Jump to content

Bush slaps Congress


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

Our President, George W. Bush continues to protect America. The Loony Left members of

Congress passed a bill outlawing waterboarding of captured terrorists at Gitmo. Bush wisely vetoed that

bill yesterday. The terrorists should not get too disheartened however, if Billory or Hussain gets elected

they'll be sure to sign the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
Our President, George W. Bush continues to protect America. The Loony Left members of

Congress passed a bill outlawing waterboarding of captured terrorists at Gitmo. Bush wisely vetoed that

bill yesterday.

Hey stupid, waterboarding is useless as a method of extracting information. It's so severe that people it's used on are known to confess to ANYTHING just to have it stop. How useful is a false confession to national security, punk?

So not only is waterboarding brutal, but it gets you false information. Brutality and lies--I can see why you're in favor of it.

You're a disgrace to the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Hey stupid, waterboarding is useless as a method of extracting information. It's so severe that people it's used on are known to confess to ANYTHING just to have it stop. How useful is a false confession to national security, punk?

So not only is waterboarding brutal, but it gets you false information. Brutality and lies--I can see why you're in favor of it.

You're a disgrace to the human race.

It's almost as though Bush and PatRat are going out of their way to be evil. The sicker it is, the better they like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey stupid, waterboarding is useless as a method of extracting information.

That's not what the CIA agent interviewed by ABC News said.

http://www.newser.com/story/13800.html

It's so severe that people it's used on are known to confess to ANYTHING just to have it stop. How useful is a false confession to national security, punk?

Maybe you should ask the CIA agent who ordered waterboarding performed?

So not only is waterboarding brutal, but it gets you false information. Brutality and lies--I can see why you're in favor of it.

Problem is, you seem to be the one lying. A CIA agent who now says he thinks waterboarding is torture also said that the CIA obtained useful and actionable intelligence from the technique. You can always plead ignorance, I suppose. You were too uninformed to know any better than to spread disinformation.

You're a disgrace to the human race.

Don't you just want to smash the faces of people who favor waterboarding? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Hey stupid, waterboarding is useless as a method of extracting information. It's so severe that people it's used on are known to confess to ANYTHING just to have it stop. How useful is a false confession to national security, punk?

So not only is waterboarding brutal, but it gets you false information. Brutality and lies--I can see why you're in favor of it.

You're a disgrace to the human race.

"disgrace to the human race"! Wow, Bubba Clinton's on KOTW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That's not what the CIA agent interviewed by ABC News said.

http://www.newser.com/story/13800.html

What about this former CIA agent?

"It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer." --http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Problem is, you seem to be the one lying. A CIA agent who now says he thinks waterboarding is torture also said that the CIA obtained useful and actionable intelligence from the technique.

And another completely contradicts him.

You can always plead ignorance, I suppose. You were too uninformed to know any better than to spread disinformation.

No, maybe you were too ignorant to search for both sides of the story before you pushed yours, acting like it was the only one. Of course, knowing you, I'm guessing it was dishonesty, not ignorance.

So, are you ignorant or a liar?

Don't you just want to smash the faces of people who favor waterboarding? :)

I'm a pacifist, jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
That's not what the CIA agent interviewed by ABC News said.

http://www.newser.com/story/13800.html

Maybe you should ask the CIA agent who ordered waterboarding performed?

Problem is, you seem to be the one lying. A CIA agent who now says he thinks waterboarding is torture also said that the CIA obtained useful and actionable intelligence from the technique. You can always plead ignorance, I suppose. You were too uninformed to know any better than to spread disinformation.

Don't you just want to smash the faces of people who favor waterboarding? :)

You see Bryan this is what's so infuriating about you. What the f**k do YOU know about the effects of water boarding? Better yet why don't YOU go talk to the CIA agent involved? Why? because you are just as guilty of speculation as the rest of us yet you treat us as you lessers while screaming about proof and citation. Come back and comment once you have been waterboarded and have acutally spoken with the CIA agent in question. We will expect proof of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about this former CIA agent?

"It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer." --http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Which of the two obtained information using waterboarding?

And another completely contradicts him.

Based on what?

Was your guy privy to the testimony of the waterboarded individuals?

No, maybe you were too ignorant to search for both sides of the story before you pushed yours, acting like it was the only one. Of course, knowing you, I'm guessing it was dishonesty, not ignorance.

There's only one former CIA agent who publicly claims to have obtained information from prisoners using waterboarding.

So, are you ignorant or a liar?

Neither, unless you just forgot to provide the evidence that your source has firsthand knowledge of information obtained through CIA waterboarding.

If you do, then I was apparently ignorant as to that. If not, then apparently you are the ignorant one for providing such a pathetic argument.

I'm a pacifist, jackass.

Sorry, it's hard to tell which sock puppet you are with so many anonymous Guests running around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see Bryan this is what's so infuriating about you. What the f**k do YOU know about the effects of water boarding?

About as much as anyone who has not either experienced it, administered it or had security clearance sufficient to know secret stuff about it. And you?

Better yet why don't YOU go talk to the CIA agent involved?

I listened to what he said about it, at least. You seem to have skipped that step.

Why? because you are just as guilty of speculation as the rest of us yet you treat us as you lessers while screaming about proof and

citation.

As usual, Keith, you don't know what you're talking about.

I've watched two videos of modern waterboarding (along with the commentary of the men who endured it), read a journal article on waterboarding, and I paid attention to the testimony of a CIA agent who administered the technique.

You probably read the newspaper and a few hard left blogs.

I'll take my knowledge of it over yours based on that.

Come back and comment once you have been waterboarded and have acutally spoken with the CIA agent in question. We will expect proof of course.

:)

Yeah, maybe the Marine recruiters can fix me up with some waterboarding while I'm in Iraq.

You're absolutely pathetic, Keith, and you remind us of it afresh every time you attempt to answer an argument with this style of response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
About as much as anyone who has not either experienced it, administered it or had security clearance sufficient to know secret stuff about it. And you?

I listened to what he said about it, at least. You seem to have skipped that step.

As usual, Keith, you don't know what you're talking about.

I've watched two videos of modern waterboarding (along with the commentary of the men who endured it), read a journal article on waterboarding, and I paid attention to the testimony of a CIA agent who administered the technique.

You probably read the newspaper and a few hard left blogs.

I'll take my knowledge of it over yours based on that.

:lol:

Yeah, maybe the Marine recruiters can fix me up with some waterboarding while I'm in Iraq.

You're absolutely pathetic, Keith, and you remind us of it afresh every time you attempt to answer an argument with this style of response.

See Bryan, you made my point for me. You watched a couple of videos and paid attention to the CIA agent testimony. So did I. Guess what? We are both only speculating and at least I man enough to admit it. You don't know shit about waterboarding and have no more valid information than the rest of us have access to. All of this bullshit we write on here is purely just our opinions, period. You also make assumptions on where I get my news and naturally it must be from a corrupt source. I guess you are the only one with access to accurate information, right Bryan? For all of your brow beating and chest thumping you are swinging in the dark just like the rest of us. So again thank for making my point for me. http://www.marines.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Bryan, you made my point for me. You watched a couple of videos and paid attention to the CIA agent testimony. So did I. Guess what? We are both only speculating and at least I man enough to admit it.

Your posts thus far ignore evidence that you claim to know about. Mine do not. That does nothing but undermine you, Keith.

You don't know shit about waterboarding and have no more valid information than the rest of us have access to.

I'm just better than you at accessing the information and basing my argument on that information without committing fallacies.

You just blunder straight into the fallacies.

All of this bullshit we write on here is purely just our opinions, period.

The opinion of "Guest" conflicts with the available evidence, as I already showed. You haven't yet participated in the discussion of waterboarding unless you were using "Guest" as your sock puppet.

You also make assumptions on where I get my news and naturally it must be from a corrupt source.

It's the most charitable way to account for your failure to address the Kiriakou testimony. Otherwise I'd have to assume you're a liar.

I guess you are the only one with access to accurate information, right Bryan?

No. But I'm above average in accessing accurate information and separating it from blindly partisan versions.

For all of your brow beating and chest thumping you are swinging in the dark just like the rest of us. So again thank for making my point for me. http://www.marines.com

Add another spadeful of unintended irony to Keith's Mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Your posts thus far ignore evidence that you claim to know about. Mine do not. That does nothing but undermine you, Keith.

I'm just better than you at accessing the information and basing my argument on that information without committing fallacies.

You just blunder straight into the fallacies.

The opinion of "Guest" conflicts with the available evidence, as I already showed. You haven't yet participated in the discussion of waterboarding unless you were using "Guest" as your sock puppet.

It's the most charitable way to account for your failure to address the Kiriakou testimony. Otherwise I'd have to assume you're a liar.

No. But I'm above average in accessing accurate information and separating it from blindly partisan versions.

Add another spadeful of unintended irony to Keith's Mountain.

Bryan, your adorable! It's a good thing you have such a high opinion of yourself this blog. Does your arrogance manifest itself like this in real life? I would love to see all of the eyes rolling when you walk into a room. :lol: Semper Fi. www.marines.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, your adorable! It's a good thing you have such a high opinion of yourself this blog. Does your arrogance manifest itself like this in real life? I would love to see all of the eyes rolling when you walk into a room. :lol: Semper Fi. www.marines.com

Still won't own up to the fact that you simply ignored the Kiriakou evidence, eh?

Semper Fi. www.marines.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Bryan, your adorable! It's a good thing you have such a high opinion of yourself this blog. Does your arrogance manifest itself like this in real life? I would love to see all of the eyes rolling when you walk into a room. :lol: Semper Fi. www.marines.com

Keith it's "you're adorable" not "your adorable". Please put out the cigarette and let your brain get some oxygen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud amewrican
Bryan, your adorable! It's a good thing you have such a high opinion of yourself this blog. Does your arrogance manifest itself like this in real life? I would love to see all of the eyes rolling when you walk into a room. :lol: Semper Fi. www.marines.com

Keith, haven't we all learned by now that Bryan is never wrong. What are thinking when we challenge him. After WWII we executed Japanese Officers for water Boarding POW's. The Army Field Manual forbids water boarding, but the Proffesor is always right. Watch, he'll respond using some bulls**t web site he carouses to make his point. The CIA really didn't destroy their tapes where they are water boarding prisoners now did they.

You know what, the professor could put an end to all of this if he would agree to be video taped being water boarded and place it on you tube for all of us to see. Living in Florida, I'm sure he could find some Iraq war veterans to perform it for him provided he released them from any liability that might occur.

How about it professor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, haven't we all learned by now that Bryan is never wrong. What are thinking when we challenge him.

More to the point, what are you thinking when you constantly change the subject?

After WWII we executed Japanese Officers for water Boarding POW's.

No, we didn't. And even John McCain is wrong if he thinks so.

The Army Field Manual forbids water boarding, but the Proffesor is always right.

How would the Army Field Manual contradict anything I've said? Here's betting that's your cue to engage in evasive maneuvers.

Watch, he'll respond using some bulls**t web site he carouses to make his point.

That would assume that you had made some type of point that requires refutation. That assumption doesn't follow.

The CIA really didn't destroy their tapes where they are water boarding prisoners now did they.

Sure they did. So what, other than your latest attempt to change the subject?

Implicit in your argument, if I try to interpret it as other than a change of topic, is the proposition that we would use waterboarding if it worked regardless of public and international opinion. That does qualify as a stupid argument.

You know what, the professor could put an end to all of this if he would agree to be video taped being water boarded and place it on you tube for all of us to see. Living in Florida, I'm sure he could find some Iraq war veterans to perform it for him provided he released them from any liability that might occur.

How about it professor?

It's not really a fair deal unless those who originally pontificated about waterboarding do the same, is it? I'll follow after the "Guest" from post #2.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83614

And that's why you and Keith are so pathetic. You don't care what people say if they agree with you. But if somebody disagrees you come up with go to Iraq or shut up! or get waterboarded or shut up!

Pa-the-tic. Just answer the arguments if you can. Stop acting like worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
More to the point, what are you thinking when you constantly change the subject?

No, we didn't. And even John McCain is wrong if he thinks so.

How would the Army Field Manual contradict anything I've said? Here's betting that's your cue to engage in evasive maneuvers.

That would assume that you had made some type of point that requires refutation. That assumption doesn't follow.

Sure they did. So what, other than your latest attempt to change the subject?

Implicit in your argument, if I try to interpret it as other than a change of topic, is the proposition that we would use waterboarding if it worked regardless of public and international opinion. That does qualify as a stupid argument.

It's not really a fair deal unless those who originally pontificated about waterboarding do the same, is it? I'll follow after the "Guest" from post #2.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83614

And that's why you and Keith are so pathetic. You don't care what people say if they agree with you. But if somebody disagrees you come up with go to Iraq or shut up! or get waterboarded or shut up!

Pa-the-tic. Just answer the arguments if you can. Stop acting like worms.

Well Bryan, I was only giving you a way to prove that water boarding is ok. Why would you be afraid, since it's so safe and all. Hey, I'm giving you a chance to prove me wrong. What better way to do it. What I love about you is when given an opportunity to prove your point you suddenly call us pathetic.

On this one, you lose. And by the way, the Army Field Manual strictly prohibits water boarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Bryan, I was only giving you a way to prove that water boarding is ok.

That's not up to me, and that's not my argument. One of your doofus compadres (or perhaps a sock puppet) said that waterboarding doesn't work. I showed that a former CIA agent said that it works. I get replies to the effect that your side knew that already and I don't know a thing about waterboarding. Whatever! :wub:

Why would you be afraid, since it's so safe and all.

The question is why you'd be so pathetic as to try to make it appear relevant that I personally experience waterboarding. I suspect it is because you know that your argument is a failure despite the fact that you're too proud to admit it (insight into your nickname, perhaps).

Hey, I'm giving you a chance to prove me wrong.

About what, just to help ensure that your mind hasn't wandered?

What better way to do it. What I love about you is when given an opportunity to prove your point you suddenly call us pathetic.

I already proved my point, which is that a CIA guy says waterboarding works. Perhaps you should share what you thought my point was so we can see where you went awry.

On this one, you lose. And by the way, the Army Field Manual strictly prohibits water boarding.

Well, if the Army Field Manual prohibits waterboarding then waterboarding could not possibly be effective.

Is that it? I'll hold off on the laughter until you confirm what it is you were trying to say, pathetic american.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That's not up to me, and that's not my argument. One of your doofus compadres (or perhaps a sock puppet) said that waterboarding doesn't work. I showed that a former CIA agent said that it works.

And then you were shown another CIA agent who said it doesn't. Yet you've declared your evidence to be superior arbitrarily, like the arrogant fool you are.

How many terrorist plots have been uncovered through the use of waterboarding, hm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you were shown another CIA agent who said it doesn't.

No he didn't. Review what he said.

And you should pay attention to what the other CIA sources (albeit anonymous) said in the same story you cited, you cherry-picker.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Yet you've declared your evidence to be superior arbitrarily, like the arrogant fool you are.

Nonsense. I simply pointed out that Kiriakou was the one with the direct experience with the technique. And your side did not bother to reply to that point.

Which of the two obtained information using waterboarding?

Was your guy privy to the testimony of the waterboarded individuals?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83721

And now it turns out that you took the supposedly contradictory statement out of context.

How many terrorist plots have been uncovered through the use of waterboarding, hm?

Kiriacou (the CIA agent involved in ordering the technique) says a number of them were uncovered and disrupted, and says he's sure that American lives were saved.

It's like you didn't bother reading the evidence that contradicted your view.

Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No he didn't. Review what he said.

And you should pay attention to what the other CIA sources (albeit anonymous) said in the same story you cited, you cherry-picker.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Nonsense. I simply pointed out that Kiriakou was the one with the direct experience with the technique. And your side did not bother to reply to that point.

Which of the two obtained information using waterboarding?

Was your guy privy to the testimony of the waterboarded individuals?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83721

And now it turns out that you took the supposedly contradictory statement out of context.

Kiriacou (the CIA agent involved in ordering the technique) says a number of them were uncovered and disrupted, and says he's sure that American lives were saved.

It's like you didn't bother reading the evidence that contradicted your view.

Why is that?

Could be because he's unwilling to take the unsubstantiated word of the guy who has a vested interest in the "method."

If all those plots were foiled, don't you think we would have heard about it from other sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...