CIA Destroyed Interrogation Tapes

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by scamper
check your history

all i meant was that in 1993, the WTC was attacked by apparent radical islamic terrorists (car bomb). there wasn't another attack on the continental U.S. by radical islamic terrorists for another 8 years (9/11/2001.)


now, you could argue that U.S. soil was attacked in 1998 when our two african embassies were bombed. true. but not the continental U.S....

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by scamper
Can't the same be said for 9/11? My point is that people hate us (take BoF for example) it's just the way the world is. Bush didn't start it he's just fueling the fire. I think George Washington started it, but he was a terrorist in his own right.

Excellent! I'm honoured to be mentioned out of nowhere.

If you think "I hate Americans" than you you haven't been paying close attention, or you're just plain old stupid.

Actually, it's only Americans LIKE YOU that I fucking hate. Holier-Than-Thou the US-of-A can do no wrong assholes.

But fortunately, there less and less of them like you.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good! Keep interrogating and keep destroying!

"Interrogating" whom?

Destroying what? Civil liberties?

6.5 yrs no attacks shows this is a winning combination.

Actually, what it shows was that al Qaeda was a shallow and loose organization that blew its wad on 9/11. There were no real terror cells in the US to carry out follow on attacks, because al Qaeda is an exaggeration...

Please feel free to provide examples of actual al Qaeda cells that had actual, tangible plans for follow on attacks in CONUS, and how the "winning combination" of torture and "breaking a few rules" by raping civil liberties has stopped any attacks...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Hyman,

With all due respect, this is a much different world now. We are not fighting a country that plays by rules. If you don't accept the fact that there is a real enemy that wishes and plans for our demise, than our disagreement on policy can't even begin. I subscribe to the belief that the enemy exists and will/would try to acquire weapons to kill unimaginable amounts of Americans. If you were in charge and felt the responsibilty of protecting your citizens, I would hope that you would do everything possible to protect your country now and for the future. I don't argue that laws or previous principles have been bent or broken, but the ultimate goal for this president isn't to change everything we always have been. His goal is to PROTECT you, me, and our families. If this could be done to perfection without things such as torture, wiretapping (of people in this country corresponding with KNOWN terrorists), or a preemtive war, than it would be done that way.

In short, it is my opinion that if the president needs to break some rules and hurt some people's feelings and even go against traditional American principles (all hopefully temporary) to make the country safer now and in the future, I can be OK with that. If he is doing it unneccesarily, than I would side with you.

Terrorists make me so angry, I'm gonna drive drunk!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by scamper
Can't the same be said for 9/11? My point is that people hate us (take BoF for example) it's just the way the world is. Bush didn't start it he's just fueling the fire. I think George Washington started it, but he was a terrorist in his own right.

George Washington deployed troops in Saudi Arabia? Who knew?

[LoungeMachine]

All Nick, All Night.

3 for 3 from the top of the key.

[stringfelowhawk]

I am not attacking you. I'm just commenting on the following post:

It's really a simple question Lounge...

You and those against this war don't like it for what it is right now, which is huge loss of life, Americans included. Until recently, there hasn't even been a hint of an end in sight. Even those of us who support the effort are frustarted with the time, lives, and cost involved.
Where we differ is this...
I beleive that in a number of years, if we stay and succeed, that an ally (Iraq) and a democracy (in some form) in the heart of the Middle East will hugely benefit the safety of America. Secondly, I believe that this democracy (we all agree we don't know exactly how it will look) will most definietely spill over to other parts, if not all, of the region. It is my honest opinion, and obviously that of the President's, that this is what will defeat terrorsim and hopefully prevent larger scale attacks over time. The terrorism threat against America began decades ago, not on 9/11/01. So, therefore, every administration and policy pre-9/11 could not prevent 9/11. Thirdly, I firmly believe that while WMD was part of the decision to go to Iraq (and remember every intel agency in the world, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and most democrats in congress agreed, that WMD was at most 25% of the reason behind he war. I know, that's what we were told the reason was. However, I believe the President and his administration felt that the world needed to see drastic acion from the US that said "if you fuck with us AT ALL, we will come and get you". Do you think all of the insurgent groups put up a fight because they don't like us or do you think they know that our success in Iraq would be devastating to their long term cause? I believe the latter.
Next, since it is fact that most people did in fact believe Saddam had, or was close to having, significant WMD's, what would people like you have said if we had never gone to Iraq, and yesterday a dirty bomb originating from Iraq and placed in terrorist hands had gone off in LA killing 100,000 people? You would have ripped the head off of the President for having not acted on worldwide intelligence. You're probably someone who ripped the President for not acting quicker on the famous memo in August of '01 that said Al Qaeda poised to strike US, no?
The point is, those of you against the war and the deaths of 4,000 members of the military have the luxury of worrying about the here and now. A President does not have such a luxury. It is his (or her) awesome responsibilty to do things that must benefit the country for decades, not a few years while in office. Neither you nor I can make a conclusion as to the success or failure of this campaign for many, many years.
If in the next 10 or 20 years the Middle East is not stable, attacks happen on US soil to significant degrees, and Iran and others are still huge threats, you will have been right. And in between reading how Michael Anthony is in his reunion after 20 years out of VH, I will admit I was wrong.
But the extent to which you mock he man who has the phenominal responsibilty of protecting your country for years to come in an environment history had not yet seen is simply shortsighted. History may eventually prove you to be correct. However, saying "Your pResident sent almost 4,000 men and women to their deaths in Iraq for nothing." is way beyond insulting to them and there families. Again, if in many years you are proven correct, I'll stand with you in calling it a huge mistake and will call the deaths a waste. But calling it a failure now is decades premature.

Now, democracy in the Middle East for our safety is a bogus thought. Bush is using our perception of "our safety" as a front to wage war for no purpose as noble as our national security. He is not looking to the future of our country with regard to our best interests. He is looking at a wealth of world currency known to the lamen as "oil". If he truly had our safety in mind why in the hell would he need to manufacture evidence to support an unnecessary war? Why has he not implemented the most basic measures suggested by the 9/11 Commission? Why is he cutting the DHS budget next year? Why does he and his Vice President continue to spread propaganda thats proven false? Why did we invade a country that DID NOT attack us nor did they have any ties to the actual people who DID attack us? Why, in a slip of monumental arrogance, did he say he didn't know where OBL was, didn't care, and he wasn't his priority? He goes after Saddam Hussein who did not attack us but now "doesn't care" where OBL is after he killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil? He is guilty of war crimes by the very definition. He has subverted the foundation of the country he is supposed to protect. If he cared about our safety he'd resign. His foreign policy had made us MORE vulnerable and likely to be attacked than we were before 9/11. He and his Vice President were head long into starting another illegal war under the guise of our safety until every intelligence organization in our country balked by refusing to provide false intel supporting his case in an attempt to restore some sanity. Why is he borrowing so much money from China to fund his illegal war allowing in return, unsafe products with incredibly lax inspection procedures that seems to have them being recalled almost on a bi-weekly basis into our country? Why is it that even after adjusting for inflation his administration has increased the national deficit by more than EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY COMBINED? Why was he trying to sneak behind Congress' back and give a foreign government control of security for our ports? Why has he illegally politicized the Justice Department ? Why do you have to work on a republican campaign to get a job in his administration instead of being, you know, qualified or something? If he cares about our safety so much why is the Constitution just a "Goddamn piece of paper" to him? Why does he feel he can ignore the same document whenever he wishes? Why does his administration commit treason by outting a covert agent dedicated to gathering intelligence to ensure our safety for political retribution? Why did he suspend Habeas Corpus? Why does his administration not only allow but encourage torture that is illegal under Geneva of which the U.S. is a signee? Why are there billions of dollars missing from the reconstruction efforts? Why are there "no bid" contracts given to companies that have a history of fraud on taxpayers? If he is really trying to look out for this country why did he lie about his intentions of staying in Iraq after it became a full democracy? He waited for Congress to recess before signing a declaration that keeps American troops in Iraq indefinately! Its worded so that it obscures its sole purpose of being a treaty so that Congress can't insist on signing it since its not called a "treaty" perse'. Get yourself familiar with the term "Amero".
This is the most arrogant, incompetent group of jackass' government has ever witnessed and if YOU believe George W. Bush has anything as noble as "our safety" and best interest in mind then YOU are the most naive poster ever to visit cyberspace.

[scamper]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
all i meant was that in 1993, the WTC was attacked by apparent radical islamic terrorists (car bomb). there wasn't another attack on the continental U.S. by radical islamic terrorists for another 8 years (9/11/2001.)


now, you could argue that U.S. soil was attacked in 1998 when our two african embassies were bombed. true. but not the continental U.S....

Sorry, misunderstood

[scamper]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Actually, it's only Americans LIKE YOU that I fucking hate. Holier-Than-Thou the US-of-A can do no wrong assholes.

Funny, I don't remember coming off with a holier-than-thou attitude, but you seem to have one. Keep up the hate...it must be a wonderful life.

[LoungeMachine]

They're now talking about how destroying these tapes may affect prosecutions, past and present of "terrorists"

basically the CIA has aided the enemy here.

And anyone else reeling from the HYPOCRISY of the CIA claiming they were trying to "protect the identity of CIA operatives"