CNSNews: CIA confirms waterboarding thwarted another 9/11

[The Dean]

I think it's clear that congress members had the same intelligence the white house had.

 

 

Really? It's clear? Provide the clarification.

 

"You !@#$ed up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help." -Otter

[Kelly the Dog]

I think the easiest, most possible, and most reasonable reading on the whole matter is that the CIA misled and lied to Nancy Pelosi AND Nancy Pelosi is a lying, self-serving, obnoxious, hypocritical, miserable partisan hack prone to making mistakes.

[Alaska Darin]

I think the easiest, most possible, and most reasonable reading on the whole matter is that the CIA misled and lied to Nancy Pelosi AND Nancy Pelosi is a lying, self-serving, obnoxious, hypocritical, miserable partisan hack prone to making mistakes.

Yep.

[RkFast]

Really? It's clear? Provide the clarification.

 

"You !@#$ed up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help." -Otter

 

 

Any comment on the crap Clinton and Albright and members of Congress spouted about Iraq and WMD BEFORE 2001????

[erynthered]

I remember seeing him say Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[erynthered]

Any comment on the crap Clinton and Albright and members of Congress spouted about Iraq and WMD BEFORE 2001????

 

Like right in those videos?

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1429048

[IDBillzFan]

It sounds like you are forgetting that situations change over the course of time, and in matters that involve international conflict the members of the Senate have typically trusted the Administration to be forthcoming with relatively honest intel.

 

If Bill had the same info, I wonder why he didn't decide to attack Iraq, without provocation?

 

Are you suggesting the Administration was totally straight with the Senate, and gathered and presented the best info they had, in the most honest way possible? Or are you suggesting Hilary knew they were lying, and supported the claims, anyway?

It is particularly curious these days that virtually no one on the left has the balls to be held accountable for anything. Whether it's a president and his entourage repeatedly stating "I inherited this" and "That's not me," to Pelosi's off-the-meds lectern show of "Well, at the time, that wasn't my job," to any liberal voter who keeps repeating that "my side was lied to about <fill in the blank>," it's no wonder this country is pulling itself apart. Hillary was "all in" on going to war in Iraq, and she was all in based on the same information everyone else had, including information she got from her own people whom she trusted.

 

Hillary - in her own words, speaking to Code Pink, explaining that her decisions were made on information not just from the regular politicos, but from "people whose opinion I trusted" while "trying to discount political or other factors..."

 

But she shouldn't be accountable for her decision. She was misled. Bush lied, people died. Yada, yada, yada.

[IDBillzFan]

I think the easiest, most possible, and most reasonable reading on the whole matter is that the CIA misled and lied to Nancy Pelosi AND Nancy Pelosi is a lying, self-serving, obnoxious, hypocritical, miserable partisan hack prone to making mistakes.

Somehow I feel like most Democrats are looking at this as an opportunity of addition by subtraction if/when Pelosi loses her spot in the pecking order.

[The Dean]

I think the easiest, most possible, and most reasonable reading on the whole matter is that the CIA misled and lied to Nancy Pelosi AND Nancy Pelosi is a lying, self-serving, obnoxious, hypocritical, miserable partisan hack prone to making mistakes.

 

 

Pretty accurate assessment, I'd say.

[RkFast]

It is particularly curious these days that virtually no one on the left has the balls to be held accountable for anything. Whether it's a president and his entourage repeatedly stating "I inherited this" and "That's not me," to Pelosi's off-the-meds lectern show of "Well, at the time, that wasn't my job," to any liberal voter who keeps repeating that "my side was lied to about <fill in the blank>," it's no wonder this country is pulling itself apart. Hillary was "all in" on going to war in Iraq, and she was all in based on the same information everyone else had, including information she got from her own people whom she trusted.

 

Hillary - in her own words, speaking to Code Pink, explaining that her decisions were made on information not just from the regular politicos, but from "people whose opinion I trusted" while "trying to discount political or other factors..."

 

But she shouldn't be accountable for her decision. She was misled. Bush lied, people died. Yada, yada, yada.

 

Liberals live and die by the victim mentality. According to them, EVERYONE is a "victim." Usually of the actions of a white, male heterosexual or a good looking female Christian.

 

So this "it wasnt MY fault" nonsense shocks you?

[Kelly the Dog]

Somehow I feel like most Democrats are looking at this as an opportunity of addition by subtraction if/when Pelosi loses her spot in the pecking order.

Not sure. I assume that there are a lot of partisans that like her but I really don't know. She sure isn't helping herself right now, and I truly hope the White House is going to use this nonsense against her. I would love if she lost some power and standing although I really don't know who is next in line or the logical successor, but they probably wouldn't be much different, unfortunately.

[Fastback]

Not sure. I assume that there are a lot of partisans that like her but I really don't know. She sure isn't helping herself right now, and I truly hope the White House is going to use this nonsense against her. I would love if she lost some power and standing although I really don't know who is next in line or the logical successor, but they probably wouldn't be much different, unfortunately.

 

Steny Hoyer is licking his chops waiting for the shoe to drop. Actually, he would probably be more effective as a leader than that kunt Pelosi.

[finknottle]

It sounds like you are forgetting that situations change over the course of time, and in matters that involve international conflict the members of the Senate have typically trusted the Administration to be forthcoming with relatively honest intel.

 

If Bill had the same info, I wonder why he didn't decide to attack Iraq, without provocation?

 

Are you suggesting the Administration was totally straight with the Senate, and gathered and presented the best info they had, in the most honest way possible? Or are you suggesting Hilary knew they were lying, and supported the claims, anyway?

 

The problem with Iraq is that different people had different reasons for justifying the war. The Bush administrations greatest blunder was in letting these myriad justifications go forth at the time, letting the critics use the stupidest (eg AQ ties) as a strawman for attacking those who supported it.

 

IMO Clintons support was based on something different: She saw first-hand during the Clinton administration that Saddam was a long term danger. That Iraq was circumventing the trade sanctions and aggressively targeting UN patrols. That the UN sanctions were regularly flouted by the Europeans, being demonstrated against by the left, and with French, German, and Russian security council opposition would not survive more than 2-3 years. And that *once* sanctions were lifted and the Gulf War I terms ended, Saddam would resume his WMD efforts. His experiences manipulating the UN and world opinion, far from chastening him, would only embolden him in the future. In other words, it wasn't because of WMD claims in the here-and-now (though the claims made justification easier), but rather the realization that Iraq would become another North Korea within the decade. And Hillary also saw first-hand exactly what that meant: an aggressive trouble-maker who could neither be trusted nor negotiated with, whose behavior, blackmail and transgressions the international community was powerless to effect.

 

You ask why Bill Clinton didn't do anything, given these same facts: his administration already had it's hands full stopping (along with UK) the other security council members from lifting the sanctions and ending the no-fly patrols. Remember, this was the time of the 'wag the dog' accusations. Right or wrong, his administration didn't feel politically they could do more than the already-criticized occasional message-via-missile attack without a change in the political landscape. As it was, Congress did pass authorization for regime change in Iraq, and allocated something like $100 million to that cause.

 

As for the insinuation that they were 'lying,' do you really think that most of the Bush adminstration didn't believe it themselves? Curious thing to choose to lie about, since there is a clear-cut resolution. Why did they spend millions in a highly-publicized search for WMD? Was is some right-wing plot, where they decided in advance "we'll lie about WMD, and after the war we'll have a high-profile search for it, and when we find nothing we'll say 'opps, my bad' and all will be forgiven"? You don't think highly of Rove as a strategist.

 

More generally, is every mistake a 'lie'? Was Obama lying when he said the billions he gave to the automakers would keep them out of bankruptcy? I'm no defender of Obama, but I'd like to think that he believed it and was simply wrong.

[Gene Frenkle]

Liberals live and die by the victim mentality. According to them, EVERYONE is a "victim." Usually of the actions of a white, male heterosexual or a good looking female Christian.

 

So this "it wasnt MY fault" nonsense shocks you?

You definately strike me as being a victim.

[Gene Frenkle]

Steny Hoyer is licking his chops waiting for the shoe to drop. Actually, he would probably be more effective as a leader than that kunt Pelosi.

And don't let anyone ever tell you that you are not a classy guy!

[RkFast]

You definately strike me as being a victim.

 

of your idiocy?

 

Yes.

[Gene Frenkle]

of your idiocy?

 

Yes.

Of many things.

[Booster4324]

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, put them in jail too. I wish it was actually a crime to mislead the public.

[Alaska Darin]

The problem with Iraq is that different people had different reasons for justifying the war. The Bush administrations greatest blunder was in letting these myriad justifications go forth at the time, letting the critics use the stupidest (eg AQ ties) as a strawman for attacking those who supported it.

Actually, the problem with Iraq was attacking a sovereign nation that wasn't any kind of threat to the national security of the United States. You know, because stuff like that is expensive in ways that than the only current measurement being used (U.S. taxpayer dollars).

 

At some point, even the warmongers are going to realize that blowback is a very real deal.

[finknottle]

Actually, the problem with Iraq was attacking a sovereign nation that wasn't any kind of threat to the national security of the United States. You know, because stuff like that is expensive in ways that than the only current measurement being used (U.S. taxpayer dollars).

 

At some point, even the warmongers are going to realize that blowback is a very real deal.

 

Fair enough. You may not like that argument or find it compelling, but that isn't the issue.

 

Had the administration successfully made the case that Iraq would ultimately be a threat, and that that justified going to war - note, those are hypotheticals - instead of letting one guy make the case that they had AQ links and another make the case that they had WMD and another make the case that there was genocide and another talk about creating a democratic Middle East etc... had they gotten consensus for action on that single argument instead of getting a consensus by cobbling together disparate arguments of varying accuracy, then they would have been much better off politically.