He flip flopped, he has done it more than once on many subjects.
Osama Bin Laden DEAD!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
He flip flopped, he has done it more than once on many subjects.
You're a moron...
CIA director Leon Panetta said in numerous interviews that torture was involved in securing some of the information used to hunt bin Laden:
"Obviously there was...some valuable information that...was derived through those kinds of interrogations," Panetta told Katie Couric of CBS last night. "But I guess the question that everybody will always debate is whether or not those approaches had to be used to get the same information. And that, frankly, is an open question."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=88341#ixzz1LVZFWHFN
"Obviously there was...some valuable information that...was derived through those kinds of interrogations," Panetta told Katie Couric of CBS last night. "But I guess the question that everybody will always debate is whether or not those approaches had to be used to get the same information. And that, frankly, is an open question."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=88341#ixzz1LVZFWHFN
No, you do not realize the difference between harsh interrogation and assassination. I support both in the WOT... Which is why I am unafraid to acknowledge that it was enhanced interrogations that began the journey which allowed for the assassination to eventually be realized- whereas you and your odd cognizant dissonance are unable to marry the two in any kind of logical way.
http://www.newshounds.us/2011/05/05...donald_rumsfelds_new_tortureagogo_clothes.php
Rummy the Flopper! But he did get a lot of practice from 2000-2007 or whenever he went away, finally! Good riddance to bad rubbish!
The cognizant dissonance is a cute line, but the arguments you're making could be made with any form of torture (Dixie's doing the same thing). My only conclusion would be that you do support torture if it's effective in gaining intel.
Is that accurate?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
They work. If you can trust what the victims tell you, and if you don't have a problem with torture.
Have you got any evidence that waterboarding nailed OBL?
If so, post it.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
He's saying 2 different things, isn't he?
1. We never waterboarded anyone at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Waterboarding didn't lead to OBL's killing.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
That's what I heard. In another soundbite posted above, he says - flat out - that waterboarding did not lead to getting OBL.
If it had, wouldn't we have gotten Osama a long time ago?
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;810351 said:
DIRECTLY from the CIA
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:47:31:00 I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was-- as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?
LEON PANETTA:
10:47:53:00 It-- you know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a multiple source-- a multiple series of-- sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well.
10:48:18:00 From Sigent intelligence, from imagery, from other sources that we had-- assets on the ground. And it was a combination of all of that that ultimately we were able to put together that led us to that compound. So-- it's-- it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:48:36:00 Turned around the other way, are you denying that water boarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?
LEON PANETTA:
10:48:48:00 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.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:49:07:00 So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years. That-
LEON PANETTA:
10:49:16:00 Right.
BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:49:17:00 --in-- includes water boarding?
LEON PANETTA:
10:49:20:00 That's correct.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42887700/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/
You have no proof that actual torture where mutilations take place could have produced the evidence. Nor do you have anything, but your opinion, that enhanced interrogations are torture. What I have is that enhanced interrogations provided the seeds of information that eventually led to the killing of bin Laden. So, to summarize, I have facts and a seamless ethics while you suffer from an odd cognizant dissonance that needs to find harmony in a moral code, but cannot.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Remembered what? That a shill for the right-wing wrote an opinion piece that says waterboarding ain't torture? How astonishing!
You insist on taking him out of context.....Rummy was only speaking about intell gathered at Gitmo.....and there was NO waterboarding at Gitmo....therefore there was no intell gathered at Gitmo from waterboareding.....how many different ways can we explain it to you....¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;810355 said:
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I found a seam in your seamless argument.
Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Why was it an opinion when I posted that waterboarding is torture, but it's fact when you post that it's not?
That's a very interesting conundrum...
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
There are 2 Rummy clips in this thread.
1 says no waterboarding at Gitmo.
The second says... well, listen to this recording and tell me what I'm taking out of context:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;810305 said:
LOL Retardber, in this context the definition is "something that causes agony or pain" [m-w.com]
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Opinions are irrelevant. Her web-husband Mr. Dumb Yankee said so. She'd never contradict her web-husband.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Irrelevant. It's his opinion.¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;810298 said: