[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: The Truth and Ideology Follow the link, watch the video. Yesterday, our resident ideology based liberal kooks claimed Rumsfeld said 'enhanced interrogation' didn't produce valuable information in the war on terror, specifically leading to the killing of bin Laden. Rumsfeld last night on live television totally eviscerated that bullshit. Moral of the story: If you rely on Soro's funded political spin outlets, you look ridiculous at best, a total dumbass or worse. Enjoy that crow, GO65 and company. I suggest washing in down with a tall glass of Shut the Fuck Up. (grin) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Yesterday, our resident ideology based liberal kooks claimed Rumsfeld said 'enhanced interrogation' didn't produce valuable information Waterboarding stopped in 2003. Ghul was captured in 2004. What Rumsfeld actually said was that "waterboarding" didn't lead to the information. So, as usual, O'Reilly is lying about what was said. ...which also explains your attraction...
#4. To: war (#3) The waterboarding did lead to courier's nom de guerre, which was probably all KSM knew. Ghul provided yet another piece of the puzzle through further EIT. Wouldn't it be easier to stop all this tap dancing and just admit Bush was right and you and fellow moonbats were full of shit all along?
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#4) Wouldn't it be easier to stop all this tap dancing and just admit Bush was right and you and fellow moonbats were full of shit all along? Would members of an administration that manipulated facts to justify going to war also misrepresent facts to justify torture? Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News’s Sean Hannity that the Obama administration would not have had “the kinds of intelligence that was critically important,” but for the aggressive efforts of the Bush administration.
#11. To: lucysmom (#10) Would members of an administration that manipulated facts to justify going to war An old canard that's been repeatedly debunked: The CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq. No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. http://factcheck.org/article358.html
#12. To: no gnu taxes (#11) No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. Right, the best the Bush administration could do was claim ignorance. Wasn't evidence presented in Powell's speech to the UN almost immediately debunked? What did UN weapons inspectors find?
#13. To: lucysmom (#12) As has been pointed out to you, 2 bipartisan investigations have found that he did not manipulate intelligence. Take it up with these folks
Replies to Comment # 13. There are no replies to Comment # 13.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|