Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, May 05, 2011

Intelligence garnered from detainees tortured with waterboarding was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Director Leon Panetta told NBC News. We had a multiple source -- a multiple series of sources -- that provided information with regards to the situation," Panetta said. "Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mysterytoy

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Please thank Bush and Chaney when you see them.

So if Obama had his way we might not have killed Osama. Oh me Oh My Oh.

So all you liberal ass fucks that were against water boarding can stop celebrating. Bitches.

This proves that Osama Bin Laden was killed by a Bush policy.

"During the House hearing, Lungren asked Holder if the mission against bin Laden would have been illegal"

See how these fuck heads operate....one minute praising the practice of waterboarding which is illegal under inernational law and the next asking if the actions against Bin Laded could be considered illegal. Partisan politics all the time. What our side does is good but if your side does it then it's illegal.

Once again, the usual drudge losers on the left are cleaning the egg off their faces.

So all you liberal ass fucks that were against water boarding can stop celebrating. Bitches.

#3 | Posted by mysterytoy

please be patient .. it will take a few moments for them acquire some 'spun' talking points to distort reality

How many people who you had no way of knowing whether or not they were guilty of anything is it ok to waterboard to get answers to questions you don't even know to ask? Water boarding fishing expeditions could have resulted in Osama's death, how many innocents were so tortured to arrive with that one and only positive result? How significant was a question made eight years ago anyway? I's sure there is a connection but then they say everyone is within seven connections to Kevin Bacon too.

Torture was used to gain the intelligence used to justify the invasion of iraq.

Pro toture-1

Anti Torture-4,452

re #3.. Ms Danni, ya only sound uninformed when you type .. otherwise 'you b cool'

CIA used waterboarding on 3 suspects .. in a dark cell, farrr away from USA
even Atty Gen Holder indicated that it worked pretty good

waterboarding wasnt the only torture conducted.

oops(#5), it sometimes take me 2 trys to type too

Once again, the usual drudge losers on the left are cleaning the egg off their faces.

Once again, the usual drudge dipshits are taking something non-concrete and turning it into absolute truth because it fits their narrative.

But, we're used to those people looking like dipshits, so you're right on par crispee.

There was way better torture used. Let's not discount the proven techniques of:

0.tqn.com

Psychological Torture:
The number one criterion for American torture is that it must leave no physical marks, and psychological torture certainly qualifies. Whether U.S. officials are threatening to execute a prisoner's family or just falsely claiming that the leader of his terror cell is dead, it's hard to imagine a form of torture that is more effective--or easier to get away with--than a steady diet of misinformation and threats.

Sensory Deprivation:
When you're locked up in a cell, it's already remarkably easy to lose track of time. Eliminate all noise and light sources--or, as was done to the Guantanamo prisoners at one point, simply bind, blindfold, and earmuff a prisoner into temporary oblivion--and life becomes a hellish, sanity-destroying experience. Whether prisoners subjected to long-term sensory deprivation can still tell fiction from reality is, of course, another question.

Starvation and Thirst:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs identifies basic physical needs as the most fundamental--more fundamental than religion, political ideology, or community. A prisoner who is being given enough (unpleasant) food and water to survive, but only just, can go as long as a week before looking physically thinner--but will soon find that his or her life revolves around the quest for food.

Sleep Deprivation:
Studies have shown that missing a night's sleep temporarily drains 10 points from a person's IQ. Consistent sleep deprivation, through harassment, exposure to bright lights, and exposure to loud, jarring music and recordings, can drastically impair judgment.

Waterboarding:
Water torture, one of the oldest and most common forms of torture, came to the United States with the first colonists and has cropped up many times since then. In the latest incarnation, waterboarding, a prisoner is strapped down to a board and then dunked in water until nearly drowned, then brought back, gasping, to the surface. The interrogator repeats the procedure until the desired result is obtained.

Forced Standing:
"I stand for 8-10 hours a day," Donald Rumsfeld wrote in a 2002 interrogation memo. "Why is standing limited to four hours?" Rumsfeld would probably feel a little differently about this if he had to stand in place for 8-10 hours, which can cause ankle swelling, bruising, and excruciating pain.

Palestinian Hanging (aka Palestinian Crucifixion):
This form of torture, referred to as "Palestinian hanging" due to its use by the Israeli government against Palestinians, involves binding the prisoner's hands behind his or her back. After fatigue sets in, the prisoner will inevitably fall forward--putting full body weight on the shoulders, and impairing breathing. If the prisoner is not released, death by crucifixion results. Such was the fate of U.S. prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi in 2003.

Sweatboxes:
In this form of torture, sometimes referred to as the "hot box" or simply as "the box," the prisoner is locked up in a small, hot room which, due to lack of ventilation, essentially functions as an oven. When the prisoner cooperates, he or she is finally released. Long used as a form of torture within the United States (most recently against one Alabama activist in 1998), it is particularly effective in the arid

Middle East.
Sexual Abuse and Humiliation:
Various forms of sexual abuse and humiliation documented in U.S. prisons include forced nudity, forcible smearing of menstrual blood on prisoners' faces, forced lapdances, forced transvestitism, and forced homosexual acts on other prisoners. These abuses and alleged abuses should be considered in light of the fact that most detainees are deeply religious Muslims, and many are married.

There's some masturbation material for you Mystery and Crispee.

Middle East.
Sexual Abuse and Humiliation:
Various forms of sexual abuse and humiliation documented in U.S. prisons include forced nudity, forcible smearing of menstrual blood on prisoners' faces, forced lapdances, forced transvestitism, and forced homosexual acts on other prisoners. These abuses and alleged abuses should be considered in light of the fact that most detainees are deeply religious Muslims, and many are married.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner

Some prisoners were forced to watch "The View"

"The new Amnesty report details accounts of water-boarding, sleep deprivation, bamboo pieces placed under the fingernails and imprisonment - sometimes for months on end - inside a 4ft (1.22m) by 4ft cell."

I know you guys are drooling to think that this is happening in America but, unfortunately for you guys, it's in a North Korean political prison. I'll post it in a minute.

Once again, the usual drudge losers on the left are cleaning the egg off their faces.
#6 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-05-03 09:44 PM

"Once again, the usual drudge dipshits are taking something non-concrete and turning it into absolute truth because it fits their narrative."

"But, we're used to those people looking like dipshits, so you're right on par crispee."

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2011-05-03 10:09 P

Who was the dipshit that pasted my retort, and then posted something about "those people" and "being on par" with crispee?

I can't imagine how fucking stupid you feel after reading this, yet something tells me you will keep your yap shut and not further embarrass yourself and hope it goes away...

That narrative you ignorantly spoke of was fact. Guess you never bothered to read the fucking title of the thread eihter.

There's some masturbation material for you Mystery and Crispee.
#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-05-03 10:29 PM

How does any of that prove how ignorant you libs were and still are today about the enhanced interrogation?

#19 - and what - pray tell- is your experience with enhanced interrogation?

#19 - and what - pray tell- is your experience with enhanced interrogation?

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-05-03 11:34 PM | R

Has nothing to do with me son. It has everything to do with the results in this case of getting OBL. Guess you libs seem to get all caught up in this righteous shit about how we look as opposed to why it needs to be done....

#19 - and what - pray tell- is your experience with enhanced interrogation?

same as everyone else's here.

google....

Tell a fool a dozen times Bush administration officials have said this intel wasn't attained during waterboarding, but months afterwards, and the fool will still insist it was.

Who was the dipshit that pasted my retort, and then posted something about "those people" and "being on par" with crispee?

? You're agreeing that you're on par with the usual dipshits on the DR? (BTW, I consider you one of the usual dipshits and you're proving that on this thread)

I can't imagine how fucking stupid you feel after reading this, yet something tells me you will keep your yap shut and not further embarrass yourself and hope it goes away...

I was going to say someone with embarrassingly bad reading comprehension such as yourself would surely take your own advice. Then I realized that of course you wouldn't. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

That narrative you ignorantly spoke of was fact. Guess you never bothered to read the fucking title of the thread eihter.

LOL yeah, your reading comprehension sucks.

CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted to Brian Williams on Tuesday night's broadcast of NBC Nightly News that waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden. Panetta, however, said that "whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question."

somehow leads to the title "CIA director admits that waterboarding led to bin Laden".

Only a partisan hack or a fool would think the two equivalent.

You have the poor fortune of being both.

CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted to Brian Williams on Tuesday night's broadcast of NBC Nightly News that waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden. Panetta, however, said that "whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question."

Umm...the above excerpt is congruent with the title of the thread:

CIA director admits that waterboarding led to bin Laden

Maybe next time, JWPussy can spend a little less time cutting and pasting another's post in pathetic attempt to deconstruct it, and a little more time thinking about what his bitch ass would like to say.

Leon Panetta told Brian Williams that waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden.

It doesn't get much more clearer than that.

I would suggest getting the the fuck over it and finding a thread about autism/vaccine links.

You're not getting too much mileage out of this one.

Who was the dipshit that pasted my retort, and then posted something about "those people" and "being on par" with crispee?

? You're agreeing that you're on par with the usual dipshits on the DR? (BTW, I consider you one of the usual dipshits and you're proving that on this thread)

Are you retarded or simply another stupid lib who can't follow along? You pasted my retort and then spoke as though it was someone else who wrote it. Hell you compared me to me you fucking 2 watt bulb. Read it agin Trig and get back to us....

"Once again, the usual drudge losers on the left are cleaning the egg off their faces."

Once again, the usual drudge dipshits are taking something non-concrete and turning it into absolute truth because it fits their narrative.

But, we're used to those people looking like dipshits, so you're right on par crispee.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2011-05-03 10:09 PM

"Maybe next time, JWPussy can spend a little less time cutting and pasting another's post in pathetic attempt to deconstruct it, and a little more time thinking about what his bitch ass would like to say."

Seems a though he has company, another moron upthread ignored Panetta as well. Surprisingly a bigger pussy...

"Tell a fool a dozen times Bush administration officials have said this intel wasn't attained during waterboarding, but months afterwards, and the fool will still insist it was."
#23 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2011-05-04 12:15 AM |

Peter King said the same thing last night on O'Reilly.

Bachmann is saying the same thing on Greta.

Why is this such a bad thing? The US doesn't torture anyway.

Obama ordered the military to invade a sovereign country and blow away a couple of people lounging around on a futon.

Did folks see Hillary's face when watching the live feed?

Just show the damn pictures already!

Seems a though he has company, another moron upthread ignored Panetta as well. Surprisingly a bigger pussy...

Yeah, but that's Americunty...it's to be expected.

I expect a little more effort from the carefully self-conscious kind of "above-ideology", fence-sitting twat like JWP...

Maybe next time, JWPussy can spend a little less time cutting and pasting another's post in pathetic attempt to deconstruct it, and a little more time thinking about what his bitch ass would like to say.

Another dumbass who thinks the title accurately reflects what the article actually said.

Nice to see JWPussy is catching on though.

Leon Panetta told Brian Williams that waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden.

It doesn't get much more clearer than that.

Well no shit. That's still not what the title of the thread says.

I would suggest getting the the fuck over it and finding a thread about autism/vaccine links.

You're not getting too much mileage out of this one.

Or those I'm arguing with desperately need the content of the inaccurate title to be the take home message instead of what was actually said.

Did folks see Hillary's face when watching the live feed?

Word.

It was almost like Elena Kagan stuck a 9 inch tongue out at her and said "Nyah!"

Are you retarded or simply another stupid lib who can't follow along? You pasted my retort and then spoke as though it was someone else who wrote it.

I was playing off your post and using you as an example you stupid shit.

Try again.

That's still not what the title of the thread says.

The title of the thread says Leon Panetta admitted waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden.

Apparently, you have some gross inability to interpret the english language as written. I know they speak english in Houston. I was there twice last week.

Are you Malaysian?

Seems a though he has company, another moron upthread ignored Panetta as well. Surprisingly a bigger pussy...

Fuck you're an idiot.

LOL yeah, your reading comprehension sucks.

CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted to Brian Williams on Tuesday night's broadcast of NBC Nightly News that waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden. Panetta, however, said that "whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question."

somehow leads to the title "CIA director admits that waterboarding led to bin Laden".

Only a partisan hack or a fool would think the two equivalent.

You have the poor fortune of being both.

#24 | Posted by jpw

Emphasizing the fool part doesn't mitigate the partisan hack part.

The title of the thread says Leon Panetta admitted waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden.

That's not what the title says.

Apparently, you have some gross inability to interpret the english language as written. I know they speak english in Houston. I was there twice last week.

Show you have base reading skills and then critique someone's language skills.

Let me guess, you were at the Owen Oil Tools convention?

Are you retarded or simply another stupid lib who can't follow along? You pasted my retort and then spoke as though it was someone else who wrote it.

I was playing off your post and using you as an example you stupid shit.

Try again.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2011-05-04 01:39 AM

Really Trig? So you were comparing me to me, like I posted upthread?

You were playing with yourself once again little lib man. Even better you being the fucking pussy who whines about terms like "you and your lib friends" posts some shit about "we" are used to? Classic...

The title of the thread says Leon Panetta admitted waterboarding detainees contributed information that was ultimately used to locate Osama bin Laden.

"That's not what the title says."

You are right mr anal retentive... The title says "led"to not "contributed" to... Fuck you really are one desperate POS aren't you little man?

Really Trig? So you were comparing me to me, like I posted upthread?

OK. I'm going to go through this very slowly.

Once again, the usual drudge dipshits are taking something non-concrete and turning it into absolute truth because it fits their narrative.

Here's the play on your post. I pasted what you said and changed a few words to better reflect reality.

But, we're used to those people looking like dipshits, so you're right on par crispee.

Here's where I include you (as a return for graciously giving me the material to use in the first place).

"those people"=DR dipshits referenced in the first line.

"so you're right on par crispee"=you're just as big a dipshit as the rest.

Any more questions? Or do you want to continue this and dig your hole deeper?

You are right mr anal retentive... The title says "led"to not "contributed" to... Fuck you really are one desperate POS aren't you little man?

Hey, lets just fudge things a bit because we want it to look better than it really is. What he actually said was that it contributed and there's no way of knowing whether it was necessary.

If we act like it was definitive long enough, it won't matter what really happend!

-Crispee

Really though, it's called honesty. You should try it some time.

I expect a little more effort from the carefully self-conscious kind of "above-ideology", fence-sitting twat like JWP...

If by fence sitting you mean I don't make snap judgments based on previous conclusions, then yeah I'd say I'm a fence sitter.

Self-conscious or above ideology? No. I just don't take myself too seriously and don't assume I already have everything figured out.

Oh common. You ladies can't have thrown in the towel yet.

Informal poll: who's the angriest DRtard of them all?

Crispy_Cortex: the neurotoxified loser whose life apparently revolves around perpetrating perpetually pissed posts on the DR?

Or Jak_Me_Nao: the diminutive drunken pony-poking/strutting cowboy wannabe?

I'm having a hard time with that one, but I think the Crispers wins by brute force owing to his massive number of postings.

Even Rumsfeld admitted that "enhanced interrogation" didn't lead them to the courier and then to Bin Laden. Regular interrogation of KSM did it. So another right wing talking point meets reality and gets obliterated. But, like the alzheimers in their hero reagan, we'll all be having this exact conversation again tomorrow.

Thread over.

Crispy_Cortex: the neurotoxified loser whose life apparently revolves around perpetrating perpetually pissed posts on the DR?

Or Jak_Me_Nao: the diminutive drunken pony-poking/strutting cowboy wannabe?

Good choices but wot about Jest?

Every one of his posts is an exercise in angry futility.

The guy makes Celisary look like Wally Cox in direct comparison.

/Yes, younger Retorters won't get that.
//Deth is OLD Spud. Laws yes.

Be Well.

The military, the CIA, and various other ex-intelegence experts are all saying harsh interogation should be used.

I will trust the experts on this one.

The military, the CIA, and various other ex-intelligence experts are all saying torture produces less reliable intel than standard interrogation techniques that do not violate the Geneva conventions.

I will trust the experts on this one.

FTFY.

Be Well.

#46 | Posted by dethspud
The military, the CIA, and various other ex-intelligence experts are all saying torture produces less reliable intel than standard interrogation techniques that do not violate the Geneva conventions.

I will trust the experts on this one.

FTFY.

Be Well.
------------
So the Republicans are puting their necks on the line for somthing the CIA, and the military doesn't want.

Yea right!

So either Rumsfeld is lying or Panetta is lying. If I had to pick one to trust, it would NOT be Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld says "no", Panetta says yes...So who do the libs want to believe? Rumsfeld of course, and for the first time ever.
Amazing, right? And then you limpwrists wonder why nobody believes you or you hypocritical nuanced ways...

It would be amazing if for once you whining gashes would be consistent.

So either Rumsfeld is lying or Panetta is lying. If I had to pick one to trust, it would NOT be Rumsfeld.

#48 | Posted by kanrei

Rummy's lying because he needs to keep his story straight.
panetta has no reason to lie because claiming that "torture" helped lead us to Bin laden goes against everything they stand for. So by admitting that, he's basically admitting that torture does work, and that it did contribute.
I also believe that the fact we used "torture" is another reason Obama wanted an unarmed Bin laden executed as opposed to being brought to trial and given rights like he and holder have historically have asked for suspected terrorists...

Of course Rummy is lying. Panetta also has no reason to lie because he was not head of the CIA when the torture happened that gave this information. Rummy has to protect his administration that committed the torture.

See how these fuck heads operate....one minute praising the practice of waterboarding which is illegal under inernational law and the next asking if the actions against Bin Laded could be considered illegal. Partisan politics all the time. What our side does is good but if your side does it then it's illegal.

#5 | Posted by danni at

did you see the entire breifing or questioning...in the end holder gave his best answer

"I dont know"

Yeah! Lets have more torture! It works! It works! Yeah, lets have more torture!
We're the good guys! We torture!

"So either Rumsfeld is lying or Panetta is lying."

Neither is lying...Rumsfeld is on record saying waterboarding is NOT torture, therefore he is correct in his own mind when he said no torture was involved.

Neither is lying...Rumsfeld is on record saying waterboarding is NOT torture, therefore he is correct in his own mind when he said no torture was involved.

#54 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-05-04 01:35 PM |

NICE CATCH!

"Yeah! Lets have more torture!"

Works for me. If it saves even one American life I have only four words on the subject...red positive, black negative.

"Yeah! Lets have more torture!"

Works for me. If it saves even one American life I have only four words on the subject...red positive, black negative.

So by admitting that, he's basically admitting that torture does work, and that it did contribute.
I also believe that the fact we used "torture" is another reason Obama wanted an unarmed Bin laden executed as opposed to being brought to trial and given rights like he and holder have historically have asked for suspected terrorists...

#50 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2011-05-04 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag: Torture Werks!™

Except that it doesn't.

Obama did in 2 years what Bush could not accomplish in eight.

Without torture.

enjoy your sour grapes

"We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees," he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

Read more: dailycaller.com

So torture may or may not have led to finding bin laden.

I love the fact that the righties are so desperate to find something that makes their undying devotion to Dubya worthwhile. None of them, however, are mentioning that bin laden's mansion was built under Dubya's nose. I guess he was too focused on that whole Mission Accomplished thing in Iraq.

Neither is lying...Rumsfeld is on record saying waterboarding is NOT torture, therefore he is correct in his own mind when he said no torture was involved.

#54 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-05-04 01:35 PM |

NICE CATCH!

#55 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-05-04 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag

Wrong. I heard the interview with rummy, and he specifically said that no "enhanced interrogating" ie torture OR waterboarding was used.

This would be the perfect opportunity for rummy to say "we got bin laden because we used waterboarding" but he isn't doing it because it's not the truth. It's not like the guy is worried about prosecution, Obama hasn't done shit to the bush admin and therefore never will. They're too similar.

So all you liberal ass fucks that were against water boarding can stop celebrating. Bitches.

#3 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2011-05-03 09:29 PM

Could you act any more butthurt, Mysterytool?

Panetta needs to make clear when the torture occurred. It sounds to me like it was under Bush, not that Obama has continued the government torturing detainees. Who ordered it and what they learned needs to be made clear.

Though it may have contributed to catching Bin Laden, I don't think torture is effective as an intelligence gathering method, and it reduces the stature of the U.S. in the world. It also gives other countries the green light to torture. It is unquestionably a war crime.

"[What Panetta told Brian Williams Tuesday night]...has been weirdly spun to suggest that Panetta linked the torture itself to the capture of Bin Laden. In fact what Panetta said was: 'No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether -- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question.'"
www.slate.com

In the linked piece from which this is drawn Dahlia Lithwick also addresses the Rummmy v. Rummy statements and Peter "I'm Choosy About My Terrorists" King's bloviations.

Though it may have contributed to catching Bin Laden, I don't think torture is effective as an intelligence gathering method, and it reduces the stature of the U.S. in the world. It also gives other countries the green light to torture. It is unquestionably a war crime.

Posted by rcade

A) As I maintained, torture is but one tool in the box
B) It works, just like I said
C) There is no such thing as a 100% sure fire effective measure for intel gathering, hence why you don't take anything off the table
D) If bombing brown people, installing dictators, and murdering their unarmed hero hasn't already reduced our staure in the world down to zero, nothing will
E) Murdering an unarmed man while illegally invading a soveriegn country sounds like a war crime to me, but apparently not to you.

Do you turds remember how upset you were with the cia rendition in italy? You unamerican pieces of shit wanted those cia guys prosecuted. yet, oddly enough, you're buffing Obama's balls for sending people in another country, without permission, and shooting an unarmed man.
If you see the hypocrisy and are fine with it, then say so. I see your hypocrisy and feel the need to point it out. You see, I was fine with the rendition and the murder of Osama, but that's because I'm consistently pro-USA interests, unlike you limpwrists that only want to play butch when there's a dem in the office.

Rumsfeld just went on O'Reily's show and clarified his position; whereby a comment he made was grossly taken out-of-context.

He unequivicably states that these coercive-interrogation measures produced tangible results.

Any person with an iota of common-sense would have already known this - anyone can be broken over time. KSM was waterboarded over 100 times and his resistance to this technique garnered grudging respect from his captors. However, he ultimately couldn't take it any more and sang like a bird giving up later corroborated-upon intel that proved to be extremely valuable.

Fact is, this shit works. It always has.

Now, we can debate the morality of utilizing such methods and that is a debate worth having. But to pretend that this shit doesn't work (with historically-proven success over millenia) is just ideological idiocy.

Murdering an unarmed man while illegally invading a soveriegn country sounds like a war crime to me, but apparently not to you.

Bin Laden was not murdered. He died during our attempt to apprehend him and you agree with this action wholeheartedly. You would agree if we had flown Bin Laden in a copter to the height of the Towers and dropped him.

The devil's advocate game you are playing is tiresome. You love the fact Obama got Bin Laden. I do, too.

Do you turds remember how upset you were with the cia rendition in italy? You unamerican pieces of shit wanted those cia guys prosecuted. yet, oddly enough, you're buffing Obama's balls for sending people in another country, without permission, and shooting an unarmed man.
If you see the hypocrisy and are fine with it, then say so

With the rarest of exceptions, you will never get such an admission, Chair.

Senator Kerry a few years ago blasted our military with Bush as CiC for violating Islamic standards as they broke down doors in the middle of the night in Iraq while terrorizing women and children.

I proclaimed him as full of shit at the time.

Yet now, with Obama at the helm, he is all orgasmic over the exact same thing.

It's amazing how much lefties were against Bush policies but when faced with the actual task of governing these very same critics adopt almost verbatim the policies they used to strongly abhor.

#66 | Posted by rcade

I won't put words in your mouth, but an awful lot of cheerleading Obamabots would have taken umbrage if Bush had employed this exact same M.O. had the timeline been different.

Personally, I am glad it turned out this way and I applaud much of Obama's decision-making on this; his 16-hour dithering notwithstanding.

It's amazing how much lefties were against Bush policies but when faced with the actual task of governing these very same critics adopt almost verbatim the policies they used to strongly abhor.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2011-05-05 10:01 AM |

Blah blah bla

It's amazing how much righties were for Bush policies but when faced with the watching a democrat do the governing these very same supporters oppose almost verbatim the policies they used to strongly support.

Personally, I am glad it turned out this way and I applaud much of Obama's decision-making on this; his 16-hour dithering notwithstanding.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ

HAHAHAHAHA, but as we know for a fact, bush couldnt and obama did.

"his 16-hour dithering notwithstanding."

Can you be any more of a partisan hack this morning?

Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, we executed enemies who used torture on our people. It is a war crime. Will those who say it is just a useful tool be so generous when it is our troops who are the one's being tortured?

It's amazing how much righties were for Bush policies but when faced with the watching a democrat do the governing these very same supporters oppose almost verbatim the policies they used to strongly support.

#69 | Posted by truthhurts

If you possessed a modicum of ability to comprehend written English you would plainly see that I am mostly supportive of what Obama accomplished here.

In fact, I'll be even more specific.

First, let's start with the back-story:

This mission began 4-5 years ago and it precipitated with intelligence gleaned from the likes of KSM and 2 other high-value detainees via breaking them down with waterboarding and other, less extreme measures. In short, this was started under Bush.

Now, enter Obama.

He ferociously campaigned against these measures, but when confronted with reality AND his oath to protect this nation, he plodded forward with Bush's groundwork.

As the intel built upon itself not only was his administration able to keep a tight lid on it (a claim that Bush can NOT make when it came to countless leaks during his tenure) he also learned from history.

Allow me to explain.

In '98 Clinton received solid intel that OBL was in a Pakistani safe-house. He authorized a cruise-missile strike but also elected to inform Pakistani leadership what he was doing - under the concern that they might wrongly assume that the missile came from neighboring India and then retaliate without the facts (a reasonable concern). In the process of informing Pakistan, a high-up tipped Osama and he slithered away before the attack.

Obama's tactic deviated in 2 fundamentally-different ways:

1. He opted against a missile-strike and instead went the special-forces route. In the process, he minimized collateral-damage AND he provided almost irrefutable-proof of OBL's death.

2. Because his high-risk approach was also relatively low-key, he was able to accomplish his goals without informing the Pakistanis.

Whilst I think his 16-hour delay is worthy of criticism, I also feel that the results are ultimately what should be judged. In short, he succeeded and for that I am grateful.

His post-success has been ridiculous. I am not talking about his deference to Islam with the handling of the corpse post-mortem nor am I critical of his decision to withhold the pictures of OBL with bullet-holes in his head.

My point is this: he successfully maintained secrecy up to this point. In the aftermath he rushed to broadcast his accomplishment without any control over the narrative. It's not just the conspiracy-theorists or the icky-right that is contradicting him - these contradictions come from within his own administration. That is pathetic.


"his 16-hour dithering notwithstanding."

Can you be any more of a partisan hack this morning?

Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, we executed enemies who used torture on our people. It is a war crime. Will those who say it is just a useful tool be so generous when it is our troops who are the one's being tortured?

#71 | Posted by danni at 2011-05-05 10:10 AM | Reply

My God.

What in the world does criticism of his willingness to act have anything to do with your allegations of "torture".

Please, go take a quick spin in the Mini with the top down and clear the pot out of your confused brain.

To call your response "nonsensical" is an act of charity that goes beyond what should be expected.

Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, we executed enemies who used torture on our people. It is a war crime. Will those who say it is just a useful tool be so generous when it is our troops who are the one's being tortured?

#71 | Posted by danni at 2011-05-05 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

You know what is sad Danni? You don't seem to realize that some of our troops, leaders etc have tortured their people as well (and you have a habit of bringing it up as much as possible). By your logic... the terrorists have every right to come and kill those people without anyone stopping them, prosecuting them, or punishing them to any degree.

Quite stupid logic don't you think?

Do you also want the SEALs to drop in on Bush like the one Liberal Talk show host to was wondering when that would happen?

HAHAHAHAHA, but as we know for a fact, bush couldnt and obama did.

#70 | Posted by truthhurts

Obama deserves plenty of credit for reasons I already stated.

However, it is YOU who is the hack if you refuse to ignore the history behind this success.

I will say this, that it would have been better to not get OLB than to lose our nation's soul by becoming torturers.

Cause we still could have gotten OBL

We will never be able to put the torture genie back in the bottle

#75 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-05-05 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Especially as long as Gitmo stays open.

Bin Laden was not murdered. He died during our attempt to apprehend him and you agree with this action wholeheartedly. You would agree if we had flown Bin Laden in a copter to the height of the Towers and dropped him.

The devil's advocate game you are playing is tiresome. You love the fact Obama got Bin Laden. I do, too.

#66 | Posted by rcade

I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm stating what happened and what likely happened.
You are correct, I could care less if we chainsawed him in half while pissing on him, but that doesn't change the fact that we executed/murdered an unarmed man.

I'm dealing with reality, not with how I feel. Besides, I'm also reminding your ilk how they felt about such things in the past, like geneva conventions and our image. They're the ones that thought that shit was important enough to whine endlessly about. Now, not so much, and I'm looking for an explanation.

I guess you guys are stupid, so I'll say it again...I will not stop reminding you limpwrists of your hypocrisy.

You used to talk down to people in my club, now you want so badly to join it simply because Obama was the one to give our military permission to do what is needed in a fight like this.

Denying it is futile, and deflecting from it won't work. Simply acknowledge your hypocrisy and double standards and move on like normal people. Or, you can continue to pretend as if this is some how different.

"Now, not so much, and I'm looking for an explanation."

LOL...fat chance. Our little "progressive" friends are afflicted with terminal stupidity. However, if any of you voted for the Great Community Organizer and Race Healer in 2008 to prove you're not racist, you must absolutely vote against him in 2012 to prove you too are not incurably stupid.

Newsworthy for 77, 78.

You are correct, I could care less if we chainsawed him in half while pissing on him, but that doesn't change the fact that we executed/murdered an unarmed man.

Saying we executed or murdered Bin Laden is as dumb as the things you claim liberals were saying during the Bush years. If he was killed while doing something perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the Seals, it's neither murder nor an execution.

You used to talk down to people in my club, now you want so badly to join it simply because Obama was the one to give our military permission to do what is needed in a fight like this.

Like many other Democrats I was in the get Bin Laden club forever, dude. When Obama said during the campaign he'd take out Bin Laden in Pakistan without Pakistan's permission -- and McCain and Clinton blasted him for it repeatedly -- I said he was right.

A lot of neocons stopped caring about Bin Laden when Bush did. They were all about Iraq and finding some reason to attack Iran.

Bush never said he stopped caring. The hunt for him continued, but Bush was saying he'd been pushed out of Afghanistan, was on the run, marginalized. His quote was taken out of context.

But that's fine. All's fair in love and war, I guess. Kinda like when our current POTUS pretended that torture and Guantanamo were bad things, and liberals like yourself agreed, because it was liberals like Obama saying so. And now that all those things are under new management, you now celebrate them as further evidence of Obama's wisdom, ability to adapt his thinking given new realities, blah blah blah.

You guys are just funny. You're hysterical to watch. My advice? Quit relying on bloggers over at Huffington and Daily Kos to tell you how to think.

You used to talk down to people in my club, now you want so badly to join it simply because Obama was the one to give our military permission to do what is needed in a fight like this.

77 | Posted by 101Chairborne

On, I see. You got your feelings hurt a while back.

I don't really know anything about your club. In my club Americans are able to to the hard things in life without letting go of what makes them Americans to start with.

You should join my club. We'd let you in; and you'd be happier.

Saying we executed or murdered Bin Laden is as dumb as the things you claim liberals were saying during the Bush years. If he was killed while doing something perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the Seals, it's neither murder nor an execution.

* * * *

There you go again. Quit being stupid. It's neither murder or execution not because he was or wasn't doing something perceived to be hostile or dangerous. It doesn't matter if he was aiming a 50-cal at them, or watching Family Guy with his daughter. It does matter that this is a war, he's an enemy, and it wouldn't have mattered had we dispatched him with a bomb, a drone, or a bullet to the head.

It's very simple. He and his troops are at war with the United States, and you get to them any way you can, even if that means sending his top lieutenants to Poland and working them over. Even if that means listening in the AQ phone calls to their goons in America. Even if that means killing him and his whole family while they were sleeping.

And now that all those things are under new management, you now celebrate them as further evidence of Obama's wisdom.

| Posted by rightisright

Obama's to the right of my particular politics. There's been more than one thing he's done I haven't celebrated.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. In 2012 you're quite likely to nominate some pod person. Obama will necessarily look good.

Obama pure and simply did his duty. That some of you want to make hay out of someone supporting someone else doing what he was required to do is just too strange.

I've been mulling over just why libbies are rallying around the silly "gutsiest call by any modern president" line. Why is that? What was gutsy about it?

And I've come to the conclusion, that it was because by going in, O was going against everything he believes in. Yes, the information was arrived at through torture, and he's got criminal investigations ongoing against the very guys that did it. Yes, we can't know if OBL is planning anything at this time. Yes, we can't possibly know whether the SEAL's will just waste the SOB at first sight. Yes, something might go wrong that might be embarrassing for you, never mind that it would be fatal to a handful of hombres in uniform.

Tough decision, indeed. Not one that can't wait until I play a round of 9, though.

On, I see. You got your feelings hurt a while back.

#83 | Posted by Zed

Really? That's how you interpretted that post? That's just strange, but then again, you're a fucking retard that avoids direct questions like the plague and purposefully misinterprets posts so people will give you attention.

I notice you coincidentally avoided addressing my post where I pointed out that you think a normal human response to another human's death is to cheer in the streets. You ran from it because you're a pussy.

You can join the list with donnerboy. Your brand of stupidity is incredibly tedious, and if one were to address it, they wouldn't have time to do anything else.

Go have a drink you washed up old alchoholic with a jesus crutch.

Obama pure and simply did his duty. That some of you want to make hay out of someone supporting someone else doing what he was required to do is just too strange.

* * * *

I agree. He finally did his duty. Maybe he can tell Eric Holder to quietly drop the investigations into the "torturers". Obama released photos of prisoner maltreatment at the hands of Americans, but doesn't want to inflame Muslim passions by releasing Obama's. That's strange, if you ask me.

Apparently he's back to politicking, and apologizing to anyone who shows up with a beef. Didn't take long.

And I've come to the conclusion, that it was because by going in, O was going against everything he believes in

86 | Posted by rightisright

I'm not at all sure how you come to that. If you look at what Obama has done to date, attacking bad guys hasn't held him up as being a special issue.

I'm also not sure where this "dithering" argument comes in. Bin Laden apparently lived where he was found for a quite a number of years.

Maybe he can tell Eric Holder to quietly drop the investigations into the "torturers".

#88 | Posted by rightisright

Maybe we can get people like you to affirm that Americans don't torture, and any spook or soldier that did what he did under orders can be quietly pardoned.

"Saying we executed or murdered Bin Laden is as dumb as the things you claim liberals were saying during the Bush years. If he was killed while doing something perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the Seals, it's neither murder nor an execution."

Wait a minute... Claimed liberal's said during the Bush years? Hell it is still going on today. I know it is tough for you to read all comments, but that has to be one of the biggest whoppers to insinuate libs here have not lied, made up or wished the worst for Bush.

"A lot of neocons stopped caring about Bin Laden when Bush did. They were all about Iraq and finding some reason to attack Iran."

Hard to believe an educated person like you has embarrassed yourself by not only accepting the most simple explanation from some useless pundits why Bush said that, but to actually repeat it after all this time has to bring you down a notch or two.

As for attacking Iran? How about we take a trip down memory lane on drudge, and look at some of the remarks when the libs favorite storyteller Seymmour Hersh was spinning one of his multiple yarns.

Hersh: U.S. Sees Lebanon as Practice Run on Iran

War With Iran?
www.drudge.com

Cheney Considered False Flag Attack to Incite Iran
www.drudge.com

Covert Ops Launched Against Iran
www.drudge.com

Iran Tests Missile That Could Reach Israel
www.drudge.com

Bush never said he stopped caring.

"I truly am not that concerned about him." -- President Bush, news conference at the White House, March 13, 2002

articles.latimes.com

In my club Americans are able to to the hard things in life without letting go of what makes them Americans to start with.

You should join my club. We'd let you in; and you'd be happier.

#83 | Posted by Zed at 2011-05-05 11:51 AM | Reply

Tell us what hard things in life you were able to do without letting go? Knowing of course not "letting go" for a lib is not letting go of the government teat, or what they tell you to think or do....

Really? That's how you interpretted that post?

Posted by 101Chairborne

Yep. And from the tneor of the rest of your post, you got your feelings hurt again.

Tell us what hard things in life you were able to do without letting go?

#93 | Posted by crispee_oc

Well, I successfully raised kids without beating any one of them. Pretty analogous, actually.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."

What is amazing after all this time is the fact Kerry was a gutless POS invoking Bin Laden less than six months after 9-11. You fucking libs are truly pond scum and if you collectively had an ounce of class between you, would be embarrassed.

"I truly am not that concerned about him." -- President Bush, news conference at the White House, March 13, 2002

articles.latimes.com

"Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, 'Where's Osama bin Laden?' " Kerry said. "He said, 'I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.' We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror."

Bush's original comment came while U.S. forces in Afghanistan were searching for the Al Qaeda leader, who had eluded joint American-Afghan military operations designed to find him.

"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."

I notice you coincidentally avoided addressing my post where I pointed out that you think a normal human response to another human's death is to cheer in the streets.

Posted by 101Chairborne

I'm afraid that you'll never be important enough for me to just hang here for hours and figure out what you want me to respond to.

But, since your panties are in a wad, just go back and look at the thread you're referencing.

You ran from it because you're a pussy.

Posted by 101Chairborne

Well, then. I should be much more attractive to you.

Tell us what hard things in life you were able to do without letting go?

#93 | Posted by crispee_oc

Well, I successfully raised kids without beating any one of them. Pretty analogous, actually.

#95 | Posted by Zed at 2011-05-05 12:10 PM | Reply |

Wow Zed, I am impressed. Now of course your post said your club is what makes americans to start with. Based on your answer, I guess the club of parents who didn't smack their kids is the best you can do to back up that brilliant post. Pathetic would be being kind.

If Bush wasn't concerned about Obama anymore, why were teams operating in Pakistan, looking for him? Do you really believe that it was shut off, then all the intelligence and defense communities started hunting for him again, in 2009? Why were AQ guys tortured to . . . I mean, "interrogated" . . . to give up the names of AQ couriers to bin Laden while Bush was president, then?

How's the economy, Rcade? Pretty good? Know a lot of friends who are really happy with the O unemployment rates? How about the deficit picture? Happy about those?

There used to be a small handful of liberals on the DR that I would respect, because they were at least somewhat consistent, and didn't just regurgitate talking points so that they wouldn't have to think for themselves. That number just got reduced by one more. Starting to get lonely for Kanrei.

Pathetic would be being kind.

#99 | Posted by crispee_oc

It's really interesting how much energy you expend on crap like this. I've been posting here for years. No need for me to recapitulate my often stated positions once again to defend against someone like you.

I believe in truth, justice, and the American way. If you catch Superman torturing, let me know.

If Bush wasn't concerned about Obama anymore, why were teams operating in Pakistan, looking for him?

Bush said he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden, so I'm simply taking him at his word. To me, his administration acted like they weren't concerned about Bin Laden from the minute the run-up to the Iraq war began.

"How's the economy, Rcade? Pretty good? Know a lot of friends who are really happy with the O unemployment rates? How about the deficit picture? Happy about those?"

"There used to be a small handful of liberals on the DR that I would respect, because they were at least somewhat consistent, and didn't just regurgitate talking points so that they wouldn't have to think for themselves."

Do you even get how hilarious your post is RisR????

Whatever. Obama said there were more than 50 states too. Do you take him at his word? How about when Bush said Saddam had WMD's. Did you take him at his word then?

He still had teams working round-the-clock to find him. Are you really that stupid to assume that Bush didn't want Osama's head on a friggin' platter? Do you believe that if Bush were told on Friday that we knew the whereabouts of the guy, that he would need 36 hours and a round of golf to decide whether we should go get him or not?

Obama needs people like you, Rcade. Smart people, who are little more than sheep for their side. Thanks for being part of the problem.

How about when Bush said Saddam had WMD's. Did you take him at his word then?

Posted by rightisright

Did for awhile. Started to doubt when he kicked the UN out from their own search. Knew he'd screwed the pooch when the alleged force de frappe wasn't actually used by the Iraqis when we crossed the Green Line.

"There used to be a small handful of liberals on the DR that I would respect, because they were at least somewhat consistent, and didn't just regurgitate talking points so that they wouldn't have to think for themselves."

I am inclined to agree with RIR here, this place has gone down hill ten fold.

He still had teams working round-the-clock to find him. Are you really that stupid to assume that Bush didn't want Osama's head on a friggin' platter? Do you believe that if Bush were told on Friday that we knew the whereabouts of the guy, that he would need 36 hours and a round of golf to decide whether we should go get him or not?

I do have to say RIR that this certainly sounds like sheep for your side.

Are you really that stupid to assume that Bush didn't want Osama's head on a friggin' platter?

Why should I assume that when he said "I truly am not that concerned about him"? Bush is the world's best expert on his own feelings, no?

Obama needs people like you, Rcade. Smart people, who are little more than sheep for their side. Thanks for being part of the problem.

I'm a sheep because I took Bush at his word? He said he wasn't concerned. The simplest explanation for that is that he wasn't concerned. Why would he lie about that?

Did for awhile. Started to doubt when he kicked the UN out from their own search. Knew he'd screwed the pooch when the alleged force de frappe wasn't actually used by the Iraqis when we crossed the Green Line.

#105 | Posted by Zed at 2011-05-05 12:27 PM |

How long were those inspectors there Zed? How many times did they come back and say Saddam was not being forthright and allowing them all access? How many resolutions were written in the time the inspectors were there, kicked out, and then allowed back? You think Bush and the UN should have given Saddam more than the year and half to comply? After his reign of deceit and terrorism sponsoring? Fucking more laughable even to this day.

CIA Director Leon Panetta told NBC News

LOL....does anyone actually think about this?

I'm a sheep because I took Bush at his word? He said he wasn't concerned.

You'll take him at his word when its politically convenient for you to do so. There was no shortage of "Bush is a liar" allegations in the last decade. Funny how reluctant libtards have been to take Bush at his word, except when his word makes him look bad.

Fucking more laughable even to this day.

#108 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-05-05 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Iraq was the worst American strategic mistake of my lifetime. It's going to be a while before I can laugh about it.

You'll take him at his word when its politically convenient for you to do so.

Answer this question, Joe: If Obama said "I truly am not that concerned about him" about catching Bin Laden, would you think that he was concerned about Bin Laden?

You folks are being ridiculous. We take people at their word when they say how they feel. There's no other way to know how they feel, since we can't read minds!

Sheesh.

Joe, you are not sounding like a rightie mocking bird at all.

You folks are being ridiculous. We take people at their word when they say how they feel. There's no other way to know how they feel, since we can't read minds!

Sheesh.

#112 | Posted by rcade at 2011-05-05 12:47 PM |

Actually you take a sound bite and close your eyes and ears to the rest. Is this how you teach your kids to read everything and then from an opinion rcade?

We take people at their word when they say how they feel.
#112 | Posted by rcade

Like when someone said they felt like closing Gitmo?

Actually you take a sound bite and close your eyes and ears to the rest.

I read the rest. It showed why he didn't care about Bin Laden. Since you quoted it, you should agree with me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden.

I always cared about Bin Laden, no matter what we achieved against al-Qaida. He needed to get got.

Like when someone said they felt like closing Gitmo?

Yes. I've said Obama should have kept that promise.

If Obama said "I truly am not that concerned about him" about catching Bin Laden, would you think that he was concerned about Bin Laden?

If I had called Obama a liar dozens of times prior to that, it would be a lot less simple for me to "take him at his word."

You're conveniently omitting the fact that lefties made a point of calling Bush a liar throughout his presidency. This fact makes it a lot more difficult to believe you're being anything but a political hack when you selectively decide to "take him at his word."

Actually you take a sound bite and close your eyes and ears to the rest.

I read the rest. It showed why he didn't care about Bin Laden. Since you quoted it, you should agree with me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden.

If you read the rest, than you are Stevie Wonders twin. Even your fucking hero the bastard in chief echos the same thing about OBL's death in regards to the bigger picture on terrorism.

"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is," Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.

"I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country," Bush continued. "I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore."

You're conveniently omitting the fact that lefties made a point of calling Bush a liar throughout his presidency. This fact makes it a lot more difficult to believe you're being anything but a political hack when you selectively decide to "take him at his word."

You're judging me by what others have said, not what I've said. It's a weak straw-man argument. The fact that others called Bush a liar and any other number of names has nothing to do with me.

Even your fucking hero the bastard in chief echos the same thing about OBL's death in regards to the bigger picture on terrorism.

Obama always cared about Bin Laden. Catching him was one of his main foreign policy planks as a candidate. If Bush had kept Bin Laden as the No. 1 priority of his counter-terrorism policy, I think we would have caught and/or killed Bin Laden years ago. Maybe we'd even be out of Afghanistan by now.

#120 | Posted by rcade at 2011-05-05 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag

Actually his main foreign policy was to strengthen ties with the Muslim world.

Thus why Obama gave OBL (supposedly a non Muslim) a traditional Muslim funeral service... Qur'an surah'a and all.

Regardless, waterboarding IS torture and it is wrong. Ask anyone who has been waterboarded, and they will tell you they were in fear for their lives. It's not hard to equate such a scenario to torture. Which is why the U.S. government put Japanese officers on trial after WWII for doing so:

"After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: 'I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.' He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. 'Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,' he replied, 'just gasping between life and death.'

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."
www.washingtonpost.com

The problem lies in the American hypocrisy of being apart of anti-torture treaties, then going around torturing PEOPLE to get information on OBL's location. Even finding and killing OBL does not justify the torture used to gain the necessary information. This should be the basis of argument, not whether it was used to get the correct information on OBL (courier's nickname).

As everyone has acknowledged here, torture WAS used by Americans at Guantanamo (and other secret sites). It should not have happened and OBL's death does not justify the fact that it did.

All of "YOU PEOPLE" who acknowledge and approve the use of torture by the U.S. in the name of U.S. security are perfect examples of those who want their cake and to eat it too.

If America and "YOU PEOPLE" want to use torture so badly (mmmmm "because it works"), own up to it and remove America from the list of signatories who stand for principals higher than those that value torture in any circumstance. Otherwise, both America and you people are HYPOCRITES!

And you damn well better believe this reference includes the sitting POTUS.

Thus why Obama gave OBL (supposedly a non Muslim) a traditional Muslim funeral service.

Show of hands: How many people care what kind of burial service Bin Laden had?

#124 | Posted by rcade

I sure as hell don't. Unless you're Muslim or one of Osama's family, why would anyone care?

Show of hands: How many people care what kind of burial service Bin Laden had?

#124 | Posted by rcade

I care that he was given the respect of having one. It was supposedly 40 minutes long.

Now I know it's a petty position to take, but that means some marine, seamen, or some other american was detailed to work it, or participate in it.

There shouldn't have been even so much as a single consideration given to the most evil person we've witnessed since perhaps Hitler.

In all sincerity, why would anyone not care that we paid him that type of respect? And to head off your possible retort, we shot him while he was unarmed, which I'm more than fine with, so clearly we weren't worried about showing him any type of respect at that point.

It's like putting a band-aide on a sucking chest wound.

Show of hands: How many people care what kind of burial service Bin Laden had?
#124 | Posted by rcade

That's not the point. Dumping his body in the ocean hides the evidence. Trusting the word of politicians is for fools.

Show of hands: How many people care what kind of burial service Bin Laden had?
#124 | Posted by rcade

Funny you should ask a new question without answering the other question.

If Obama did not consider him a real Muslim... why did he give a fake Muslim a traditional Muslim funeral service surahs and all... in order to appease real Muslims?

What did he think that Muslims would do if we did not give the fake Muslim OBL a real Muslim funeral?

If you're waiting around for me to answer any of your questions, Exp, you're going to be waiting a long-ass time. Pack a lunch.

There shouldn't have been even so much as a single consideration given to the most evil person we've witnessed since perhaps Hitler.

I don't necessarily disagree, but 40 minutes of a Muslim chaplain's time is a simple diplomatic concession.

#127 | Posted by Ray

Stick with the conspiracy theory as al Queda will do. It's suits you well.

I don't necessarily disagree, but 40 minutes of a Muslim chaplain's time is a simple diplomatic concession.

#129 | Posted by rcade

It's petty, like I said, but I can't seem to see an upside to it. We shot him, unarmed. Who is going to say "Hey, they shot the guy we looked at as a hero, our leader, but you know what, those infidels ain't half bad because they gave him a funeral."

It just seems like such an empty and unneccessary gesture.

I'm taking in to account my wishes that he was treated like a dog and his remains desecrated, and that perhaps it's clouding my judgement a bit. But even then, I think "What if they got a senator or some prominent american, killed him while he was unarmed, but then gave him a funeral"...Would that make you less blood-thirsty for reprisal?

I'm just annoyed at what to me was a complete waste of time and effort considering such a diplomatic effort will have been for nothing.

I don't understand why so many people are hell bent on desecrating OBL's body. The man is dead. If he has a soul, it is somewhere else. What does it matter if the U.S. gave him a respectful send off or not to those who believe his body is simply a vessel?

He is dead. He can no longer finance or plan terror attacks. Isn't that enough? The information gained from his hideout might avert terrorist attacks that are currently in the works. Isn't that enough? Why do we care what happened to the creep's body?

It's NOT Muslim tradition to bury a man at sea. The body will be torn to pieces by sea organisms. Not enough for you people?

America prides itself on exceptionalism and holding the moral, intellectual, and humanitarian high ground. Why wouldn't Obama want to convey respect for ANY dead person? Timothy McVey was read his final Christian rights and given a proper Christian burial. Should they have not done this? Respect for the dead is meant as respect for those who mourn the dead's passing. Otherwise, disrespect will have unintended consequences.

Sure, lets egg on the terrorists even more *sarcasm*. It is not psychologically logical to further inspire those who believe it is a mortally wrong to even print a picture of Mohammed. You think they will be swayed to no longer want to attack U.S. if we "scare" them with Osama's death picture? You are gravely mistaken.

#131 | Posted by 101Chairborne

40 minutes a total waste of time? Who cares about 40 minutes that had nothing to do with your life? This whole thing is getting way too out of hand. The guy is gone. Lets move on and stop criticizing the President for finishing the job.

If you want to adhere to conspiracy theories that Osama is still alive, fine. I know some elderly folk who still claim Elvis is alive. But to use this 40 minute funeral as another BLASTING point on Obama is definitely (using your words) PETTY.

Stick with the conspiracy theory as al Queda will do. It's suits you well.
#130 | Posted by rstybeach11

That's dumb. In case you are too young or naive to understand, politicans are notorious liars.

America prides itself on exceptionalism and holding the moral, intellectual, and humanitarian high ground.

Posted by rstybeach11

That's interesting considering we shot him while he was unarmed. The thing is, we're not even trying to spin that he was unarmed. We're fully admitting it.

Coming from the admin that tried to court martial 3 SEALs because one of them punched an Al Queda detainee, it just strikes me as odd.

To clarify, it's not as if I wanted us to admit his body was mistreated, or that we should have celebrated if it was (I was uncomfortable with the people dancing in the streets over his death). I just wish that no deference what so ever was paid to it.

40 minutes a total waste of time? Who cares about 40 minutes that had nothing to do with your life?
#133 | Posted by rstybeach11

The raid itself was 40 minutes long. What did it have to do with your life? Nothing? Then why are you here commenting on it?
I'm sure you'll miss the obvious point.

#134 | Posted by Ray

Naive? Young? I am a criminologist and well aware of what politicians are capable of.

What you are asserting is on the same level as conspiracy theory:
"Dumping his body in the ocean hides the evidence."

It's exactly what al Queda is going to use to push their ignorant yet faithful base to continue with suicide bombings. When your logic is based on presumptions that every American official, including military, is lying to us about this scenario, you are relegated to conspiracy theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good conspiracy theory to read for fun. But holding such presumptions makes me wonder why you would even care to post on a mainly political blog. You just like watching for fun? Or do you partake in the democratic process?

#135 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Stop assuming I am hard left and an Obama apologist. The mission was to enter Osama's compound and to kill, not capture. Is this right? I don't think so. Is the world better off without him? Yes, but the ends do not justify the means. This includes the information gained to hunt him down through torture.

Further, I wish America would live up to the treaties that it has signed over 200 years of international conflict. I suppose both you and I are living in a fantasy land.

But as long as we are able to own up to the fact that ALL of the recent Presidential administrations have gone against treaties and broken laws simply because we are America and we feel like we can do what ever we want (such as murdering an unarmed man), I will be happy. You will never hear that from any sitting President though. That's the kind of honesty left for those considered rational.

What you are asserting is on the same level as conspiracy theory:
"Dumping his body in the ocean hides the evidence."

It's exactly what al Queda is going to use to push their ignorant yet faithful base to continue with suicide bombings. When your logic is based on presumptions that every American official, including military, is lying to us about this scenario, you are relegated to conspiracy theory.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11

So all Obama has to do is release a photo and show those mutts in Osama's ignorant faithful base that he is in fact dead.
Problem solved, right? I mean, it's a diplomatic gesture that will save lives, right? No? Well then what was your point?

#136 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Try me. My point is that the topic is trivial, yet you and others choose to perpetuate the discussion...a trivial discussion.

It's the entire reason I asked you in the first place.

Osama is dead. Does that affect you personally? I would imagine it would, it has for me.

Osama was given a relatively proper Muslim burial (burying a man at sea is not Muslim tradition). Does that affect you personally? From your posts, I guess so. I can't read your mind. Which is why I asked the question. It was not rhetorical.

Stop assuming I am hard left and an Obama apologist. The mission was to enter Osama's compound and to kill, not capture. Is this right? I don't think so. Is the world better off without him? Yes, but the ends do not justify the means. This includes the information gained to hunt him down through torture.

#138 | Posted by rstybeach11

I din't see a single assumption in that post.
I'm not sure what the actual mission was. The story has changed a couple of times as you're aware. If I were forced to guess I'd say it was a hit squad, which makes me happy. But if that were the case, that kind of renders your whole point moot regarding what we pride ourselves on.

I'm never going to get universal consitency. What I'm looking for is acknowledgement from the obama faithful that they're aware of how hypocritical their cheerleading for this is considering their past statements. Knowing I'll never get that, I'm picking scabs.

#139 | Posted by 101Chairborne

My point is let them believe the conspiracy. What does it matter? They will continue doing what their doing regardless, but Obama is right that printing the death picture of their leader will push them even more - it will be very effective for recruiting the poor saps that are used for suicide bombings. Obama is right to keep such recruiting propaganda to a as much a minimal as possible.

All I hear from this thread is some blood thirsty, overly-righteous individuals hammering Obama on another issue. OK we get it, you don't like the guy. For all the hate thrown at the left for unnecessarily bashing Bush, many here are certainly using a chapter from their play book.

NOTE: I do not mean to generalize you into "blood thirsty, overly-righteous" group. The argument is meant to address those who simply look for any reason to criticize Obama. This topic of criticism is petty.

rsty,
It's that consistency thing I was talking about earlier. We gave him a proper burial to keep crazy muslims from going crazy, or so that's what were led to believe. But then I read your post saying they're going to go crazy regardless, so I'm back at square one.
No matter what we do they'll go crazy, so why bother with empty platitudes?

It's about a consistent message. The lack of consistency makes me believe they're flying by the seat of their pants and just throwing out reasons to end the discussion.

"What I'm looking for is acknowledgement from the obama faithful that they're aware of how hypocritical their cheerleading for this is considering their past statements."

Hot shit! Hypocrisy is the name of the game here. I agree with you in full. But the hypocrisy stems from the American actions abroad over the past 30-40 years. When we set our selves up to be the moral superiority of the world by enacting conventions and treaties, then turn around and bomb anyone, kill anyone, and spy on anyone we want in the name of American security, I too get very frustrated. In this respect, Obama was wrong. Bush was wrong. Clinton was wrong. Reagan was wrong. Carter was wrong.

It all originates from the need to keep the U.S. superior in all respects: morally, financially, culturally and militarily. Power is at stake and everyone backing the superiority of American power in the world is hypocritical because of the actions it takes to fulfill such an enormous task.

Acknowledgment of hypocrisy is necessary across the board, in my view.

#143 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I understand your frustration (i.e. back to square one). There is ZERO consistency in these matters because of the actual scenario: the U.S. broke treaties and laws to complete a mission that has been in place for over 10 years. They would have broken the same treaties and laws to complete the mission regardless of who was in Office. It's an American hypocrisy that fuels such actions. Making the "crazies even more crazy" is a relevant issue. Again, remember that respect for leaders (think Mohamed) and dead Muslims are extremely important in the Muslim faith. Simply printing a picture of Mohamed sends the entire middle east into a furor. Why would the administration want to stir it up even more? Why give them even more reasons simply to appease conspiracy theorists or those who are blood thirsty? I believe in this country of ours, there would be people printing T-shirts and posters with Osamas death picture. Internet sites would go wild with it celebrating the death. This is NOT what the administration wants when attempting to mediate issues revolving around Israel and the middle east.

Naive? Young? I am a criminologist and well aware of what politicians are capable of.
#137 | Posted by rstybeach11

Well you don't show it.

What you are asserting is on the same level as conspiracy theory:
"Dumping his body in the ocean hides the evidence."

What conspiracy? Politicians are notorious liars and manipulators.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good conspiracy theory to read for fun. But holding such presumptions makes me wonder why you would even care to post on a mainly political blog. You just like watching for fun? Or do you partake in the democratic process?

I come to this site to remind myself that people can be as stupid as you.

Again, remember that respect for leaders (think Mohamed) and dead Muslims are extremely important in the Muslim faith. Simply printing a picture of Mohamed sends the entire middle east into a furor. Why would the administration want to stir it up even more? Why give them even more reasons simply to appease conspiracy theorists or those who are blood thirsty? I believe in this country of ours, there would be people printing T-shirts and posters with Osamas death picture. Internet sites would go wild with it celebrating the death. This is NOT what the administration wants when attempting to mediate issues revolving around Israel and the middle east.

#145 | Posted by rstybeach11

After having read your POV, I know my "general" posts aren't directed at you because you see the hypocrisy, so don't take what I'm going to say next as if it's directed at you, or as a sign I think you're an Obama sycophant.

I understand the reality that they react violently to most anything. Apparently Obama and some leftwing Obama diehards here do too (now). The thing is those same people are on record here, and in Obama's case, on the news, as wanting the abu ghraib pictures released. I see that as another inconsistency that they're refusing to acknowledge.

My hypocrisy comes about because I thought the continual printing of the abu pictures, as well as the defeatist and hyper-critical comments about our military's actions by Dick Durbin, harry Reid, Murtha, etc were emboldening to our enemies. At the time the lefties here were saying that was crazy talk.

The one tiny "out" I give myself (of course, right) here is that the picture I'm looking to have released would at least quiet down a large portion of the people at home that are skeptical (not because they're conspiracy oriented, but because the story has changed so much, and becaue Bush's tillman and lynch stories turned out to be less than advertised)

Sorry for the novel

#146 | Posted by Ray

You make no attempt responding to my point, and call ME stupid. Speaks volumes.

"I see that as another inconsistency that they're refusing to acknowledge."

I now see the breadth of inconsistencies you are referring to and have to agree. I was not for the release of the Abu Grahib photos, but I was definitely for an investigation into the matter. I don't believe they had to be released to the entire world for the matter to be dealt with. There were other mediums that the pictures could have gone to (see Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul) that would have resulted in a better conclusion.

#148 | Posted by rstybeach11]

Correction: You make a feeble attempt at responding to my point, and call ME stupid. Speaks volumes.

You make no attempt responding to my point, and call ME stupid. Speaks volumes.
#148 | Posted by rstybeach11

What? If you are a criminalogist as you say you are, then you should be able to recognize criminal behavior of the political class. Shooting someone in the head, then dumping the corpse in the ocean is classic criminal behavior. We will never if the corpse was really Osama. Other reports over the years lead to the conclusion that he was dead years ago. We've seen lying like this with Bush's WMD and Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin. I'm inclined to think that Americans are being primed for some kind of military escalation. Or at minimum it puts the rest complaints from the right that Obama is too soft on terrorists. You should do more thinking for yourself instead of thoughtlessly calling healthy skepticism, a conspiracy theory. Few things in politics happen by accident.

You'll take him at his word when its politically convenient for you to do so.

Answer this question, Joe: If Obama said "I truly am not that concerned about him" about catching Bin Laden, would you think that he was concerned about Bin Laden?

You folks are being ridiculous. We take people at their word when they say how they feel. There's no other way to know how they feel, since we can't read minds!

Sheesh.

#112 | Posted by rcade

RCade, I've been watching you post that over and over about Bush giving up, thinking that surely you've seen Pelosi's similar comments. Perhaps you haven't:

Here's Nancy Pelosi from a press conference on September 7, 2006:

[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

And here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday:

The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .

So, RCade, what face value do you want to assign to Pelosi's hypocritical comments from '06 and this week?

Nevermind Foxs Newz either...

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD > NATIONAL
Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."

www.foxnews.com

"The Intellectual Dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi"

www.commentarymagazine.com

www.foxnews.com

Bani, Bani. You should know better. To quote Fox News to a liberal is like quoting Alex Jones and Newsmax at the same time. They'll tear you apart.

#155

FOX was trusting the Pakistanis just as much as Bush was. They were signing each other memos, so not too surprising.

...."A lie has speed,but Truth has endurance." - Edgar J. Mohn

**** The Whole "Fairy Tale" about Assassinating Bin Laden is obviously a "Very Big & Important Production (Scam)" for the Obama Govt as can be Witnessed by how the entire American Media is "Marching" in Locked Step with it! Is it Amazing that No One in the U.S.Media has even "Questioned" the Obama Govt's weak story? Huge amounts of Pressure & Persuasion are being Exerted by the Obama Nazis to Push and Sell this "PHONY" Bin Laden tale to the American people and the world! Obviously something "MAJOR" (as in False Flag Con-Job/Terrorist Attack) is in their Works! As far as a Badly Written Script goes this Bin Laden Soap Opera is uniquely Pathetic & Atrocious but WORSE is that a large number of Americans are Clueless to its really Half Assed Ruse!

What did Lincoln say "Fool me once"? But just how many more times is the American public going to let themselves be Shamed as being a bunch of Suckers?

...."Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon,and the Truth."
- Buddha

#157 | Posted by AntiCadillac

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -- President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

I think it was Bush that tried that one on for size and failed miserably. LOL!

#6 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2011-05-03 09:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:FINALLY ADMITS IT

Yeah but you know... you asswipes have been doing that since November 2008.... actually longer...

911
no drilling in ANWR
Katrina
No WMD's
no bin Laden
Iraq costing twice as much as Afghanistan
increased economic disparity between classes
longest economic stagnation in history
economic collapse.

oh and btw....

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged Thursday that Republican plans to repeal President Barack Obamas signature health care law were dead.

enjoy the view with your head up your ass

Leon, you may want to talk to McCain 'cause he ain't on the same page.

The CIA director would know better than McCain.

I love how the left is so desperate to make this seem like it was Obama taking a machine gun and storming the complex rather than an investigation that took a long time to yield the result we all wanted.

Bush's comments about not caring does not square with what they were actually doing so it's more than clear he was trying to convey the message that al Qaeda and terrorism on the whole were more important, as we've even discussed here on a recent thread that bin laden's death will not end al Qaeda.

We're not here if not for the actions taken under the bush administration. It was Bush era intel that lead to bin laden... Intel btw that never would have been uncovered had people like rcade had their way so it's a little funny to hear you gloating today Rogers. If you had your way not only would there never have been a Gitmo prison they would have all had lawyers and instead of giving up intel on this courier they would have been exercising their right to remain silent.

This was a victory for America, not one political party or the other...

I wonder if all of the conservatives out there that want to give GW Bush credit for his role in the death of Bin Laden are willing to give other presidents credit for their role in the down fall of the Soviet Union? To listen to them, Ronald Regan single handedly brought about the demise of the Soviet Union when he told Gorbachev to "Tear Down That Wall".

Fedup, I think Kennedy and Johnson get credit too, but there was quite a bit of time in between their admins and Reagan's (Bush 41 too). Carter was just so horrible that I find it hard to give him credit for much, but perhaps some of his peace negotiations played a role.

As far as Bush goes, it's not really political stretching to give him a share of the credit. The courier that lead to bin laden was discovered during the Bush years. And bush did give his interrogators a lot of slack as well as gitmo and other secret prisons to work with without fear of prosecution if they went beyond our laws.

How long do you think bin laden would have lasted if he weren't being protected by Pakistan? I think we would have found him much sooner if he didn't have that complex he could stay in without fear. It's when they move around that they can make a mistake or just by dumb luck get found by troops or a drone. Pakistan showed it's true colors and we should be pissed, if not for their nukes and terrorists I'd say we should be talking war... But at the least all aid should be cut off.

Rob,

I think that is a fair analysis. However, I suspect that there are many on the right that won't go as far as you did because, to give credit to prior presidents, takes some of the bloom off whomever is currently president. That shouldn't be the case but that is generally how it works.

I am ambivilent about Gitmo and it's need to exist. However, I think that torture (and that includes waterboarding) is flat out wrong.

Everything that seems to be emerging about the Bin Laden raid suggest that it was just good ole intel that led to Bin Laden's capture/killing; not him being sheltered in Pakistan. Had not Bush shut down the Bin Laden unit, Bin Laden's where abouts might have been detected sooner. Obama deserves credit for reinstalling the capture/killing of Bin Laden as one of the CIA's top priorities. Although the raid, as implemented, was about the only way Bin Laden could have been dealt with, Obama deserves credit for risking his presidency and his legacy; especially in light of the failed attempt by Carter to free the Iranian hostages and the dust bin of history to which he has been assigned because of it.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable