Former CIA chief Goss: I can’t believe what a shameless liar Pelosi is
posted at 1:53 pm on April 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
Believe it, champ. And welcome to the club.
He doesn’t name any names but there’s no question who he’s aiming at.
Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.
Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:
– The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
– We understood what the CIA was doing.
– We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
– We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.
– On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.
I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues.
The ranking Democratic member on the House intel committee in 2002 was, of course, Madam Speaker. There’s lots more at the link, often in biting language; you’re cheating yourself if you don’t read it all. Goss is opposed, naturally, to show trials on interrogation practices, but then so is 58 percent of the public, just the latest reminder that the nutroots position on this subject is fringe and that they’re destined to have their hearts broken by The One. I wonder if Team Barry will reach out to Cheney and offer him a deal: In exchange for him not releasing those two memos he’s after to prove that torture works, they’ll promise not to prosecute anyone who acted on Bush’s orders. Would Cheney take that deal, though? It depends, I guess, on how much he values his own legacy versus his loyalty to the people who implemented the policy. And, maybe, whether he’s coming around to the Noemie Emery position that torture trials wouldn’t be such a bad thing for the Bushies after all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Liar.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I’ve seen you as an intelligent and intellectually honest commenter before. Are you now seriously trying to make the assertion that Afghanistan under Karzi is a ‘failed Islamic state’ relative to Afghanistan under the Taleban?
DarkCurrent on April 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM
yeah we abandoned south vietnam and cambodia, millions died…thanks to democRAT policies…and they never have faced up to the consequences of their policies..
I just hope its the blue-devil areas in this country that get hit….let the liberal chickens come home to roost!!
let the libs defend their country…hell with em…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I wouldn’t go there.
Ever hear of Operation Ajax, cold?
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:29 PM
yeah you sure won’t go to the abortion question will ya??
gutless little wimp. HAHHAHAHAHHA
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Yes, and toppling Mossadegh who was in the process of nationalizing all foreign entities in Iran, something even the Iranian Parliament did not want, has exactly what to do with Carter 25 years later openly telling the Shah we will alwasys be there for you?
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM
oh yeah we got rid of a COMMUNIST…I see why you would be VERY UPSET…
could have been a lot more dead and tortured people….you must be heartbroken!!
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Karzai just signed a shari’a “family law” allowing rape among other things.
The Taliban aren’t running Pak (just yet), but the Pak government just ceded sovereign territory (Swat) to armed Taliban militants in a treaty.
Sounds pretty failed to me.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM
So, if Ajax were something Carter wanted to atone for…why the brazen public lie?
Or is that something de rigeur for all Dems…such as the Dem who is the subject of this thread?
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Of course it is. They can’t argue the facts, so they make them up.
Too early to say in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. Your boy Barack doesn’t seem to think so. The degree of failure in Pakistan isn’t Bush’s fault, any more than it is of every US president since Truman.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Both have happened on Obama’s watch…or is Obama never going to accept responsibility for anything that happens on his watch?
{No answer needed on that…purely rhetorical.]
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:37 PM
you know whats funny, strangelove is upset by our support of the shah, and intervening in another country’s affairs, and not at all upset by the ayatollah coming to power…and yet ‘it’ complains about sharia in pakistan and afghanistan…..hypocrite?
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:37 PM
It! wasn’t! our! business!
We had no business there.
The Shah was our puppet…we propped him up after we offed Mossadegh.
We had bidness in Afghanistan, post 9/11.
What did we do?
Drove all the Taliban into Pak so they could destabilize a nuclear islamic state, and kited off to Iraq to spend our blood and treasure there (700 billion and 4000 lives from the finest military on the planet) to make another….freakin’….islamic state.
Fail.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I didn’t ask you about Pakistan nor dispute anything you said about Pakistan (yet). I asked you about Afghanistan. Specifically, I asked “Are you now seriously trying to make the assertion that Afghanistan under Karzi is a ‘failed Islamic state’ relative to Afghanistan under the Taleban?”
DarkCurrent on April 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Quite the paradox, ain’t it? :-)
Of course, he probably thinks paradox is a thoracic surgeon and a vascular specialist walking together.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Alarmingly shallow grasp of history.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM
coldwarrior……in your opinion, was the Bush Doctrine a success?
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
The Shah was more of a British creation, in the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Have we been attacked any more since 9/11?
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
just like Rush…I know liberals like every inch of my glorious naked body!!!
you wackos think you’re smart, when in reality, your stupidity is easily seen through….moron. lauhgable stooge….
do you EVER say anything that isn’t a talking point?? you’re not even logically consistent…no surprise…lying
piece of trash…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
More importantly, could the Bush Doctrine EVER be a success?
From what I know about cultural evolution, the Bush Doctrine was founded on an impossible premise.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:45 PM
these liberal scum are amazingly stupid…no logical consistancy…no logic, no history…a perfect democRAT, easily led, and uneducated…all the while she tells us how SMART SHE IS…
strangelove is beyond stupid…just good for a few laughs…I enjoy baiting the fool…and watch her dance around like a puppet on a string…which is exactly what she is..*smirk*
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
If it takes show trials to give GOP pols a spine, then I say, Bring it on. I’d rather get beat in an all-out fight than suffer death by “bipartisanship”.
petefrt on April 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM
The Shah was more of a British creation, in the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Oh..pardon….I thought that Operation Ajax was a CIA op.
/sarc
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM
its painfully obvious you don’t think…honey
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM
To the extent that we’ve not been attacked here in the US, and that several dozen very real plots have been stopped, and that for a while the bad guys knew us and what we were capable of and willing to do…yes.
That, for the time being, 50 million people have an opportunity at self-nation building without fear (at least for now) of being murdered wholesale because they do not support the regime or the extremists? Yes.
To the extent that President Bush allowed outside actors (Congress, especially) to push him off his game…no.
To the extent that we did not do more…no.
But, he is a civilian now. He served his country.
What’s the Obama Doctrine these days? Today compared to yesterday? Or a few hours ago?
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM
but you didn’t want us keeping the Shah in power to stop another….freakin’….islamic state
FAIL at logic, truth, history, intellect, etc…you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are obviously…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:51 PM
strangelet;
Actually it was our business and the business of the British, sense it was the property and the interests of the west they were going to steal and then they were going to give them to the Soviet Union, you idiot! Did you ever hear of the cold war?
You know what? I grew up in the 60′s listening to little lefties like you going on and on about the wonder of Uncle Joe Stalin and Mao and the Khmer Rouge…..what was and was not our business meant nothing when an opportunity presented itself to give aid and support to some mass murdering communist regime.
So keep in mind that in the early 50s we were in a cold war with the old Soviet Union, and the socalled democratically elected regime of Iran was actively working with the Soviets to undermine the west.
I am not even bothering justify anything, I am just pointing out that it was more than a half century ago. That is the thing about lefties. They have no problem pushing aside those unpleasantries like the Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution and the Soviet Gulags…but something like this they will hang onto forever.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 5:51 PM
they don’t have a problem with those things…leftwingers LOVE that kind of power over people’s lives…its what they want in this country…just like they have no problem with slicing and dicing unborn babies…
they’re bloodthirsty and evil.
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Ask the husband of one of my cousins…he’s a Colonel in the Air Force, and is a JAG (Judge Advocate General to you college dweebs). 2 weeks ago he returned from a totally successful 6 month deployment to Baghdad, where he and his colleagues were training Iraqi Judges.
He said they were all welcomed with open arms, and their mission was accomplished.
That’s bad news for your side, I know.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 5:53 PM
C’mon cold……let me have it.
Tell me what a howling success the Bush Doctrine has been so far.
Admit it…..the Bush Doctrine translates as the Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Destiny of Judeochristian Democracy.
So far, an epic fail in the cost/performance perspective.
Do the math.
Spent: 700 billion dollars and 4000 military lives
Result: Another Islamic state beset by sectarian violence and sharia law enforced violations of human rights.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:55 PM
So strangelet did you bother to go to the link and read that Karzai is going to reverse that decision?
speaking of liars. you really should check that sort of thing out before you get on your soap box.
and what was impossible about the Bush doctrine? That we should try to deal with threats before they end up blowing up in our faces? Or that all people deserve a chance at liberty? I always thought that was part of it. You know kind of like that silly old founding father thing about all men being created equal with certain inalienable rights among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How quaint.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 5:56 PM
and if we would have imposed our laws and customs upon them…wackos like strangelove would have been crying IMPERIALISM…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Thanks for the laugh.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
You can say the same inane things as often as you wish…
You still are not making a logical argument.
And extending into hyperbole, and badly, does not bolster your case.
Insufferable. Typical of all too many on the Left. Nothing less.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Oh really? But the Iraqi constitution states that all law MUST CONFORM to shari’a. Did the JAG train the Iraqi judges in shari’a?
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 6:00 PM
strangelet:
It is not a failure. The state in Iraq today has far more support and interaction from the population than any state in modern history in that country. The United Nations failed to contain Saddam. The United Nations passed resolutions making demands of Saddam and then failed to act when he told them to shove it. That is the thing with lefties, all they know how to do is make threats and run their mouths..when they encounter someone like Saddam they are at a loss. So what did the UN do? Make under the table deals with him.
So no, I do not think it was a failure. It is not an Islamic state. You do not even know what you are talking about.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:00 PM
strangelet:
The constitution states that laws may not undo or run counter to the traditions of their religion. However, that does not mean that it is a sharia state. That does not mean that woman can not own property or vote or go out in public uncovered. It has more to do with whether or not there will be same sex marriage.
This year for the first time in any Islamic country, the country of Iraq made Christmas a national holiday. Is that in sharia?
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM
He was actually there, not in a basement bedroom like yourself.
Why do you hate America?
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM
And even then if the majority of the Iraqi people want to change that constitution there is a way to do it, the constitution is written in such a way that it allows amendments.
The idea that Iraq is a strict Islamic state based only on sharia is ridiculous, it is false. Even the reporters who go there talk about how secular the nation is becoming.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Very well…..lets try something different.
We got spoofed on the WMDs.
Not our fault, really, lack of HUMINT.
But when we realized that, should we have left?
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Iraq today.
Example one.
Example two.
Example three.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM
I can…soooo, what took you so long?
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 25, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Why do you care? Why is that a “good” thing?
Did 4000 americans die so Iraqis could have christmas? Did we spend 700 billion dollars to make a cute little brown america in MENA?
Maybe they will pay us back.
We could really use that money right now.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM
All that quantum tunneling seems to have left you a bit distracted. If you’ve regained your mass, may I remind you of my question posted at 5:40?
DarkCurrent on April 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM
why? ACORN need a little more money??
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:09 PM
If one believes the meme that the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was WMD…even then…after a decade of Saddam playing the UN and the rest of the world, yes.
WMD was one of many reasons articulated by the Administration before we went into Iraq, and in the run-up to the war, in Congress, WMD was NOT the sole justification…
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Crap!@
after a decade of Saddam playing the UN and the rest of the world, yes.
after a decade of Saddam playing the UN and the rest of the world, no, we should not have left.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM
In 1998, before you were born, all of the Democrats-including the 2000 and 2004 Presidential candidates-said Iraq had WMDs. Were they all lying too?
It took over a year for the runup to the 2003 liberation of Iraq to take place. Plenty of time for Saddam to hide the stuff, or send it to places like the Bekaa Valley. Remember, Iraq is the size of California. Many small plane crashes in that state that happened over 50 years ago have still never been found.
The Auhtorization of Force that the Democrats signed off on in 2002 listed over a dozen reasons why we should get rid of Saddam. WMDs was only one of them.
You really should read that official document sometime. Do you a world of good.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 6:14 PM
strangelet:
First of all considering the fact that you were wrong when it came to the rape law because you do not keep up…I really don’t think you need to be lecturing me.
And secondly of all, if Iraq was {as you said} an Islamic state they would not be making national holidays for other religions.
As for what they died for, do your freaking homework.
There were dozens of force mandatory resolutions against Iraq in the UN Security Council, the last of which was Resolution 1441 which gave the members the right to enforce that resolution by any means necessary.
There were dozens of times when Saddam broke the cease fire agreement with the United States.
There was an attempt on the life of a President.
There was the Iraqi Liberation Act and the bombing of Baghdad in 1998…at that point Bill Clinton told us that Saddam was a threat to the world and the United States.
Now, here you are waking from your coma wanting to know why all these bad things happened.
Well, I know it will break your heart to know that Saddam is not going to be feeding any more old ladies to any more starving dogs, but the man is gone and the world is a better place without him.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:14 PM
remember Klinton bombing the Sudan because al-qaeda and IRAQ were making chemical weapons…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:14 PM
To have left after taking Baghdad, no WMD or plenty of WQMD, would have accomplished what? One doesn’t just knock off the bad-guy leadership and leave…in any war…ever.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:15 PM
The truth is we still do not know what happened to the weapons that the UN said Saddam had as far back as 1994. He might have sold them, destroyed them, who knows? But I can remember that all during Bill Clinton’s tenure in office there was no real doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
And he did have programs, which were illegal. They did find those and those programs could and would have been up and running again as soon as Saddam felt that he could get away with it. I don’t imagine that he was keeping those programs for old times sake.
And he would have used them, men like Saddam do not change.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:18 PM
strangelet wouldn’t remember that, as it happened before she was born.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 6:18 PM
either that, or she’s just a RETARD…
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
right4life:
Not only that, I remember Bill Richardson on TV saying that Iraq was helping them and they knew Iraq was helping them in the Sudan because the chemicals had the same signatures of the ones Saddam used. That is what he said.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Strangleit conversation with itself:
“OK, I had my @$$ handed to me during that last part of the debate, now what do I do? Oh yeah”:
“Bush lied about the WMD’s what about that? Take that you conservative fools!”
OBTW genius, just WHO was responsible for our loss of humint resources? Remember 1993 through 2000? A certain administration during that time indicated that its intelligence services would only engage “reputable” people for help in other countries. That meant that the kinds of people with the information we needed were no longer available to the intelligence community.
AZfederalist on April 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
The 2002 Iraq Resolution in fact lists over 20 different reasons for going into Iraq. WMDs was only one of them.
Read the document.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 6:21 PM
If we had not gone after Saddam when we did, he would have gotten out of the sanctions and rebuilt his programs, he would be throwing his weight around and threatening to stop the flow of oil, invade Kuwait, block the harbors etc. What little restraint he had would be gone. And if we had to face them then, it would only be worse.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Del Dolemonte:
You want her to read the document?? But there are so many big words in there.
She should also read the Iraqi Liberation Act while she is at it.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:23 PM
No…the whole world believed in Saddam’s WMDs.
He spoofed everyone.
My position is that its just not our business.
Why didnt we just let Saud and Iran draw a line down the middle of Iraq and split it?
I KNOW why we went.
I think the Bush Doctrine is why we stayed.
But the Bush Doctrine can never succeed because of evo theory of culture.
Look, I dont care.
You win.
It was a huge success.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Should we have just left Iraq??? like we left Afghanistan in the 80s? Or Somalia in the 90s? Oh yeah, that would have worked out.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Section 3, that’s the part I like to show my liberal friends who say the Authorization did not allow President Bush to actually go to war…as we have heard several times, too many times, over the past few years…you know, “I voted for the Authorization but didn’t know Bush was going to war.” or, “I thought Bush was merely going to scare Saddam into compliance.”
Spells it out in plain text…clearly.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM
obviously you do, you’re just out of talking points…loser.
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I bet if you asked him about that now, he’d either deny it, or claim BOOOSHH FOOLED HIM….
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:27 PM
even though bush was at that time governor of texas…it was a form of MIND CONTROL….
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM
strangelet:
How old are you?
It is not our business? Well someone really should tell the UN to mind its own damn business and stop with all those silly pesky resolution thingees they do.
yeah, it was not our business. so what if he shot at our planes and tried to kill a president and control the world supply of oil? No biggee.
I thought you were smarter than that.
BTW, what business is it of ours to give 100 billion to the IMF? What business is it of ours to send millions of tons of aid to people after tsunamis, or volcanoes or plagues or whatever? What business is Darfur or Palestine? Why should I give a rat’s behind if the Palestinian people get a state?
You are a child.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:29 PM
don’t imply any innocence to her…she’s evil as hell. a typical lib.
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM
It was, after the British had (falsely) insisted to the US that Mossadegh was becoming chummy with Communists and Communism.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 6:32 PM
right4life:
No doubt he would claim that the Governor of Texas was behind it all.
I can also remember a documentary done in 1999 on ABC called Target America or something like that. It was all about the ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.
Then of course there was Yasin. Back in the 90s when strangelet was being potty trained, 60 Minutes did an interview with the American born Iraqi named Yasin..he was in Iraq at the time and he was the only person involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center who had not been arrested. He disappeared at the time of the invasion.
Gee, I wonder what Saddam did with him?
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:33 PM
ddrintn:
I don’t think that was a false assertion. It might have been a case of playing both ends against the middle, but the new Iranian government was getting chummy with the Soviets. Back then it did not take a formal treaty or anything to get you in trouble. The cold war got hot more than once.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 6:35 PM
If Nixon had his way back in 1972, and people hadn’t decided that energy independence was just too much of a tough nut to crack…maybe the entire Persian Gulf would mean as much today to the United States as the Banda Sea.
But, we chose not to even give energy independence more than a passing look and a wistful sigh…
Even today….no nuke plants, no new offshore drilling, no ANWR drilling, no oil shale exploitation, nothing even connected to anything having to deal with actual known energy resources under our control is allowed.
But pipe dreams and fantasies abound…decades away from producing real energy sources that can run this country.
So, the Persian Gulf and the entire region hold importance from a national security perspective that if only…if only 1972 had been carried to fruition, no, the Persian Gulf would not have mattered, they’d be a lot poorer today, too, few resources other than oil, and they’d be killing each other and not trying to kill us.
Nixon had the right idea back in 1972.
Too bad we walked away.
So, today, by default, an unnecessary default, laziness, actually, and stupidity on the part of those who stood in the way of energy independence over the decades, the Persian Gulf and the entire region are very very much our business.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Read the Iraq Resolution.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Here are some inoconvenient truths from that document.
1998 was 3 years before Bush took office.
More?
And remember, all of the Democrats who signed off on the 2002 Resolution knew about that last claim, and had no problems accepting it as fact.
Why can’t you accept it as fact? It’s true, after all.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM
probably the same thing that happened to Abu Nidal..suicide, by multiple gunshots to the head..
right4life on April 25, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Well, most of the evidence seems to indicate that Mossadegh wasn’t very sympathetic with socialists, but given the atmosphere of the times, a hair-trigger on the part of the US would have been understandable. In any case I do think the overthrow of Mossadegh was a disaster and helped to trigger the radical Islamism we see today.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM
The Shah’s White Revolution certainly had solid bipartisan support…and a lot of money was sent his way to modernize Iran into what was euphimistically called the “Next Israel” in the Middle East, at the time.
So, in a small part, as the bazaari of Iran and the youth of Iran, at the time, took on modernity, the fundamentalists grew restive. Mullahs had to find jobs to support themselves as the zakat plate was empty and often.
But to think that progress and allowing people to determine their own future, build their own nations so infant mortality and early death rates decline, and they can feed themselves, and engage in commerce as co-equals around the globe should be set aside because one religion, one group, fundamentalist Islamists, are discomforted?
Sounds like UK in the present day…or maybe France…and a lot of other nations of late.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 6:52 PM
What nobody seems to be able to comprehend is that we are not dealing with an enemy who follows any kind of civilized rules at all. They don’t take prisoners of war.
Has Israel ever gotten even one of their soldiers back alive?
Our own boys were captured, tortured and killed, and dumped in an empty lot.
McCain was tortured, so he’s given absolute moral authority. Great. If we ever go to war with North Vietnam again, his opinion would matter. But it doesn’t apply here because our soldiers are dealing with an enemy that will not treat them as McCain was treated. They will be tortured. But not for any tactical reason. Not to gain any information. They will be tortured so that when their dead bodies are found we can all know what pain they had to endure. The torture of our boys is meant for us. Not for them.
And that’s the difference between us and them for those who are looking for one and haven’t figured it out yet.
Jaynie59 on April 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM
The Leftists here who claim moral superiority cannot seem to realize that. They keep throwing out examples of Japanese being executed for waterboarding, etc. But in World War 2 no one imagined that half a century later an enemy would have no problems murdering innocent children in the name of jihad.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 7:23 PM
you were the head of the cia and you didn’t know she would lie come on she’s a democrat what did you expect.
wade underhile on April 25, 2009 at 7:35 PM
BTW be sure to read the brain-dead comments by the idiots at the WaPo blog re. Goss’s article.
Example:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. This dim bulb proves it in spades.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 7:37 PM
The comments sections on articles like that are always depressing and hilarious at the same time. How Obama Got Elected.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 7:41 PM
coldwarrior, as DAX Le Baron would say “why are you wasting so much energy and IQ on such insignificance? Be pure”.
Schadenfreude on April 25, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I donno…maybe cuz I like to squash bugs an’ stuff?? :-)
Point taken. Sometimes I refuse to let go of the chew toy.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 7:52 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1498507.html#none
The military wants w prosecuted.
Support the troops.
getalife on April 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Please remember what happened to Old Yeller.
Loxodonta on April 25, 2009 at 7:57 PM
One man does not make a military.
Also, why all the sudden courage to start crying war crimes? Is this anoth Scott McClellan hero of the left?
I know troops, they say it’s not torture and not war crimes. I do support the troops, even when it wasn’t cool. (4/19/07)
RobertInLexington on April 25, 2009 at 8:11 PM
RobertInLexington on April 25, 2009 at 8:11 PM
All branches of the miltary called it torture.
Support the troops and not failed, cowardly leaders.
getalife on April 25, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I’m mostly glad that she adopted her most firm stance on this.
She’s done this a lot, and I think alot of people believed her.
Now, we know. That most “firm” stance may be telegraphing that she’s lying.
AnninCA on April 25, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Tell us again why you voted for the Democra for President in 2004, then we’ll talk about “supporting the troops”.
You must sleep well, you sure lie easily.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I will take the word of troops on the ground, and not political hacks who are looking to CYA and now have a new found faux outrage.
Remember, the cowardly leader who said the war was lost on 4/19/08.
RobertInLexington on April 25, 2009 at 8:22 PM
BTW if you “supported the troops” you wouldn’t cite an anti-American “news source”, aka McLatchy.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Don,t know if she,s a liar or just plain dumb and can,t remember what she said or did yesterday.Just think this women is third in line for the Pres. God help us!!!!
thmcbb on April 25, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I wsn’t aware that the United States Coast Guard had made such a claim. And yes, the USCG does serve in Iraq; in fact one Coastie was a combat death.
Please open your mouth and make a fool out of yourself again.
Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Just had an entire response disappear…
Did I make my Premium Member payment this week or not?
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Yeah, lefty boards rule, George Soros pays all the dues.
RobertInLexington on April 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM
We used to have a lefty at Captains Quarters that used the aka CK… You remind me so much of that person. CK would argue with Del, coldwarrior, and myself for hours upon hours, without ever abandoning Liberal talking points taken from any one of the MSM outlets. As we all know, talking points are distributed every morning so that all elements of the MSM are on message.
Can’t help but to wonder if you and CK are one in the same…
Terrye, coldwarrior, Del, and all others… You have made this a great thread to follow; thanks for that.
BTW: strangelet; due you have any idea what the term cold warrior means? Do you have any idea what this man’s career was in?
Keemo on April 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I thought this was interesting from Cliff May:
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 8:39 PM
coldwarrior:
I have that happen before. Blame Allah.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 8:40 PM
That missing response…re: getalife’s 7:56 PM post:
Had to do with Major General (Ret) Antonio Taguba, who is now calling for an investigation and prosecution of leadership over Abu Ghraib and other events, when in sworn Congressional testimony in 2004 he said there was no top-down directive nor any evidence whatsoever that harsh treatments were ordered or directed.
He laid the blame at Abu Ghraib squarely on the MP Brigade Commander and her subordinates. That commander? Janis karpinski whi is even today tryign to weave a new defense for herself to exonerate herself from her dereliction of duty while in commander of the troops at Abu Ghraib.
I love it when all sorts of so-called leaders change their tune when it is politically expedient.
Duty. Honor. Country. Means nothing anymore.
coldwarrior on April 25, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »