[Turd_Ferguson]

I don't need to smoke weed or wear Birkenstocks (and don't) to be intelligent & informed. I'm the mom of two Marines who by the way are smart as whips & will tell you the same thing, baby boy. You poor little thing, didn't your mommy teach you better?

Make sure those grapes are seedless. The bitter juice will go down easier if you don't have something sticking in your throat.God bless your son's. Thank them for there service please.

[olevetonahill]

Personally I dont care who was in the WH or when. Nor do I care about some rag head gettin waterboarded. Did it save American Lives? Then Its all good,

[lexsooner]

Lex,
Tell that to all the LWers that still diss GW, and do give Obama all the credit!

The reality (something you don't seem to live in) is the people I have seen who have politicized it are some SO posters and a few of my Facebook friends who are right wingers whose first reaction to the OBL killing was to declare that Obama should not get credit, NOT that we got Bin Laden and yea for America, which was the normal reaction from a typical patriotic American. From what I have seen, the President and other government officials and the media and yes, even the right wing pundits, have been generally fair in spreading the credit among both administrations, the intelligence community, and the military. With this being said, it seems some of those who have politicized the matter are swinging at imaginary ghosts and trying to create an issue of something which does not exist. I really would appreciate it if those folks could say we got him and God Bless America instead of staining this American victory by making some brainless political commentary.

[olevetonahill]

Lex I dint **** my pants with Joy when we got Saddam I dint **** my pants with joy when we got Osama .
I just said Thank God

[Turd_Ferguson]

Lex I dint **** my pants with Joy when we got Saddam I dint **** my pants with joy when we got Osama .
I just said Thank GodOV only ****'s his paints when he's asleep.:D

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Actually Rumsfield said that "the military" never got intelligence from water boarding because the military never water boarded anyone. The CIA on 3 occasions did use the technique but the military has never used it. Great job by taking Rumsfield out of context by the way. The fact of the matter I don't care who killed Bin Laden's Coca-Cola and Pepsi drinking, Nestle eating ***. I am just glad the military got the job done.

[diverdog]

Here are some facts that seem to be missing:

1. No single terrorist gave factual information during waterboarding. To say so is a distortion of the truth.

2. There could be a reasonable argument made that enhance interrogation techniques put "some" AQ terrorist in a more cooperative state under normal interrogation. This has been widely publicized.

3. No one can make the argument that we would not have gotten OBL without waterboarding.

4. I have not heard one expert link KSM's interrogation to direct finding of OBL. He gave one very important piece of a million piece puzzle. OBL was found through old fashioned police and intelligence work. He was also found because we got damn lucky and intercepted a phone call by one of his bodyguards.

5. Anyone who has been through SERE or Survival school will tell you that torture does not break all men nor does it provide reliable intelligence. The NVA beat the chit out of one of our POW's trying to find out information about a carrier and when he told them that the area they were wanting knowledge about contained live pigs they stopped beating him. The moral of the story is the only way to get good intel is to follow ever single lead with more investigation and then more investigation until the facts fit. Torture does not give reliable information and at times works against you.

6. I am not against waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation technique. The question that I must ask is where does it stop? Who do you decide to torture and who do you not torture? How do you control it? As a country of laws do we really want to be known for torturing people? Isn't that what despots and dictators do? On the other hand if nothing else works what do you do then? It is easy to say that we should beat the crap out of some low life terrorist but what happens if the man is truly innocent? This is a huge moral question and it is one that we better be prepared to answer.

7. Obama gets the political credit for kill. End of story. He is the sitting President, he made the order to kill OBL and he deserves the credit. This was a gutsy call. Everything else is noise. That is the way politics works. If the mission had been FUBAR and ended like Desert One under Carter he would have been held responsible.

8. Americans know far to much about this mission and most military/intelligence activities. It would be far better for this nation if most of this stuff was carried off in secret.

God Bless the USA

[bigfatjerk]

I actually agree with every bit of that diver. Did we really know what we did with any of the Nazis of the past after we captured them?

I'm not sure torture is a good thing or if it ever works, or how often it works. We don't really have enough data there to really say. People saying it never works are just as stupid as people who say it always works. However your last quote is exactly right on. In the past we've had enemies be it the Nazi's, Commies, Japanese, I'm sure we've used so called enhanced interrogation on them too. I'm sure it's worked on some, hasn't worked on others. I'm not sure that means it's right. But we still don't really know if we even used those techniques for sure. That's the way enhanced interrogation should really be dealt with.

I'm not sure if the people would want to know how we get information like were bin Ladin was or KSM was or any of our other captures were. War is a dirty game though and I think we should be in it to win it any way possible. Nothing should be ruled out in war even torture. That's a big problem I've had with the Wars in the middle east though we've had no real goals in any of them and no way to really win both. When America enters a war it needs to have a goal and a way to win. If that's capturing bin Ladin and effectively destroying Al Queda we've basically done that over 10 years in Afghanistan. If that goal was toppling Sadaam we did that in Iraq a long time ago. We shouldn't be in either one anymore honestly. If we really want to go into Lybia to topple Ghadaffi, let's go ahead and send a full force and do it. I'm not pro war but evidently that's our stance. We need to go into these places accomplish whatever goals our government says they were supposed to do and get the hell out. Not spend a decade basically doing nothing in these places like we are Iraq and Afghanistan.

[diverdog]

I actually agree with every bit of that diver. Did we really know what we did with any of the Nazis of the past after we captured them?

I'm not sure torture is a good thing or if it ever works, or how often it works. We don't really have enough data there to really say. People saying it never works are just as stupid as people who say it always works. However your last quote is exactly right on. In the past we've had enemies be it the Nazi's, Commies, Japanese, I'm sure we've used so called enhanced interrogation on them too. I'm sure it's worked on some, hasn't worked on others. I'm not sure that means it's right. But we still don't really know if we even used those techniques for sure. That's the way enhanced interrogation should really be dealt with.

I'm not sure if the people would want to know how we get information like were bin Ladin was or KSM was or any of our other captures were. War is a dirty game though and I think we should be in it to win it any way possible. Nothing should be ruled out in war even torture. That's a big problem I've had with the Wars in the middle east though we've had no real goals in any of them and no way to really win both. When America enters a war it needs to have a goal and a way to win. If that's capturing bin Ladin and effectively destroying Al Queda we've basically done that over 10 years in Afghanistan. If that goal was toppling Sadaam we did that in Iraq a long time ago. We shouldn't be in either one anymore honestly. If we really want to go into Lybia to topple Ghadaffi, let's go ahead and send a full force and do it. I'm not pro war but evidently that's our stance. We need to go into these places accomplish whatever goals our government says they were supposed to do and get the hell out. Not spend a decade basically doing nothing in these places like we are Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it was Sherman who said “War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” I have often wondered if Sherman was right. Our method of fighting in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan called COIN or counterinsurgency does not seem to work and only makes the inevitable take longer. There are times that I think that we should just draft several million people and roll over Afghanistan and Pakistan and level the place. Then there are other times I wish we would get out altogether, seal our borders and point our nukes at the rest of the world and say "you want a piece of us? See what happens if you f*** with us." Like you I do not know what we should do and I have a fair idea that our government does not know either.

Sherman was a brillant man. Here are a couple of other quotes for you:

“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”

“In our Country . . . one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out.”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”

It would serve our nation well to listen to the words of one of our greatest Generals.

[bigfatjerk]

War should be treated more seriously than it is and we should have everything planned out. And this didn't start with just Afghanistan or Vietnam. We've basically been in Korea without a peace treaty of any kind for 60 years. There's not been a real war during that time. But we still have thousands of troops in South Korea 60 years later.

I think the best solution for Iraq and Afghanistan is just to declare victory in both and get out. Basically we did what we originally sought to do. Go after bin Ladin, weaken Al-Queda in the area in Afghanistan. Declare victory in Afghanistan. After we got Sadaam we should have just declared victory there and got the hell out instead of trying to nation build. I would have had no problem with the War in Iraq if we got the hell out of there in 2003 or whatever it was when we found Sadaam and made sure he was killed.

[delhalew]

Yeah, never mind that even Rumsfeld admitted the intel didn't come from torture.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dona...mo_code=C30F-1
But then again, it's not like that whole tirade bothered with facts or truth. Besides - Intel experts readily state that torture doesn't extract reliable information; it's simply a mind & body fu** to the enemy.

It's the height of hypocrasy, this attitude that torture's fine because America's doing it. Bull****. It would be those asses first out of the Barcalounger screaming for intervention and charges of crimes against humanity if our troops were captured & tortured.

God, y'all are gonna choke on sour grapes. It's quite unattractive & pathetic.

Not that I really care, but you aren't the only one to misunderstand that statement. He later corrected it.

[soonercruiser]

corrected myself...

[soonercruiser]

Here are some facts that seem to be missing:

1. No single terrorist gave factual information during waterboarding. To say so is a distortion of the truth.

2. There could be a reasonable argument made that enhance interrogation techniques put "some" AQ terrorist in a more cooperative state under normal interrogation. This has been widely publicized.

3. No one can make the argument that we would not have gotten OBL without waterboarding.

4. I have not heard one expert link KSM's interrogation to direct finding of OBL. He gave one very important piece of a million piece puzzle. OBL was found through old fashioned police and intelligence work. He was also found because we got damn lucky and intercepted a phone call by one of his bodyguards.

5. Anyone who has been through SERE or Survival school will tell you that torture does not break all men nor does it provide reliable intelligence. The NVA beat the chit out of one of our POW's trying to find out information about a carrier and when he told them that the area they were wanting knowledge about contained live pigs they stopped beating him. The moral of the story is the only way to get good intel is to follow ever single lead with more investigation and then more investigation until the facts fit. Torture does not give reliable information and at times works against you.

6. I am not against waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation technique. The question that I must ask is where does it stop? Who do you decide to torture and who do you not torture? How do you control it? As a country of laws do we really want to be known for torturing people? Isn't that what despots and dictators do? On the other hand if nothing else works what do you do then? It is easy to say that we should beat the crap out of some low life terrorist but what happens if the man is truly innocent? This is a huge moral question and it is one that we better be prepared to answer.

7. Obama gets the political credit for kill. End of story. He is the sitting President, he made the order to kill OBL and he deserves the credit. This was a gutsy call. Everything else is noise. That is the way politics works. If the mission had been FUBAR and ended like Desert One under Carter he would have been held responsible.

8. Americans know far to much about this mission and most military/intelligence activities. It would be far better for this nation if most of this stuff was carried off in secret.

God Bless the USA

Sorry DD!
#1 is simply inaccurate!
Wrong!

[bigfatjerk]

1. No single terrorist gave factual information during waterboarding. To say so is a distortion of the truth.

We simply don't have enough information, nor would we really want to know for a fact either way on this. I'm not saying torture is a good thing but we can't treat war like things are good or bad during war. There is no friendly way to go about war. You go to war to win it and get it done ASAP. And you try and kill the other guy as bad as you can and you beat the hell out of the other army. You don't make war friendly. I'm more of a pacifist and just believe all war should be wrong. Some of it is necessary, especially if we are attacked. But the more you put in for the rules of war, and the more that becomes wrong in war, the better war gets and the longer it lasts. I would rather not be in any wars and have all the technology to defend against others that wish to attack us, than to be at a constant state of irrelevant war.

[Fish&Game]

Sorry DD!
#1 is simply inaccurate!
Wrong!
I doubt anyone here has a clearance to know either way, and if they did have the clearance, they wouldn't be risking it by talking about this on a message board.

[delhalew]

Here are some facts that seem to be missing:

1. No single terrorist gave factual information during waterboarding. To say so is a distortion of the truth.

2. There could be a reasonable argument made that enhance interrogation techniques put "some" AQ terrorist in a more cooperative state under normal interrogation. This has been widely publicized.

3. No one can make the argument that we would not have gotten OBL without waterboarding.

4. I have not heard one expert link KSM's interrogation to direct finding of OBL. He gave one very important piece of a million piece puzzle. OBL was found through old fashioned police and intelligence work. He was also found because we got damn lucky and intercepted a phone call by one of his bodyguards.

5. Anyone who has been through SERE or Survival school will tell you that torture does not break all men nor does it provide reliable intelligence. The NVA beat the chit out of one of our POW's trying to find out information about a carrier and when he told them that the area they were wanting knowledge about contained live pigs they stopped beating him. The moral of the story is the only way to get good intel is to follow ever single lead with more investigation and then more investigation until the facts fit. Torture does not give reliable information and at times works against you.

6. I am not against waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation technique. The question that I must ask is where does it stop? Who do you decide to torture and who do you not torture? How do you control it? As a country of laws do we really want to be known for torturing people? Isn't that what despots and dictators do? On the other hand if nothing else works what do you do then? It is easy to say that we should beat the crap out of some low life terrorist but what happens if the man is truly innocent? This is a huge moral question and it is one that we better be prepared to answer.

7. Obama gets the political credit for kill. End of story. He is the sitting President, he made the order to kill OBL and he deserves the credit. This was a gutsy call. Everything else is noise. That is the way politics works. If the mission had been FUBAR and ended like Desert One under Carter he would have been held responsible.

8. Americans know far to much about this mission and most military/intelligence activities. It would be far better for this nation if most of this stuff was carried off in secret.

God Bless the USA

You know a lot. Dr. Rice, is that you?

[OhU1]

The reality (something you don't seem to live in) is the people I have seen who have politicized it are some SO posters and a few of my Facebook friends who are right wingers whose first reaction to the OBL killing was to declare that Obama should not get credit, NOT that we got Bin Laden and yea for America, which was the normal reaction from a typical patriotic American. From what I have seen, the President and other government officials and the media and yes, even the right wing pundits, have been generally fair in spreading the credit among both administrations, the intelligence community, and the military. With this being said, it seems some of those who have politicized the matter are swinging at imaginary ghosts and trying to create an issue of something which does not exist. I really would appreciate it if those folks could say we got him and God Bless America instead of staining this American victory by making some brainless political commentary.

^^^^^ This

[soonercruiser]

I doubt anyone here has a clearance to know either way, and if they did have the clearance, they wouldn't be risking it by talking about this on a message board.

Agre!
I am only going with the reports that I have read.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Yea well in Chucks words yer just an old Poopy Head.:P
Well, that's enlightening, Vet.

[olevetonahill]

Well, that's enlightening, Vet.

:D ;)

[delhalew]

Well, we KNOW that the SEALS who killed UBL were water boarded in training:D

[OhU1]

Well, we KNOW that the SEALS who killed UBL were water boarded in training:D

SEALS are badass, they have to be able to take it as well as dish it out! Too bad they couldn't have water boarded ole goat beard Bin Laden for ****s and giggles before they double tapped his psychopathic ***.

[sappstuf]

Both Presidents deserve credit..

It is funny that some of the things that Bush was criticized the most on, is what led to this victory. Pointing out those facts, apparently makes one political..


For the past two years, American spies had been monitoring the courier, known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, after learning his name four years ago, according to US officials.

When al-Kuwaiti made a phone call in 2010, he unknowingly led the Americans to the doorstep of the world's most wanted terrorist. He was said to have been among those killed alongside Osama bin Laden in yesterday’s dramatic raid.

“Al-Kuwaiti took detainee to a local internet cafe for his training. “Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti was a senior al-Qaeda facilitator and subordinate of [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]. Al-Kuwaiti worked in the al-Qaeda media house operated by [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] in Kandahar and served as a courier.”
The file suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA. Ghul was never sent to Guantanamo but was believed to have been taken to a prison in Pakistan.

He told the Americans that al-Kuwaiti travelled with bin Laden. The file states: “Al-Kuwaiti was seen in Tora Bora and it is possible al-Kuwaiti was one of the individuals [al-Qahtani] reported accompanying UBL in Tora Bora prior to UBL’s disappearance.”

[B]The picture that emerges from al-Qahtani’s Guantanamo file supports statements given in the last 24 hours by US officials, who named Ghul as the “linchpin” in the intelligence operation to find bin Laden.

The CIA gained crucial information confirming the role of al-Kuwaiti from two inmates at Guantanamo Bay – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi. Al-Libi’s file, dated 10 September 2008, also refers to his contact with bin Laden’s personal courier, although he gives another name.

In another remarkable twist, the very next sentence in the document includes a reference to al-Libi living in Abbottabad, the town where the al-Qaeda leader was finally found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8489866/WikiLeaks-Bin-Ladens-courier-trained-911-hijack-team.html

Admittedly I cut much out of this story to save space, but please follow the link and read the entire story. It is good.

So we have been watching the guy for 2 years.. Gotta say that was set up in during the Bush administration and then happened under Obama.

Al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul caught in Iraq in 2004. Biggest break happened under Bush. So apparently the Iraq war led to the biggest break to finding Osama even though that was not it's purpose.

Where was Ghul interrogated? Not in GITMO.. Nope. We don't know really where the CIA did it. I think this is where RENDITION and those "black sites" the left were going crazy about during the Bush administration comes in.. He took a lot of heat from the press. It obviously paid off big.

Now to KSM and GITMO. Many on the left are saying that KSM didn't answer anything under enhanced interrogation that led to Osama's death. That might be true in the strict interpretation. I will just give you the link and title of a Washington Post story from back in 2009, you can make your on conclusions on what happened after he was interrogated...


How a Detainee Became An Asset (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082803874_pf.html)

Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding

Now to JSOC the command that was responsible for the operation and killing Osama. This is how the left described JSOC back in early 2009..


"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

So special forces finding people on a list and executing them was bad under Bush, but good under Obama... Strange.. Almost, political....

I give Obama full credit for ordering the attack. A lot could have gone wrong and he would have paid the price for that, right or wrong.

As for some on the right trying to make it political, well.. I think it is clear that things have been political in regards to what it took to finally kill Osama. Killing Osama is what it finally took for Obama to visit Ground Zero.. In May... But as I have said before EVERYTHING Presidents to is political.

To recap, I give Bush credit for enhanced interrogation including waterboarding, GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan, rendition, "black sites", more funding for JSOC in killing Osama.

I give Obama full credit for pretty much doing everything Bush did(even thought he b!tched mightly about some of it) with the exception of enhanced interrogation, but Bush had already stopped that after 3 people, and then pulling the trigger when the time came.

Dr. Rice, actually summed it all up very well, I thought.


I’ve been in the White House, and I’ve seen a president make difficult decisions. And there were difficult decisions in this. What that – what President Obama has done, indeed it was a – it was a brave decision. Now it is absolutely the case that the United States of America has been fighting this war for at least ten years, and really a bit longer. And so this is a victory across presidencies. It’s a – it’s a victory for having learned more how to fight the counter terrorism fight. But there’s no doubt that as President Bush had to make some very, very hard calls that frankly helped to set this up, President Obama had to make some very difficult calls to bring it to conclusion.

[StoopTroup]

Agre!
I am only going with the reports that I have read.

Then how can you agree?

If you have the clearance to read the actual reports....you couldn't say anything here and if you read something....how do you know it was true if you don't have the clearance?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Who gives a ****, I really don't want to know what the CIA is doing to some foreign ****heads who want to kill us.

[StoopTroup]

Who gives a ****, I really don't want to know what the CIA is doing to some foreign ****heads who want to kill us.

But shouldn't we be giving these folks the same treatment they would give to us? It's appauling to think that we would Waterboard them when they would cut off our heads and parade them around on Al Jazerra for our children to watch. We are just terrible people GTG.

Check with Aldebaran and 2121.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3221862&postcount=128

People in our Country should be outraged by your statement.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154063&page=4

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I could give two ****s if people trying to kill Americans get their head cut off with a butter knife (Al-Qaeda style if you will) by the CIA. I really just don't want to know about it.

[yermom]

atrocities are only an outrage when perpetrated on Americans

[StoopTroup]

atrocities are only an outrage when perpetrated on Americans

Not all Americans....just the ones that didn't have it coming.

[bigfatjerk]

Who cares if both presidents deserve credit for Usama's death? The president in the grand scheme of things didn't really do that much compared to the Seals and our intellegece people. It's real sad it took 10 years to catch the guy when he was near the area where we almost got him 8 years ago or so.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Who cares if both presidents deserve credit for Usama's death? The president in the grand scheme of things didn't really do that much compared to the Seals and our intellegece people. It's real sad it took 10 years to catch the guy when he was near the area where we almost got him 8 years ago or so.

Barry gets credit for sending our troops into a country without it's permission or knowledge. That took balls!!! Personally, I didn't think he had it in him!

It doesn't matter how hard the Intelligence Community/Military work to gather information if Barry doesn't give the OK...it's all for not.

[bigfatjerk]

I think any president would be stupid to not do that if they had the information.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Jimmy Carter wouldn't have. He would have prayed and talked about how a peanut farmer can't violate international fly zone laws.

[diverdog]

Sorry DD!
#1 is simply inaccurate!
Wrong!

Cruiser:

The interrogators only ask questions that they know the answers to when they are waterboarding a subject. It isn't like the movies where they beat the crap out of a subject and the interrogator gets the information. How would you know what they gave you is accurate? Most people who are tortured will say anything to make it stop. Waterboarding, sleep depravation and other enhanced interrogation techniques are designed to make the individual more cooperative by breaking their spirit. As the Washington Post article stated in another post we will never know if this information would have been given under other interrogation techniques. And again I have not said I am against waterboarding but it is not the end all be all that you righties make it out to be. Nothing replaces good ole fashion intel and police work.

[diverdog]

Who cares if both presidents deserve credit for Usama's death? The president in the grand scheme of things didn't really do that much compared to the Seals and our intellegece people. It's real sad it took 10 years to catch the guy when he was near the area where we almost got him 8 years ago or so.

I think people seem to forget that Bush closed down the Bin Laden unit in the CIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

When Obama came to office he made finding Bin Laden a priority and told the CIA to redouble their efforts.

[SoonerNate]

What I find amusing is the same folks that want to try Cheney for war crimes because of enhanced interrogations are the same ones applauding shooting an unarmed man. So torture bad but murder is good?

I wish I could wrap my brain around the mentality of a liberal.

Edit: I take that back, I seek to remain sane instead.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Jimmy Carter wouldn't have. He would have prayed and talked about how a peanut farmer can't violate international fly zone laws.Yes. Not too sure whether Der Schlichmeister would have, either.

[sappstuf]

I think people seem to forget that Bush closed down the Bin Laden unit in the CIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

When Obama came to office he made finding Bin Laden a priority and told the CIA to redouble their efforts.

Not sure why you changed your link. The last paragraph of the original story is spot on.


If bin Laden and Zawahiri were killed today, it would be cause for celebration but probably have relatively minor effect. Our enemy is not a single man at this stage but a movement.

Do you disagree with this?

[SoonerBounce]

Yeah, never mind that even Rumsfeld admitted the intel didn't come from torture.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dona...mo_code=C30F-1
But then again, it's not like that whole tirade bothered with facts or truth. Besides - Intel experts readily state that torture doesn't extract reliable information; it's simply a mind & body fu** to the enemy.

It's the height of hypocrasy, this attitude that torture's fine because America's doing it. Bull****. It would be those asses first out of the Barcalounger screaming for intervention and charges of crimes against humanity if our troops were captured & tortured.

God, y'all are gonna choke on sour grapes. It's quite unattractive & pathetic.

didn't panetta admit that waterboarding worked?

[SoonerNate]

didn't panetta admit that waterboarding worked?

Yes. In combination with other techniques, yes. We waterboarded 3 folks. KSM was waterboarded 183 times.

[texaspokieokie]

Yes. In combination with other techniques, yes. We waterboarded 3 folks. KSM was waterboarded 183 times.

you'd think after 150 or so times, he'd figure what was going on.

[sappstuf]

Yes. In combination with other techniques, yes. We waterboarded 3 folks. KSM was waterboarded 183 times.

He had water poured on his face 183 times..

There was confusion between a "session" of waterboarding and the number of pours. The CIA was very attentive to the number of pour because they were required to.. Also, there was always a SERE doctor present who had previously supervised waterboarding when we were doing it to our own troops for training.

[texaspokieokie]

He had water poured on his face 183 times..

There was confusion between a "session" of waterboarding and the number of pours. The CIA was very attentive to the number of pour because they were required to.. Also, there was always a SERE doctor present who had previously supervised waterboarding when we were doing it to our own troops for training.

hope they also supplied soap.

[okie52]

He had water poured on his face 183 times..

There was confusion between a "session" of waterboarding and the number of pours. The CIA was very attentive to the number of pour because they were required to.. Also, there was always a SERE doctor present who had previously supervised waterboarding when we were doing it to our own troops for training.

So we are facing an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva convention...how many of our soldiers have ever been returned to us?

At the very best we might face a country that abides by the GC and we, likewise, do so. But if you are losing the war do you continue to abide by some ridiculous rules for war?

Sherman understood that war is ugly and to try to civilize it was pointless. In fact, his point was really that in war you do what it takes to win regardless of whatever political correctness you have to ignore.

I know you know that Sapp.....and thank for your service.

[SoonerNate]

So we are facing an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva convention...how many of our soldiers have ever been returned to us?

At the very best we might face a country that abides by the GC and we, likewise, do so. But if you are losing the war do you continue to abide by some ridiculous rules for war?

Sherman understood that war is ugly and to try to civilize it was pointless. In fact, his point was really that in war you do what it takes to win regardless of whatever political correctness you have to ignore.

I know you know that Sapp.....and thank for your service.

But, but, but... ;)

[bigfatjerk]

So we are facing an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva convention...how many of our soldiers have ever been returned to us?

At the very best we might face a country that abides by the GC and we, likewise, do so. But if you are losing the war do you continue to abide by some ridiculous rules for war?

Sherman understood that war is ugly and to try to civilize it was pointless. In fact, his point was really that in war you do what it takes to win regardless of whatever political correctness you have to ignore.

I know you know that Sapp.....and thank for your service.

This is exactly right. Saying torture is right is like saying war is right. And war is never right. But in war nothing is wrong. That's the only way you can make sure war doesn't really last that long.

[SoonerNate]

This is exactly right. Saying torture is right is like saying war is right. And war is never right. But in war nothing is wrong. That's the only way you can make sure war doesn't really last that long.

Yep and if we had the liberals back during WW II that we have today we would all be speaking German.

[yermom]

Yep and if we had the liberals back during WW II that we have today we would all be speaking German.

I'm pretty sure a liberal was running the show for WWII

And if we tortured prisoners, we were at least smart enough to not make it policy

[SoonerNate]

I'm pretty sure a liberal was running the show for WWII

And if we tortured prisoners, we were at least smart enough to not make it policy

A liberal would have never dropped the big one.

[diverdog]

Not sure why you changed your link. The last paragraph of the original story is spot on.



Do you disagree with this?

The link was to the comments section and not the article. That is why I changed it.

[diverdog]

A liberal would have never dropped the big one.

I am pretty sure Truman was considered a liberal during his day and many on this board would have considered him a liberal. Carter came within a hair of nuking the Soviets.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm pretty sure a liberal was running the show for WWII

Herbert Hoover and Franklin Rooosevelt gave us 17 yrs of depression and malaise, before WWII ended, and the economy started to rebound. Should we thank Hirohito and Hitler? Nah, at least Harry S. was a moderate. He was prolly the best Democrat of the 20th century.

[SoonerNate]

JFK would be considered far right these days.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

JFK would be considered far right these days.He was prolly the only other democrat last century that had some redeeming traits.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Just out of fairness. IF JFK and Truman are two of the few redeemable democrats...Then let's name two republicans with redeeming traits ;) If you notice the list is VERY short on both sides ;)

[olevetonahill]

I am pretty sure Truman was considered a liberal during his day and many on this board would have considered him a liberal. Carter came within a hair of nuking the Soviets.

Ima have to call BULLSHAT on this

Give some Proof.:rolleyes:

[sappstuf]

So we are facing an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva convention...how many of our soldiers have ever been returned to us?

At the very best we might face a country that abides by the GC and we, likewise, do so. But if you are losing the war do you continue to abide by some ridiculous rules for war?

Sherman understood that war is ugly and to try to civilize it was pointless. In fact, his point was really that in war you do what it takes to win regardless of whatever political correctness you have to ignore.

I know you know that Sapp.....and thank for your service.

Thanks Okie. As you know, I continue to stand by awaiting orders to occupy Amsterdam.. ;)

[CrimsonCream]

7. Obama gets the political credit for kill. End of story. He is the sitting President, he made the order to kill OBL and he deserves the credit. This was a gutsy call. Everything else is noise. That is the way politics works. If the mission had been FUBAR and ended like Desert One under Carter he would have been held responsible.

No.

Obama accepts no responsibility ever for any negative. Obama accepts the credit for everything positive. Such a scuz.

Isn't he still out on his "Victory Tour" even though he said he wasn't going to "spike the ball in the end zone?" He always says one thing and promptly does the opposite.

How come we don't hear about $4.00 gasoline? How come we don't hear about 9% unemployment? How come we don't hear about the $5 trillion increase in the Deficit?

Yeah, a man America can be proud of.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yeah, I remember Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagen, Carter, et al holding press conferences once a week to take blame for ****!! My favorite was when Bush held that press conference to talk about how responsible he was for the unemployment rate doubling under his watch!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS. IF JFK and Truman are two of the few redeemable democrats...Then let's name two republicans with redeeming traits ;) If you notice the list is VERY short on both sides ;)

What should we do, name people whether true or not, JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS?...

I don't know of any good traits of Herbert Hoover, and he was a republican.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I am saying I hate both parties. The Democrats spend money like a 12 year old girl with a Platinum Card. The Republicans spend money like a 12 year old boy with a platinum card. The Republicans are only fiscally responsible when they are the minority party who have no power

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am saying I hate both parties. The Democrats spend money like a 12 year old girl with a Platinum Card. The Republicans spend money like a 12 year old boy with a platinum card. The Republicans are only fiscally responsible when they are the minority party who have no powerThe R's in control of congress kept Clinton in line pretty well ie, you have fallen into the D trap that so many people are in."They're all bad, no different from each other"

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

No, R's in control under Clinton was because they basically wanted to block any type of Agenda of slick willie. So they cut spending. The R's are no worse or no better than the D's. They both are slowly screwing this country in beautiful concert together.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, R's in control under Clinton was because they basically wanted to block any type of Agenda of slick willie. So they cut spending. The R's are no worse or no better than the D's. They both are slowly screwing this country in beautiful concert together.So, you want third party, to split the republicans, and guarantee socialist(democrat) victory? Sounds like where you're going.

[SunnySooner]

GTG, I agree with a lot of ^^^this^^^, the reason I tend to vote GOP is because of military/national security issues. President Clinton's admin. was very harsh on the military in terms of $$$. I know this firsthand, and it has slanted my voting ever since.

Both Bush and Obama deserve credit for the kill, and I really don't see that as an area of much disagreement. Obama was quoted as saying the reason he decided to give the greenlight on UBL was because he had 100% confidence in the knowledge/skills/judgement/abilities of the SEAL team involved, and I'm glad that's where his head's at in matters such as these.

I guess my perspective as a Navy wife just makes me appreciate those SEALs so much. These are regular guys, highly trained, exceptional people, no doubt, but still just normal people with families who love them. I can only imagine what was going thru their minds as those helos buzzed toward the compound. I woulda been puking in my boots. Like I've said before, those guys and men like them are the reason I live in peace, and I'm so thankful they are willing to lay down their lives for me and that peace, no matter the politics.

[diverdog]

Ima have to call BULLSHAT on this

Give some Proof.:rolleyes:

The crisis under Carter was one of 16 known events that could have triggered a nuclear war.

Here is a brief background of the situation that caused the confrontation. It is not completely addressed in the article:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html

The Carter doctrine:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Carter_Doctrine

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/April%202010/0410keeper.aspx

When you get done reading this I will link more.

and totally unrelated but something that will keep people awake at night. A near nuclear disaster:


1979 Nov.9: Computer Exercise Tape.

At 8.50 a.m. on 9 November, 1979, duty officers at 4 command centres
(NORAD HQ, SAC Command Post, the Pentagon National Military Command
Center, and the Alternate National Military Command Center) all saw on
their displays a pattern showing a large number of Soviet missiles in a
full-scale attack on U.S.A. During the next 6 minutes emergency
preparations for retaliation were made. A number of Air Force planes
were launched, including the president's National Emergency Airborne
Command Post, though without the president! The president had not been
informed, perhaps because he could not be found.

No attempt was made to use the hot line either to ascertain the Soviet
intentions or to tell the Russians the reason for the U.S. actions.
This seems to me to have been culpable negligence. The whole purpose of
the "Hot Line" was to prevent exactly the type of disaster that was
threatening at that moment.

With commendable speed, NORAD was able to contact PAVE PAWS early
warning radar and learn that no missiles had been reported. Also, the
sensors on satellites were functioning that day and had detected no
missiles. In only 6 minutes the threat assessment conference was
terminated.

The reason for the false alarm was an exercise tape running on the
computer system. U.S. Senator Charles Percy happened to be in NORAD HQ
at the time and is reported to have said there was absolute panic. A
question was asked in Congress. The General Accounting Office conducted
an investigation, and an off-site testing facility was constructed so
that test tapes did not in future have to be run on a system that could
possibly be in military operation.

Jun.80: Faulty Computer Chip.

The warning displays at the Command Centers mentioned in the last
episode included windows that normally showed

0000 ICBMs detected 0000 SLBMs detected

At 2.25 a.m. on 3 June, 1979, these displays started showing various
numbers of missiles detected, represented by 2's in place of one or more
0's. Preparations for retaliation were instituted, including nuclear
bomber crews starting their engines, launch of Pacific Command's
Airborne Command Post, and readying of Minuteman missiles for launch. It
was not difficult to assess that this was a false alarm because the
patterns of numbers displayed were not rational.

While the cause of that false alarm was still being investigated 3 days
later, the same thing happened and again preparations were made for
retaliation.

The cause was a single faulty chip that was failing in random fashion.
The basic design of the system was faulty, allowing this single failure
to cause a deceptive display at several command posts.
=====================

This selection represents only a fraction of the false alarms that
have been reported on the American side. Many probably remain
unreported, or are hidden in records that remain classified. There are
likely to have been as many on the Soviet side which are even more
difficult to access.

The extreme boredom and isolation of missile launch crews on duty
must contribute to occasional bizarre behaviour. An example is reported
by Lloyd J.Dumas in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists vol.36, #9, p.15
(1980) quoting Air Force Magazine of 17 Nov.71. As a practical joke, a
silo crew recorded a launch message and played it when their relief came
on duty. The new crew heard with consternation what appeared to be a
valid launch message. They would not of course have been able to effect
an actual launch under normal conditions, without proper confirmation
from outside the silo.

[sappstuf]

DD,

I don't know if you saw this story in the NYTimes, but it spells out what the Obama administration would do in case OBL was captured alive..


In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: One to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=2&hp

Lawyers?? Are you ******* kidding me??

Remember when Eric Holder wouldn't answer the question on if OBL would get his Miranda Rights read to him when he was captured?

I guess we know the answer now.. Good grief.

[Skysooner]

Apparently McCain agrees that torture didn't do anything.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43007276/ns/politics-more_politics/

[yermom]

no wonder everyone hates Hanoi John now