Obama releasing the CIA interogation memos

I hear your point, 03USMC. Yup, we absolutely had Arab allies with us in the First Gulf War, and I certainly should not have denigrated their actions in concert with the Allied Coalition.However, do you think they would have taken it upon themselves to liberate Kuwait had we not taken the lead? Just curious, but if Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE et al would have taken up arms independently to do so, I would have been glad to see it.

Also, the LAST thing I should do is lump all "Muslims" in the same category. There are good and decent Muslims fighting with us, the Coalition, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, also in Pakistan, even in the Phillippines, Indonesia, Djibouti, and several other countries. It gets really easy to lump everyone in the same category, and I was wrong to do so.

***Ted: Glad to be speaking to someone from Nederlands. I honestly think that the invasion of Iraq was based on good intentions, and good intel. Sadam Husayn was head of a terrorist state, with terrorist training camps and an intelligence and logistics network working in support of terrorist groups, as well as connections to Hezbollah and Hamas, also paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers in support of the attacks on our ally, Israel.

Additionally, there was definite intel, not only from US intelligence but from SEVERAL other nations' intelligence agencies, that he was working on a nuke program (which we DID locate 500 tons of yellowcake uranium stockpiled) and he had already demonstrated not only a chemical production capability but had also used chemical weapons against his OWN people. In addition, Sadam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire.

Also, I think that Iraq was seen as a bridgehead into the MidEast in support of the Afghan ops, and a jumping-off point for a planned attack on Iran and overthrow of the Iranian terrorist government. Unfortunately, the attack on Iran never came off because of undercutting of the war effort on the home front, and opposition from allies. Iran IS the nexus of international terror, make no bones about it. Additionally, the seizure of Iraq physically separated Iran and her little buddy, Assad, in Syria.I think the liberation of the Iraqi people was a GOOD thing, NOT because it was based on supporting my political party, because freeing oppressed people from evil, brutal dicators is the right thing to do. I thought it a terrible misstep stopping the First Gulf War without the capitulation of the Iraqi government, leaving the people of Iraq to suffer under Sadam's Ba'athist regime (modeled on Nazi Germany, by the way, same for the Syrian arm), and standing by while Sadam massacred the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs was a horrible thing to do.


Finally, on Obama, and his gutless yellow streak. Someone claimed they could find just as many vets to support Obama as oppose him: I would take that bet in a heartbeat. Most vets know a backstabbing political opportunist, and an avowed enemy of the US military, when they see one.
Obama is an America-hating Leftist who was raised by an America-hating hippie, taught in an America-hating madrassa in Indonesia, traveled to Pakistan at a time that ACTUAL American citizens could not. He pals around with scum like William Ayers (who ATTACKED US military assets in the United States along with his skank wife Bernardine Dohrn), sat in pews of an America-hating preacher named Jeremiah Wright, and studied at the knee of an avowed America-hating communist ("Uncle Frank" in his memoirs). Those are his anti-America/anti-West credentials.

So why the yellow streak? 1. Appoints Hillary Clinton as Sec of State in the midst of a war. 2. Appoints Leon Panetta, a man with NO intel background, as head of CIA. 3. IGNORES the advice of General David Petraeus (a stellar man accused by Hillary Clinton of LYING about the success of the Iraqi surge). 4. Stabs Israel in the back by stating publicly that he would not support our ally attacking Iran to remove an existential threat. 5. IMMEDIATELY begins dismantling the Anti-Ballistic Missile program, and abandons the Poles AND the Czech Republic, who WANT interceptors in their countries, in favor of KGB Putin's Russia (and Hillary hands the KGB-trained Russian foreign minister a toy button glommed from a Staples office products store marked "reset" in her mind but actually says something else). 6. Abandons the decades-long policy of isolation of the Communist dictatorship of Cuba, HUGS Hugo Chavez, and stabs our ally Colombia in the back by refusing to pass free trade to bolster that ally's economy). 7. Declares that he will launch attacks on our ALLY, Pakistan. 8. The ONLY government he slashes is what? THE DEFENSE BUDGET!!! He KILLS the F-22 Raptor, the new Destroyer class, seeks to slash additional carrier GROUPS from the fleet, the list goes on...and as you can see, so can I. Sorry to take up so much space.
 
Last edited:
-snip- the first rule of successful warfare, "NEVER underestimate your opponent"-

Indeed.

AFAIK the whole Vietnam debacle came from that (and the partisan "approved" success stories).

Frankly, I find it hard to discuss on that level.

Any opponent, if you are in a war alrite, *deserves* to be taken seriously. They do not have high tech? But they have the most intelligent bombs: Humans.

They do not have F-Wahtevers, and not sats? Well, the have truckloads of 155mms, local terrain on their side, talk the talk and are not afraid to use any of them virtues.

We are facing an enemy who knows about his strength and weaknesses as any military commander, and so far they are making quite well from a warfighter POV (and are about to be even winning the PR war). Those are military commanders, like it or not, studying carefully the rules, strats and tactics of 4th gen warfare, not dumbasses.

I challenge you (bropous) to test your ability as (just a Rgt) commander in a simulation (PM me for BLUE site and PW if you are interested), overview here: http://www.opcon.org/SadrCity/

While I cannot go on as BLUE cdr there due to time restraints, it will give you a slightly bit more realistic idea about the problems Coalition Forces are facing out there (and one of them being an attitude like the one you are displaying).

Warfare is warfare, and arrogance twrads enemy strats or tactics has not won one IIRC.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Bropous, what are you smoking? Seriously.
You understand nothing about the guys the West is fighting against - what their motivations and fears are...
You have no idea why these actions are a huge problem. We can no longer claim the higher moral ground regardless of whether or not what the enemy does is worse or not. There's an old Chinese story of two soldiers who fled upon contact with the enemy. The guy who ran back a mile made fun of the guy who ran back a mile and a half. Both cases are unacceptable.
Personally I think we should have dropped the whole higher moral ground crap to begin with. Not saying we should go around torturing people as a SOP on prisoner treatment but if certain events occur, the damage is certainly far less. It tires, bores and quite frankly pisses me off whenever the spokes people always show up talking about the "despicable" "cowardly" etc etc whatevers of what it is our enemies do.

Saddam was in violation of a lot of things but an imminent threat, he was not. A serious backer of international terrorism, not really. Active WMD program and posession of WMDs, apparently not. I think the enforcement of the no fly zones and the occasional bombing of targets in Iraq were doing its job.

Actually, Al Qaeda offered the Kuwaitis and Saudis their willingness to take on Saddam Hussein's army in the 1991 Gulf War. They were rejected in favor of the US led coalition. Had there been no US led coalition, an organized Arab response of some kind may have resulted. We can't really know what the outcome would have been but something may have just happened.

The attitudes and sympathies of the other Muslim peoples that you mentioned are complicated and mixed. They may not be a big fan of the Taliban or Al Qaeda but they're probably not going to shake your hand in a hurry either.
 
-snip-
Obama is an America-hating Leftist who was raised by an America-hating hippie, taught in an America-hating madrassa in Indonesia, traveled to Pakistan at a time that ACTUAL American citizens could not. He pals around with scum like William Ayers (who ATTACKED US military assets in the United States along with his skank wife Bernardine Dohrn), sat in pews of an America-hating preacher named Jeremiah Wright, and studied at the knee of an avowed America-hating communist ("Uncle Frank" in his memoirs).-snip-

Wow.

Sometimes you just gotta clap yourself on the shoulder for having bravely stood defending the right of anybody to utter a - whatever educated or not - opinion... and still being proud for that... (and I so far I have only felt necessary to use that line on our Neo-Nazis...) I am truly beginning to wonder if you would do me the same favour...?

Rattler
 
Last edited:
rattler: Thanks for the link. I'll certainly check it out, but my wargaming skills are a little better at the operational level instead of tactical. I'll give it a good go, though.

However, I'm not so clear on your "Sometimes you just gotta clap yourself on the back..." statement. Are you equating my views with Neo-Nazis or am I misunderstanding your point? I sincerely think I am missing your point, though, not being intentionally dense, and would like to understand what you mean.

I've certainly not taken ANY position that someone doesn't have a right to their opinion, nor to express it; doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor keep my trap shut about being in opposition, but I don't think THAT is what you meant, either. I am absolutely anti-Leftist (and, friend, Neo-Nazis, or even PAELO-Nazis, are LEFTISTS), and find everything about Obama's background completely opposed to every value I hold dear.

13th: Well, maybe they're not gonna shake our hand, fine. But Sadam WAS a threat, he was removed, and Iraq, the MidEast, and the world, are better off for it. Are we perfect and pure, motivated by the highest principles? Of course not, we're just as flawed as anyone else, but in the West, there are some huge differences: We support the concept of the individual BEFORE the collective, we (for the most part) tend to think you shouldn't get your head blown off your shoulders for disagreeing with the leadership or the majority, we tend to treat women on an equal footing as men, we try and provide a decent living infrastructure for our citizens, we try and avoid hopping off into the neighboring country to snag their assets, we try to bring up the standards of living of the poor, we tend to respect humanity and not just allow murderers to walk the streets snuffing anyone we want, etc.

As for understanding the motivations of the guys we are fighting, let's see if I have it right: They want to kill anyone who disagrees with them, they want to wage a religious war against the "infidel" (just like their religion tells them to do), they have no problem living in ratbag poverty and seeing their kids with no future whatsoever, they take advantage of the weak and only respect being faced down with strength, they hate pigs, they hate women, should I go on?

Heck, I know we're getting WAY off topic. As for "dropping the high moral ground crap", I agree with you, and I disagree with you. But the enemy we face DOES commit acts of cowardice that ARE despicable (Sadam's sons feeding eight year old kids into chipper shredders feet first, strapping suicide bomb vests on retarded kids and sending them into crowded marketplaces, parents cheering on their sons when they butcher innocent women and children, etc).

No, you do make good points. No enemy is monolithic, monochromatic, nor monomotivated. But there ARE some basic differences between "us" and "them", and even in their societies, there are a good number of decent folks who would just like to be able to speak their minds without being killed, not have some freak talking their kid into suicide bombing a pizza parlor, own a house or a business, and actually see their societies live in a pretty peaceful environment. I am hoping that a free Iraq will be a light to some other Arab nations, and honestly want Iraq to succeed, not because it would help Republicans, not because it would help America, not because it would help the West. I would like it to succed because I want to see Iraqis have a future.

I want a free Iraq to be the postwar Germany or Japan of the Middle East, and I think it has a good shot at becoming so.
 
Last edited:
13th: Well, maybe they're not gonna shake our hand, fine. But Sadam WAS a threat, he was removed, and Iraq, the MidEast, and the world, are better off for it. Are we perfect and pure, motivated by the highest principles? Of course not, we're just as flawed as anyone else, but in the West, there are some huge differences: We support the concept of the individual BEFORE the collective
Lie. We are a democracy. We support the majority's decision. It's one of the reasons I think there are a lot of problems with this country. We don't pay enough attention to the minority, because the majority is what counts.
we tend to treat women on an equal footing as men
Kinda sorta.....
As for understanding the motivations of the guys we are fighting, let's see if I have it right: They want to kill anyone who disagrees with them, they want to wage a religious war against the "infidel" (just like their religion tells them to do), they have no problem living in ratbag poverty and seeing their kids with no future whatsoever, they take advantage of the weak and only respect being faced down with strength, they hate pigs, they hate women, should I go on?
The saddest part is, that's not just the folks we're fighting... It's a lot of every day people over there too. They don't realize what life can be, so they choose to be resentful and bitter towards the West, who epitomizes modern extravagance. They don't want to better their lives (for the most part) they just want to watch the world burn.
Heck, I know we're getting WAY off topic. As for "dropping the high moral ground crap", I agree with you, and I disagree with you. But the enemy we face DOES commit acts of cowardice that ARE despicable (Sadam's sons feeding eight year old kids into chipper shredders feet first, strapping suicide bomb vests on retarded kids and sending them into crowded marketplaces, parents cheering on their sons when they butcher innocent women and children, etc).
We've got the Israel logic going on here.... I'm going to spell this out for you as plain as I can... America is NOT innocent. We were FORMED as a nation by underhanded, guerilla tactics. We torture people, we commit crimes and then cover them up, etc. Yes, there are some severe problems with the way they live in the Middle East, but there are some pretty effed up people here too! I can give you all kinds of news articles about mothers drowning their children, grandmothers being shot by grandchildren, young men being killed simply for being in a different part of town... All of ours are not aggression towards other nations, but you get what I'm saying.
No, you do make good points. No enemy is monolithic, monochromatic, nor monomotivated. But there ARE some basic differences between "us" and "them", and even in their societies, there are a good number of decent folks who would just like to be able to speak their minds without being killed, not have some freak talking their kid into suicide bombing a pizza parlor, own a house or a business, and actually see their societies live in a pretty peaceful environment. I am hoping that a free Iraq will be a light to some other Arab nations, and honestly want Iraq to succeed, not because it would help Republicans, not because it would help America, not because it would help the West. I would like it to succed because I want to see Iraqis have a future.

I want a free Iraq to be the postwar Germany or Japan of the Middle East, and I think it has a good shot at becoming so.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You cannot help free a nation that doesn't want to be freed. There were plenty of people in Iraq who were just fine with the past regime, who didn't care what Sadaam did, because they didn't have to do anything for themselves. They didn't want to rock the boat, and it wasn't the United States' place to rock it for them.
 
Rob:

"Originally Posted by bropous
we tend to treat women on an equal footing as men
Kinda sorta....."

Exactly, Rob, why I said we TEND to. We ain't all the way there, yet, but we should be.

****

"We support the concept of the individual BEFORE the collective..."

"Lie. We are a democracy. We support the majority's decision. It's one of the reasons I think there are a lot of problems with this country. We don't pay enough attention to the minority, because the majority is what counts."

Incorrect. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, big difference, man. I would also strongly disagree that we don't pay enough attention to the minority, seems certain minorities are paid more attention to than they should be...

"The saddest part is, that's not just the folks we're fighting... It's a lot of every day people over there too. They don't realize what life can be, so they choose to be resentful and bitter towards the West, who epitomizes modern extravagance. They don't want to better their lives (for the most part) they just want to watch the world burn."

AGREED.

You and I will NEVER agree on Israel though, nor on the value of freeing the Iraqi people, man, we'll let that lie undisturbed.

You and I will agree on some things, Rob, and disagree vehemently on others, same as most folks here. But at least I won't be accusing someone of being a Nazi for their opinions, like some folks do.
 
Finally, on Obama, and his gutless yellow streak. Someone claimed they could find just as many vets to support Obama as oppose him: I would take that bet in a heartbeat. Most vets know a backstabbing political opportunist, and an avowed enemy of the US military, when they see one.
Obama is an America-hating Leftist who was raised by an America-hating hippie, taught in an America-hating madrassa in Indonesia, traveled to Pakistan at a time that ACTUAL American citizens could not. He pals around with scum like William Ayers (who ATTACKED US military assets in the United States along with his skank wife Bernardine Dohrn), sat in pews of an America-hating preacher named Jeremiah Wright, and studied at the knee of an avowed America-hating communist ("Uncle Frank" in his memoirs). Those are his anti-America/anti-West credentials.
I find it unbelievable that if even half of what you claim is correct that he won enough votes to score the highest post in the land. Obviously you must feel that the majority of Americans are complete and utter idiots??

Yeah, your reasoning reminds me of Johnny's Mum at his Passing out parade. "Oh look out of 2000 men our Johnny is the only one in step"

I believe that it has been said in the world wide media that Obama has dealt with more problems in his first 100 days than any President since Roosevelt.... Not a bad start for a rabid, Muslim inspired, anti-American hippie.

C'mon you're talking to adults here.
 
Incorrect. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, big difference, man. I would also strongly disagree that we don't pay enough attention to the minority, seems certain minorities are paid more attention to than they should be...
Yes, there is a difference, but the fact still remains that we hold the majority to be the "winner" in all fields. In a class vote to move a final a day earlier, the majority won, even though I would have appreciated the extra time to study, those who wanted to get it over with won out. My point being that from the Oval Office down to Montevallo, Alabama, the majority is what we base our government on. NOT the individual.

You say we pay too much attention to some minorities... Like who?

"The saddest part is, that's not just the folks we're fighting... It's a lot of every day people over there too. They don't realize what life can be, so they choose to be resentful and bitter towards the West, who epitomizes modern extravagance. They don't want to better their lives (for the most part) they just want to watch the world burn."

AGREED.
So if you agree with that, then why do you so vehemently defend the rash decision to invade Iraq? The sole reason we were given to justify the United States' invasion was because Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using those weapons. That turned out to be a lie, and all we did was open up the biggest can of worms since letting Hitler get away with the things he did. We should not have invaded Iraq. In Iraq, we aren't fighting terrorists... What I mean is that we aren't fighting those who attacked the United States. In Iraq, we are simply fighting those who hate the West... And will ALWAYS hate the West... It's an impossible war to win.

You and I will NEVER agree on Israel though, nor on the value of freeing the Iraqi people, man, we'll let that lie undisturbed.
Clearly... I mean, I agree that the Iraqi people living a free life and understanding what a modern life is like would be great, but they simply don't WANT to live that way... They don't have the motivation to get off their butts and do something about it. They're perfectly content with having it handed to them by the United States, but they won't do it on their own, and the US can't afford a permanent military presence in Iraq.
 
"Yes, there is a difference, but the fact still remains that we hold the majority to be the "winner" in all fields."

Well, true, but the majority doesn't gain the right to silence the individual, they get to make the decision if they are the majority. Obama will slash the defense budget because he got the majority, doesn't mean I don't get to slam the guy for doing so (until Janet Napolitano's thugs find me on her list, ha!).

"In Iraq, we are simply fighting those who hate the West... And will ALWAYS hate the West... It's an impossible war to win."

Uh, Rob, in case you missed it: WE WON. IRAQ won. They have a stable, constitutional government elected by the people. Their death rates have been lower than some US cities. The War in Iraq was won, by the Iraqis and by the Coalition. Iraq is Free.

Rob, you're oversimplifying on several levels. You know as well as I do that the Iraq War was NOT only about WMDs, but Husayn DID have them, 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was not there for chemotherapy. You are right, there were plenty of folks in Iraq we were fighting who hate(d) the West, but there are plenty of folks in Iraq who are HAPPY they are living in a free country now. Is it perfect? Hell, no. Would I want to live there? Hell, no. Are the Iraqi people better off not under the Ba'athist regime? Hell, YES.

"..I agree that the Iraqi people living a free life and understanding what a modern life is like would be great [of COURSE you do, you're a decent guy], but they simply don't WANT to live that way [I'd say their elections and the development of the Iraqi Army proves otherwise]... They don't have the motivation to get off their butts and do something about it [see above]. They're perfectly content with having it handed to them by the United States [just like a lot of folks here in America who would prefer having Mommy Gummint handing them a living instead of getting off THEIR asses, people are people, man, good and bad in EVERY society], but they won't do it on their own [they have no choice, now], and the US can't afford a permanent military presence in Iraq [of COURSE we can].

Hell, I'd argue we can't afford NOT to have a permanent military presence in Iraq, and the Iraqis would prefer us to have permanent bases there just like we have STILL in Germany and Japan, and for the same reasons. An additional American base in the region is a stabilizing force, Rob.

[I PROMISE no more off-topic statements. I'll try to find an Iraq War thread to revive, sorry for wandering off into the weeds, even though the topics are interrelated.]:hide:
 
BACK to the original intent of the thread, my apologies to the original poster:

1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.

2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.

3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.

4. The previous administration was within the constraints of constitutional duties to request legal advice, and that advice was requested and given in performance of official duties constitutionally assigned to the Executive Branch.

5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.

7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.

8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.

9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.

10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.

BAD idea.:box:
 
BACK to the original intent of the thread, my apologies to the original poster:

1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.
What WOULD you define as torture?
2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.
And it also proved that the United States is big enough to admit when it was wrong.
3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.
Didn't catch that one on barackobamawatch... Wanna give us some sources for that?
5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.
Again... Sources?

BTW, "Nancy Pelosi is a liar." Isn't exactly a rock-solid argument.
6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.
The only solid thing the US could have released was the methods used. No one has any way of knowing whether or not the statements were true and therefore should NOT be released as such. If I'm about to drown someone, they'll tell me what I want to hear. Human nature and such.
7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.
If a previous executive branch committed a crime, that branch deserves to be prosecuted for that crime. No one is above the law.
8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.
All torturing does is harden the resolve of those terrorists we haven't caught yet. What happens when we see a reporter get their head cut off? We want to kill the people responsible, right? So why should Al Queda be any different? Like I said before, the information given by the subjects of the torture could be completely false... If you were pretending to drown me (and some people HAVE drowned from it, which completely dismantles the "no physical harm induced" argument) then I'm going to tell you whatever I can to get you to stop drowning me.
9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.
Sources... I know of only a handful of top brass who everyone already knew anyway.
10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.
Let the records show that the majority of Americans do NOT believe torture should be used in interrogations. There's that majority thing again.... It's a b*tch, ain't it?
 
"What WOULD you define as torture?"
Lasting physical damage. To paraphrase the lovely, brilliant Ann Coulter: "Tourture? Hah! They do that stuff to each other on First Dates!"

"And it also proved that the United States is big enough to admit when it was wrong."
No, proves that the Obama Administration is engaged in a Soviet-style pogrom, criminalizing policy differences.

As for your request for sources, too numerous to list. Google it yourself.

Torture is inflicting violent, lasting physical harm, Rob, not unlawful combatants getting their faces washed more than they ever have, or sleep deprivation, or having the Barney song played 24-7 while eating Fruit-Loops and hilal meals.
 
So even though the assistant to Colin Powell acknowledged that waterboarding is torture... You STILL don't think it is?

It's simply criminalizing that which should be criminal. Torturing someone is a crime. Not only in the US, but throughout the world.


This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine.

Colin Powell says you guys had a little accident while you were working out the whole waterboarding protocol.

Yeah. We were actually right here in this room when that happened. Dick is going over what we can and cannot do legally to prisoners. Rummy is asking if we can stick hot pokers in their ears. "That works," he says, "I've done it to my kids." Dick's like, "No, I don't think so, I think they'll get us for that. But we've got this thing the Army uses in training, they call it waterboarding, which will hold up in court." Dick explains that it was invented by the Spanish Inquisition, but it was also used a lot by the Khmer Rouge. Rummy's eyes light up: "Oh, the Khmer Rouge." He likes the Khmer Rouge, is always talking about their management model. I've never heard of it, so I say, "I want to see it. Can we see it?"

Dick shrugs. Just at that moment, one of our houseboys comes in bringing coffees and some Mylanta for Rummy on a silver tray. He's a Laotian kid named Manny, nice boy, has a lazy eye, a stutter and a big mole on his neck. Apparently some guys at State took him in after one of his family's oxen stepped on an old land mine and blew up his mom and two of his sisters in the bush somewhere. I make sure to give him five dollars every Christmas because of that. So Rummy says, "Hey, Manny, can you do me a favor? Can you lie on this table?" And Manny is like, "Y-y-y-yes, Secretary R-r-r-rumsfeld."

So we put him on the table and Dick holds a napkin over his eyes and then starts pouring big gulps of ice water out of a pitcher into his nose and mouth. "C-c-c-can't b-b-b-reathe!" Manny gasps, and Dick is like, "We know, Manny, that's why we're doing this. Just relax." Next, Don starts pouring hot coffee in his ears and eyes, and Manny screams, at which point Dick says, "No, Don, it's not about temperature or burning, it's all about drowning." Rummy nods, and we go back to pouring the water up his nose. Manny is kicking and screaming, and Dick finally starts getting mad. "You're making a lot of noise, Manny. You're going to have to calm down."

But Manny is still screaming and Rummy is shaking his head, like he's not sure it's really working. "I still say it would work better if you could apply some heat," he says. "Here, try this." So he takes out his lighter and uses it to set Manny's ears on fire. "There, look at that," he says. Manny is really flailing around now, and Don looks totally engaged in the process.

"Mmm," Dick says. "I just don't think the law is going to let us do that." So they launch into an argument about it, and after a while we realize that Manny isn't moving anymore. There's a little streak of vomit coming out of his mouth and his little eyes have stopped blinking. Basically, he died. We had to get a new houseboy. One good thing about that is we made the decision not to set people's ears on fire.

Now, what I don't understand is that if someone died from this, how is it NOT illegal?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/25329027/page/4

I asked you for sources to support your claim. Please do so. It's a forum rule.
 
So even though the assistant to Colin Powell acknowledged that waterboarding is torture... You STILL don't think it is?

It's simply criminalizing that which should be criminal. Torturing someone is a crime. Not only in the US, but throughout the world.


This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine.

Colin Powell says you guys had a little accident while you were working out the whole waterboarding protocol.

Yeah. We were actually right here in this room when that happened. Dick is going over what we can and cannot do legally to prisoners. Rummy is asking if we can stick hot pokers in their ears. "That works," he says, "I've done it to my kids." Dick's like, "No, I don't think so, I think they'll get us for that. But we've got this thing the Army uses in training, they call it waterboarding, which will hold up in court." Dick explains that it was invented by the Spanish Inquisition, but it was also used a lot by the Khmer Rouge. Rummy's eyes light up: "Oh, the Khmer Rouge." He likes the Khmer Rouge, is always talking about their management model. I've never heard of it, so I say, "I want to see it. Can we see it?"

Dick shrugs. Just at that moment, one of our houseboys comes in bringing coffees and some Mylanta for Rummy on a silver tray. He's a Laotian kid named Manny, nice boy, has a lazy eye, a stutter and a big mole on his neck. Apparently some guys at State took him in after one of his family's oxen stepped on an old land mine and blew up his mom and two of his sisters in the bush somewhere. I make sure to give him five dollars every Christmas because of that. So Rummy says, "Hey, Manny, can you do me a favor? Can you lie on this table?" And Manny is like, "Y-y-y-yes, Secretary R-r-r-rumsfeld."

So we put him on the table and Dick holds a napkin over his eyes and then starts pouring big gulps of ice water out of a pitcher into his nose and mouth. "C-c-c-can't b-b-b-reathe!" Manny gasps, and Dick is like, "We know, Manny, that's why we're doing this. Just relax." Next, Don starts pouring hot coffee in his ears and eyes, and Manny screams, at which point Dick says, "No, Don, it's not about temperature or burning, it's all about drowning." Rummy nods, and we go back to pouring the water up his nose. Manny is kicking and screaming, and Dick finally starts getting mad. "You're making a lot of noise, Manny. You're going to have to calm down."

But Manny is still screaming and Rummy is shaking his head, like he's not sure it's really working. "I still say it would work better if you could apply some heat," he says. "Here, try this." So he takes out his lighter and uses it to set Manny's ears on fire. "There, look at that," he says. Manny is really flailing around now, and Don looks totally engaged in the process.

"Mmm," Dick says. "I just don't think the law is going to let us do that." So they launch into an argument about it, and after a while we realize that Manny isn't moving anymore. There's a little streak of vomit coming out of his mouth and his little eyes have stopped blinking. Basically, he died. We had to get a new houseboy. One good thing about that is we made the decision not to set people's ears on fire.

Now, what I don't understand is that if someone died from this, how is it NOT illegal?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/25329027/page/4

I asked you for sources to support your claim. Please do so. It's a forum rule.

"This is an interview that Former President George W. Bush gave with the Rolling Stone Magazine." quote Rob Henderson

No Rob it is not.

Might suggest using a source other than a tongue in cheek fantasy and maybe at least read the Title of the interview.
Rollingstone article title:

"Bush Apologizes: The Farewell Interview We Wish He'd Give."



A fictitious article should not count for much as a source.

Most people can find sources supporting their arguements, but presenting complete fantasy as fact is very strange.

Note: Sorry Rob this was just to funny to pass up.
 
Last edited:
Okay, okay. You caught me. *rolls eyes* It was a joke....


Whoever thought that Bush will apologize has been living in lalala land for the last 8 years. He has never back down or thought he was wrong about anything he did or said. And he will die thinking that he did a hell of a job with the cards that he got dealt.
Also watch out on April Fool’s Day. If you thought this was true, you are in danger!!!


This guy sums it up for me pretty nicely.


The point was that water boarding is dangerous... People CAN die from it. The scariest part about it is that you don't know. You don't know how much water they've inhaled and how much they've coughed up... You don't know when to stop.
 
Last edited:
1. I do not think that US personnel engaged in actual torture as I would define it, and think this memo proves that point.
So correct me if I'm wrong, this is not torture?
http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/abuse_of_iraqis/abughraib2dog.jpg

2. Releasing the memo was an irresponsible declassification of methods and sources.
Releasing the memo cleared up what we all knew anyway. Plus, it proves we have nothing to hide if we don't torture, like you said.

3. Now, US personnel involved have been identified, by name, and are subject to retaliation.
From who? Most people on this planet know how orders are given and what the consequences are for not following them.

4. The previous administration was within the constraints of constitutional duties to request legal advice, and that advice was requested and given in performance of official duties constitutionally assigned to the Executive Branch.
So then they have nothing to hide. Release the documents and people will understand such.

5. Congress was FULLY briefed on the full scope of these interrogation methods and that they were to be used on prisoners in US custody, and Nancy Pelosi is a liar.
And George Bush is an idiot for changing our previously successful methods in the first place, but why point fingers?

6. Releasing these memos, and NOT releasing the results yielded by these interrogations as requested by former Vice-President Richard Cheney is irresponsible, and a politically motivated hit by the current occupant of the White House upon the previous administration, violating a compact that has existed in our legitimate transfer of government from administration to administration.
The results can't be released because THAT is classified information that may be vital to our war plan. How we get them is not vital. And there is no proof that this his is politically motivated, other than the words out of your mouth.


7. Releasing these memos is an attempt to criminalize policy differences, another breach of the standards of legal transfer of power between elected executives.
It's not an attempt to criminalize policy differences if the last policy actually committed crimes. And wouldn't this place the government above the law?

8. ANY legal action against ANY former administration official who was acting in constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foreign terrorist attack (completed AND attempted) is nothing more than Soviet-era "show-trial" tactics and anathema to US tradition and the legitimate electoral process.
And your comments are nothing more than the traditional US side Soviet-era "scare tactics" to denounce all that you don't agree with as traitors and commies. Does the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death" have no meaning to you? Anyone who is violating my privacy to better protect me can go to h*ll, for all I care. Obama is trying to determine if our attempts to save America violated the very rights we were trying so hard to protect.

9. Releasing the names of individuals involved in the deliberative process, from the legal to the administrative to the execution of legal orders from the national command structure, will cause others acting in official capacity to be reticent to carry out orders and will cause "overlegalization" of national security decision-making and activities, covert and overt.
The government is not above the law. That's called a dictatorship, we don't have those here. Do remember that the Final Solution was completely legal too.

10. Criminalizing the delivery of legal decisions to the executive branch, and the legal execution of executive branch orders supported by Congress simply because a new administration disagrees with the previous administration's policies will cause qualified individuals to avoid becoming involved in government service.

BAD idea.:box:
Yeah, how dare Boris Yeltsin release Soviet memos after the government change in 1991 just because he didn't agree with what they said! [/sarcasm] A human rights violation is a human rights violation, no matter who is in charge.


And I have lived through eight years of being called everything from a terrorist to a wuss to a commie for deriding the last administration. However, in that time I NEVER called Former President Bush a coward. Ever. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say such about President Obama. I respect free speech, but show the man a little respect; he IS the President, after all.
 
Okay, okay. You caught me. *rolls eyes* It was a joke....


Whoever thought that Bush will apologize has been living in lalala land for the last 8 years. He has never back down or thought he was wrong about anything he did or said. And he will die thinking that he did a hell of a job with the cards that he got dealt.
Also watch out on April Fool’s Day. If you thought this was true, you are in danger!!!

Yeah, right Rob. It is obvious from your post that you bought the article "hook, line, and sinker.":lol:

Here is a source that is as close as we may ever get to a unbiased review about releasing the memos.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103177115

It also has all 4 memos available if anyone actually wanted to know what was in them.

Here is a short section of the article in the link I supplied, talking about the ramifications of the memos release,

"In the past few weeks, top current and former CIA officials had pushed to keep the memos secret. After the Obama administration declassified the documents Thursday, former CIA Director Michael Hayden told The Associated Press that the United States is less safe now. He said agents will be more timid and foreign allies will be less likely to cooperate with American intelligence officials because "they can't keep anything secret."

Some human rights groups criticized the decision not to prosecute people for these actions. Amnesty International called it a "get out of jail free card" for people who committed torture. But Obama said in a statement, "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Releasing the memos could very well cause problems for President Obama's administration for years to come. We will probably get to see any bad decisions President Obama makes revealed by the next administration. Great for forums, but not so good for the government to be micromanaged after the fact.

I would think that government officials will now be looking over their shouders to see who is going to second guess them. Maybe causing the economy to recover, on the volume of lawyers government officials will be hiring to protect their @sses.:-P
 
Uh, Rob, in case you missed it: WE WON. IRAQ won. They have a stable, constitutional government elected by the people. Their death rates have been lower than some US cities. The War in Iraq was won, by the Iraqis and by the Coalition. Iraq is Free.
We Won??? ... I dunno what war in Iraq you are talking about, You talk as if it were over, as yet we haven't won anything., and we don't even have the place under control let alone pacified.

(1). We were duped into believing lies that Saddam had WMD,... Wrong!!!
(2). It has claimed the lives of far more young Americans than 9/11, who essentially died to satisfy the Neo Cons desires to keep GWB in office,
(3). It has also cost US taxpayers Trillions of dollars

If that's winning, I'd hate to see what losing is like, short of nuclear annihilation.
Rob, you're oversimplifying on several levels. You know as well as I do that the Iraq War was NOT only about WMDs, but Husayn DID have them, 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was not there for chemotherapy.
Show me where it is illegal to own Yellowcake, Australia is swimming in the stuff. We prolly vacuum that much off our mill floors in 12 months. I hope you don't have any ideas of liberating us.
You are right, there were plenty of folks in Iraq we were fighting who hate(d) the West, but there are plenty of folks in Iraq who are HAPPY they are living in a free country now.
Free eh??? So theoretically if Australia invaded the US because we have told our population that Obama is cornering the world dill pickle market and in defeating you, we killed tens of thousands of your citizens, wrecked 99% of the country's infrastructure and reduced your country to an economic and political basket case, it would be justifiable because there would be a percentage of the population that would be happy we have got rid of Obama?

Where do you read all this rubbish, or is it all your own work?

Is it perfect? Hell, no. Would I want to live there? Hell, no. Are the Iraqi people better off not under the Ba'athist regime? Hell, YES.
Not if you ask the Baathists, who incidentally were a legitimate party in their own country just as in many other one party states, which the US has not invaded. Yeah,... we don't like it, but you've got to realise that it's not our country. we had no right to interfere in their own internal affairs.

Hell, I'd argue we can't afford NOT to have a permanent military presence in Iraq, and the Iraqis would prefer us to have permanent bases there just like we have STILL in Germany and Japan, and for the same reasons. An additional American base in the region is a stabilizing force, Rob.
So next week the US will be installing a few more stabilising forces in places like Somalia and North Korea???

Obviously you believe your own propaganda.

t.I would think that government officials will now be looking over their shouders to see who is going to second guess them. Maybe causing the economy to recover, on the volume of lawyers government officials will be hiring to protect their @sses.:-P
Yeah, it might even stop some government agencies from thinking they can get away with committing war crimes. That would be a great pity wouldn't it.

That's why we never bothered to convict any Nazi war criminals, it would have made the Nazi party look bad.

Short memories, eh?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top