TankBuster

Whatever stupid liberal outcome will happen AFTER the 2010 elections. So to be sure, the January 2010 deadline will disolve very soon. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Possibly, but I think he'll keep pushing it. What will be interesting is what will happen to the scumbags while in prison. (Not the Democrats - the terrorists) Will they be killed, Dahmer style, or will they recruit new members. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Promising to close Gitmo helped get Obama elected, but actually DOING it will cause a lot of the Dems to get bumped off. Can you imagine the TV ads against those who will actually vote to allow the terrorists ino our lovely states? Obama can do no wrong, until he begins to fuck with our electability. OOPS, guess we didn't think that one through. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

I agree with you. I'm a radical right winger, but I don't see how Hannity keeps his solo show. It was much more entertaining with Alien Combs. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Probably a good thing they didn't get in. He might have treated them like Rev Wright and his grandmother - and thrown them under their bus...... The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

And here's the latest. At a news conference this morning. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this. I don't have any more to say on this. I stand by my comments. And what we are doing is staying on our course and not being distracted from it." Sounds a bit like Forrest Gump. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Obviously I don't have access to CIA studies, as they are and should remain secret. In the recently released DoJ memo, though, there are references to both previous studies and court cases that date back several years. Interrogation being a large part of what the CIA does - do you honestly believe they don't study it and desire to do it effectively? The memo also addresses the escalation of techniques. The fact they used waterboarding on only three detainees and under very strict controls pretty much points to its position at the top. "As Sands and Mayer tell it, the lawyers designing interrogation techniques cited Bauer more frequently than the Constitution." I don't find this very credible. Its heresay fom people trying to sell books. Maybe I missed it but I didn't find any mention of Bauer in the actual memo. Do you have sources other than this article? From the memo: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.” The CIA believes EITs to be a necessary tool. I would let them use it judiciously. Obama won't . You win. I hope you are right. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Do ALL CIA interrogators believe this? Why do you think the CIA uses the technique if it isn't effective? They simply enjoy it? Obvoiusly not everyone in the CIA agrees with you. This takes too much time in many instances. Actionalble intell is fleeting. I appreciate your references to Army Field Manuals and the words of my fellow servicemen, but they have no application here. AFMs are unclassified and written for the enemy's consumption as much as our own. These are not the uniformed combatants of a nation state. These are terrorists. The rules are different. If you feel the Geneva Convention should apply, as many do, fine, but they are not signatories to it. Do you think Mr. BHO should release the other intel on the attacks that were thwarted? If they show that enhanced interrogation saved American lives you can still be against it, but would you admit its validity as a technique? Why won't he release it? Maybe it doesn't support his position? For me to imply that you don't live in the real world is disrespectful and a bit condescending. My apology. Lets just say that based on our experience, we have a very different view of reality. I was in the Middle East immediately after 9-11 and one of my friends drew the job of helping to escort detainees from staging areas in Afganistan to Gitmo. These people were shackled, cuffed, and hooded almost all the time for a reason. They would kick, spit, urinate, bite, and throw feces at every opportunity. Being nice to the animals would not yield actionable inteligence. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

And YOU need to read MY post, Babe. The spooks don't go straight to the waterboard. They'll begin with more benign questioning, and if they get the results, then fine. IF they feel the need to ratchet it up, they will. That is, they used to. Nerdgirl does good research and makes great arguments but forgive me if I don't fall in line immediatley after her post. In the real world, where real live terrorists will slit your throat, fly planes into buildings, or bust off a nuke in downtown Cincinati, I'm ok if the CIA feels it necessary to step up an interrogation. Why take away the tool? YGBSM if you believe all these guys are going to give up the goods over milk and cookies. As for Mr. Soufan, he's done some great work, but he's been at odds with the CIA for years, he's the perfect stooge for congress to pick for an anti EIT testimony. I'm sure he loved the opportunity to sell some books. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Bill, how do you know that waterboarding doesn't work? What other techniques have "proven" to be more productive? The CIA has studied this for years, and they have a graduated set of techniques with waterboarding up at/near the top. They use the techniques that their experience and timeliness dictate. They didn't just invent waterboarding because the evil Bush/Cheney regime told them to. If they get information from less painful techniques, great, but if they feel they need it, it's my opinion they should be allowed to use it. It's not black and white, and one never knows how useful the interrogation will be, so to answer your question, yes I'd err on the side of the CIA's experience. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Your poll is well intentioned, but your statements don't make sense. There is no way to know how many lives will be saved through information gained during an interrogation. You're either in favor of it or you aren't. For me, relying on the experience of the CIA when they recommend its use is good enough. I don't have a moral aversion to it. I've been waterboarded. It is VERY unpleasant, and if you want to call it torture, fine, I don't care. Sleep deprivation, dietary control, confinement, they all are designed to make the subject uncomfortable, very uncomfortable. Several people here seem to think that the main purpose of an interrogation is to get the terrorist to confess to something, and of course they'll confess to being on the grassy knoll if it will make the pain stop. That's not the reason we interrogate. Information gained can be checked for accuracy and the when the interrogators can convince the subject that accurate infomation equals less pain and vice versa, you can get a great deal of very valuable information from them. And you can bet that high level operatives like KSM had and have information that, if known, will save lives. Names and addresses of operatives, for example, are relatively easy to check and yield futher surveilance intel. If only those who want to sit on the moral high horse and watch people die would be the first to die. But that's not how it will happen. Anyhow, put me in the column of hell yes, if one innocent life is saved. If the pussy in chief ever releases the other half of the memos, you'll see that lives have been saved. And as for the argument that we are recruiting terrorists, yes we are. That's why these interrogations should have been kept secret. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Excellent article, but this part isn't true. There will be a fight. Eventually. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Hmm. First of all, if you think the CIA started waterboarding people only during the Bush administration, you are extremely naive. That makes for many evil administrations. So the Bush administration is evil because they consulted the CIA, justice department officials, key members of congress, and others and made the decision to do what was necessary (on three high level detainees whom they believed had timely, actionable intelligence) to obtain information that would save American lives. I don't believe that to be evil. It's a tough decision made by several in the upper echelons of our government. Including, apparently, Ms. Pelosi. Unfortunately, she is too accustomed to the amnesia suffered by much of her electorate, and applied it too generally when she got on the Bush bashing bandwagon. Fortunately, the CIA is composed of very intelligent, highly trained, disciplined people. They take very good notes. Thanks Leon, for standing with your men. Has everyone posting here actually read the DoJ memo? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html Do it, and while you read it the first time imagine Bush and Cheney and all of his evil henchmen doing the interrogations and torture simply because they hate innocent people. Ah yes "the Bush Torture Policy," and "Bush Torture Memos" are great headlines and great words of propaganda. Even though it's equally as true, you'll probably never see headlines or hear the words "Pelosi Torture Methods." Then read it again, and imagine one of the recipients of this torture/interrogation being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted to both planning the attacks of 9/11 and personally beheading Daniel Pearl. Or of one of the recipients being Mohand al-Shehri, who slit the throat of a flight attendant to prove to the passengers he was serious, and then slit the throats of pilots Victor Saracini and Michael Horrocks. These are the Pelosi Torture methods. And if they are used to exact revenge, they are wrong. But if used to gain actionable intelligence from terrorists, I thank Ms. Pelosi. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

I was in the area for business and decided to take my rig to experience another DZ. I'm impressed! A Thursday, so not very busy, we flew the PAC 750 and I only got two jumps because weather rolled in for the afternoon. Every staff member I spoke to was friendly. My wife and I arrived Wednesday afternoon (they weren't jumping due to weather) and Mike, the DZO, went out of his way to speak to us in the bar and recommended some places to stay. It's a big DZ, with a wide variety of experience levels and instruction. Even if you go solo, I think it would be a great place to meet other upjumpers and learn new things. The layout and the restaurant (great food btw) are very nice. I'll definitely be back, most likely for some freefly coaching.

Now that's funny, I don't care you ya are! That from our favorite presidential screwy ranter! It never ceses to amaze me.. how easy it is to wind you fuckers up Now that's funny! From the chick that stays wound up tighter than a garage door spring! The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Now that's funny, I don't care you ya are! That from our favorite presidential screwy ranter! The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Again, giving is highly encouraged, but not mandatory. Many people of very little means still give 10% or even more - willingly. It gives them great joy to know that they are helping someone. And very often those are the folks working and serving in some capacity more so than those who can afford more. The question was not about church giving though, it's about why most conservatives don't want to pay (more) income tax. "Not helping the poor" is a false choice, and just one of the arguments used to guilt people into accepting a larger tax bill. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

(3) I think Jesus was about personal relationships and personal sacrifice and service. I believe it's lazy and it's a cop out to hand money over to the federal government, walk away, and say "good, they'll handle it." Most conservatives I know would turn your question around on you. Why, given the inefficiency and corruption of the federal government, do you want them in charge of helping the poor? How can you be so heartless? The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

I am headed to a prayer breakfast soon, but let me take a short stab at it, and maybe give some food for thought. (1) Giving to and helping the poor is at the heart of Chrisitanity. I believe that it is much more efficiently done at the local level, and at the church level. In other words, if we take those dollars and go out into the community with them, we can help more people. (2) The government's idea of helping the poor more often keeps them poor, and provides no incentive to make it on their own. I've seen people's lives turn around because of the local intervention. I gotta run, and there is more to say, but just consider this - just because conservatives are against higher taxes and we get blasted for not being "compasionate" - it's not necessarily true. I for one, would rather I decide where my charity dollars go, not some bureaucrat. It's that whole freedom thang. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Why would Obama be concerned with a ratings boost for Limbaugh? He's above that, isn't he? While I see your point about Limbaugh controling his venues, Obama could score some fantastic points by saying "you know, I've been giving Rush a tough time, so rather than go on the show, as Rush suggests, I'll debate him in an open forum." But it ain't gonna happen, because Obama would get his ass handed to him. And he knows it. And all Rush would get is a DVD set. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Yep. And it's exactly why the little pussy never goes anywhere he's not in complete control of the microphones or the audience. Rush Limbaugh has challenged President Obama to debate the issues. Since Obama and others in the administration have gone out of their way to denounce him, this would be the perfect oportunity to settle it, once and for all. AAHHH, but the administration is conspicuously quiet about a debate. Yeah, there's a pussy in our midst......... The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Actually, we do need to post credentials. Apparently, though, the only credentials needed for liberals - "I got a degree in TAX EVASION!" The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Hmmm. This thread seems to have started arguing the wrong point. The anti gun lobby relies on the fact that many Americans don't know much about weapons, their use, or the intent of the 2nd ammendment. If you can keep "military style" weapons out of the hands of the general population, then the perception becomes one of - we, the sheep are allowed to own hunting and sporting weapons but law enforcement is better left to the police and armed insurrection is NEVER a possibility. Additionally, they realize that any gun law is better than none, and if they impact the ecomomics of manufacture and sale, they have gained some ground. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Sure you do. The post you originally questioned is inflamatory, but not innacurate. I intentionally included the Republicans so it would be less likely to be interpreted as a threat. I don't advocate violent action because of a disagreement with the politicians. But I do think they should have a very healthy respect / fear of an armed populace. That was my point, and it's simply a re-statement of the reasoning behind #2. Here is some more timeless wisdom: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. So, we're a long way from it, but it should remain a possibility, especially in the minds of every lawmaker. No doubt Vietnam caused a lot of problems. I think Kent state was more of a localized mistake by a few guardsmen than a systemic problem of firing on the population. Then again, revolutions have been sparked by similar actions. See? You DO get it. No. While hideous, not worthy of armed conflict. Most/all of the problems are driven by economics. If the policies of the past several months lead to an economic failure, then the situation will be ripe. And you're going to disagree with this, but the Obama administration has been very adept at taking advantage of the current economic situation to advance a leftist agenda. Who's to say that if it gets a lot worse, they won't attempt to take over completely? Parallels your fear that Bush wouldn't step down, I guess. No one loves peace more than a soldier. I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is.

What this points out is that the mindset of government control is ingrained in our way of thinking to the point of automatically looking to "them" to allow us the freedom to determine our own destiny. The "government" has slowly, over the years, put bits and pieces of citizen controls in place until it's now ingrained in our very souls that "they" are the controllers and "we" are the controlled....and we don't even think twice about it. We are sheep. Great point. I usually watch my language carefully to avoid that very mistake. I'm mortified I missed that one. The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.