This is the sort of enquiry YOU need, America
Werewolfy
decision to go to war
Sir John Chilcot has opened the Iraq Inquiry by vowing that he will
"get to the heart of what happened" before and during the war and
"will not shy away" from criticising anyone who made mistakes.
By Gordon Rayner and James Kirkup
Published: 9:55AM GMT 24 Nov 2009
The inquiry chairman said he and his team would be "thorough,
rigorous, fair and frank" throughout the long-awaited hearing, which
aims to "piece together from the evidence" what went right and what
went wrong - and why.
He also insisted that as well as hearing from politicians and military
officers, "we want to know what people across Britain think are the
important questions", and invited anyone who felt they had "relevant"
information to contact the inquiry. The five-strong panel has already
held meetings with the families of servicemen killed in Iraq, and with
Iraq veterans.
Blair still has questions to answer The inquiry, which is being held
at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, is
expected to hear at least six months of evidence before Sir John
publishes his report at the end of 2010 or early in 2011.
Tony Blair, the former prime minister who controversially took Britain
to war in Iraq in 2003, will be among the scores of witnesses who will
give evidence, but he is not expected to be heard until next year.
One of the key questions which the inquiry will have to answer is
whether Mr Blair misled parliament in any way over the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein, who was said at the time to have weapons of mass
destruction which could be deployed at 45 minutes' notice.
The intelligence about Iraq's military capability, set out in the so-
called "dodgy dossier", proved to be wrong, and the decision to go to
war became one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions in
living memory.
Evidence about the legal basis for going to war will not be heard
until the New Year.
The inquiry was set up by Gordon Brown in response to overwhelming
public demand for an independent investigation into the reasons for
going to war. It will be the first such inquiry to be streamed live
over the internet to bring it to the widest possible audience.
Sir John, a retired civil servant, is sitting with Professor Sir
Lawrence Freedman, Professor Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and
Baroness Usha Prashar, who will act as the sole inquisitors during the
hearings. There will be no questions from any legal representatives
for the witnesses.
Sir John said: "The Iraq inquiry was set up to identify the lessons
that should be learned from the UK’s involvement in Iraq to help
future governments who may face similar situations.
"To do this, we need to establish what happened. We are piecing this
together from the evidence we are collecting from documents or from
those who have first hand experience. We will then need to evaluate
what went well and what didn’t – and, crucially, why.
"My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are
apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine
the evidence. We will approach our task in a way that is thorough,
rigorous, fair and frank."
Sir John said that although the majority of the hearing would be held
in public, some witnesses would be heard in private where matters of
national security were being discussed.
He stressed that as well as hearing from live witnesses, the inquiry
had also combed through "mountains of written material" from
Government departments.
The first round of public hearings will run until early February next
year, before taking a break to consider written material and returning
"in the middle of 2010".
Sir John went on: "Once we have collected all the evidence we need, we
will be in a position to draw conclusions and make recommendations. We
plan to report by the end of 2010.
"It is not in our, or the country’s, interest to delay the process.
Our objective, however, is to produce a thorough analysis that makes a
genuine contribution to improving public governance and decision
making. If that takes a bit longer, I hope people will bear with us."
He said the inquiry would begin by taking evidence from senior
officials and military officers who developed advice for ministers in
the run-up to the war, before hearing from the ministers themselves.
"We will learn the reasons why particular policies or courses of
action were adopted, and what consideration was given to alternative
approaches," he said.
"We remain, as we have been from the outset, open minded. What we are
committed to, and what the British general public can expect from us,
is a guarantee to be thorough, impartial, objective and fair."
But, he added: "No-one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or
innocence. Only a court can do that. But I make a commitment here that
once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making
criticisms where they are warranted."
Steven Douglas
>
> This is the sort of enquiry YOU need, America
We already have, several years ago. It was known as the Robb-Siberman
Commission. Here is one of their findings:
[quoting Robb-Silberman Commission] "The Commission found no evidence
of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-
war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in
the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no
instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of
their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of
intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political
pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence
assessments." [end quote]
(Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The
Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of
Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, p. 50-51)
We had Democrats in Congress demanding that President Bush resolve the
problem of Iraq's WMD once and for all. Some said Saddam was an
"imminent" threat who must be dealt with. After the invasion, in June
2004, Bill Clinton said President Bush had the responsibilty to make
sure Iraq's Chemical And Biological Weapons did not get in the hands
of terrorists:
[quoting Bill Clinton] "After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had
been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned
these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction,
right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about
it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in
the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do
Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first
responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that
this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach
chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.
I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was
a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an
absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after
9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the
inspection process.' When you're the President, and your country has
just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted
for." [end quote]
(Bill Clinton, "His Side of The Story," Time, 6/28/04)
Charles Duelfer, whose job was to find out what happened to the WMD in
Iraq, said this in his final report:
[quoting the Duelfer Report] "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi
regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end
sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." [end quote]
(Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq's WMD,
Key Findings Regime Strategic Intent, 9/30/04, p. 1)
And your own country's Butler Report said this:
[quoting the Butler Report] "In general, we found that the original
intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence
Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But
this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments
we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the
original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of
accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we
have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable
negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was
evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted
by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy
positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and
the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to
meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC." [end quote]
("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A
Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, p. 110)
Werewolfy
wrote:
I have a feeling that this enquiry will bring out a number of rather
different, and embarrasing new facts.
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
Such as?
Werewolfy
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is just the start
Werewolfy
Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US
before 9/11
British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating
from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion
and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John
Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard.
By James Kirkup and Gordon Rayner
Published: 12:36PM GMT 24 Nov 2009
But the UK in 2001 refused to back a policy of regime change because
the British view was that toppling Saddam Hussein would have been
illegal.
The first session of Sir John's public inquiry into the events before,
during and after the war is hearing evidence from senior civil
servants about British policy and plans for Iraq in 2001.
The British policy on Iraq was put under formal review at the start of
2001, when George W Bush arrived in the White House as US president.
Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office
said that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US
administration wanted to topple Saddam
He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington.”
However, he said that Britain was not then willing to engage in regime
change in Baghdad. “Our policy was to stay away from that."
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, recalled
that in the summer of 2000, Condoleeza Rice, Mr Bush’s national
security adviser, had written an academic article suggesting Saddam
should be removed.
But the inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK
government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under
international law.
Sir Peter said: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime
change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal
base for."
In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of containing
Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil sales through
the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly zones in
southern and northern Iraq.
The two diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was
failing in 2001, but that it could have been been viable if the United
Nations had agreed a new "smart sanctions" regime in July 2001.
The new sanctions regime would also have thwarted those in the US who
were arguing for a more confrontational policy towards Iraq.
The new sanctions regime “would have certainly satisfied us”, Sir
William said. “It would have been arguable even against the hawks in
Washington.”
But Russia refused to back the new sanctions, because of its
commercial interests in Iraq. “The Russians were being given lots of
contracts. It was virtually impossible to change the Russian view,”
Sir William said.
Sir Peter also revealed that there was a disagreement between Britain
and the US about whether it was worth trying to get UN weapons
inspectors back into Iraq.
“There was a dominant feeling in the US that a weapons inspection
regime was risky,” he said. Some Americans felt Saddam would “pull the
wool over the inspectors eyes” about his military programmes.
Sir Peter said: “We had more confidence in the weapons inspectors. It
was an area where we probably disagreed with many on the American
side.”
Steven Douglas
>
> Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US
> before 9/11
As the quote from Bill Clinton explains, we had just been attacked by
bin Laden. As Bill Clinton noted, we were worried about bin Laden
attaining weapons from Saddam. As Bill Clinton noted, that's why he
favored the "Iraq thing" as he put it.
Your own country's intelligence confirmed the belief that Saddam
possessed WMD. Your Prime Minister mentioned the "45 minute" thing.
That did not come from our President. What your inquiry is likely to
discover is that your own Prime Minister was not Bush's lap dog after
all. He was his own man, on equal footing with Bush, and Clinton
before that.
As for the supposed illegality of removing Saddam, why isn't there an
inquiry into the illegality of removing Milosevic (a Clinton and Blair
operation)?
Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
That rascally Clinton!!!!
Anything from Bush, who was in power and who could have vetoed the
warmongering Democrat controlled Congress, you might want to
reference???
LOL -- ugh.
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The inquiry chairman said he and his team would
> be "thorough, rigorous, fair and frank"
> throughout the long-awaited hearing, which
> aims to "piece together from the evidence" what
> went right and what went wrong - and why.
Any chance they'll bring up the British military
efforts to create the civil war in Iraq?
How?
Oh, by dressing as Arabs and planting bombs...
: BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Iraqi police
: detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes
: in the southern city Basra for firing on a
: police station on Monday, police said.
:
: The two soldiers were using a civilian car
: packed with explosives, the source said.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/19/content_3514065.htm
Not surprisingly, the British responded to the
arrest of their terrorists actively seeking to
provoke civil war by launching an attack against
the Iraqi police:
: Later, Basra's 41-member provincial council
: voted unanimously to "stop dealing with the
: British forces working in Basra" until it
: received an apology for the raid on Monday,
: The Associated Press reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/international/middleeast/22iraq.html
Werewolfy
wrote:
I pasted
"Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US
before 9/11
British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating
from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion
and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John
Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard".
You responded;
"As the quote from Bill Clinton explains, we had just been attacked
by
bin Laden. As Bill Clinton noted, we were worried about bin Laden
attaining weapons from Saddam. As Bill Clinton noted, that's why he
favored the "Iraq thing" as he put it."
Is someone missing something?
This is not for discussion. It is a post regarding the now open
enquiry. Why discuss it..let the enquiry do that..we can then examine
the results.
Werewolfy
Werewolfy
Naughty British.....As compared to your upright, honest and fair
minded soldiers who have 'God on their side'. How's the old torture
going?
Werewolfy
Woodswun
Yes, it sounds as if they were brutally honest about their own
behavior. Quite refreshing!
Woods
Steven Douglas
What President in his right mind would dare to veto *passion* such as
the following?
RICHARD GEPHARDT: "Now, I didn't listen to him about the weapons of
mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George Tenet, I talked
with his top people. I talked to former Clinton officials. I became
convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or components of
weapons that could wind up in the United States. We cannot have a
weapon of mass destruction used in the United States, and I'll do
anything in my power to prevent that from happening." [end quote]
House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, on NBC's Meet the Press,
January 19, 2004
JAY ROCKEFELLER: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a
threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat,
but I also believe that after September 11, that question is
increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the
way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented
capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To
insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at
risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!" [end quote]
Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member John D. Rockefeller IV,
on the Senate Floor, October 10, 2002
JOHN EDWARDS: "But I do think that the more serious question going
forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different
countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United
States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development
and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most
imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from
those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent
threat to our country.
"And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as
we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these
countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to
them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.
"And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think
Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent
threat." [end quote]
Senator John Edwards on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, February
24, 2002
I've asked the following question previously, without an answer. Can
you imagine what would have happened if Bush had vetoed those guys,
and it turned out they were right? Talk about grounds for impeachment!
Seriously, why should Bush have vetoed the (then) Democratic House
Leader, the (then) Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, and the (then) future Vice-Presidential candidate? The
Clinton-appointed CIA director also told Bush the WMD intelligence was
a "slam dunk." And you think Bush was supposed to veto all of that?
Why?
Werewolfy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't really understand just why you believe anything a politician
says. They all have their own agenda..they will say anything to curry
favour with their President.
Democracy is a joke. A very bad joke.
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
>
> On 24 Nov, 16:17, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I pasted
> "Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US
> before 9/11
> British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating
> from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion
> and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John
> Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard".
>
> You responded;
>
> "As the quote from Bill Clinton explains, we had just been attacked
> by
> bin Laden. As Bill Clinton noted, we were worried about bin Laden
> attaining weapons from Saddam. As Bill Clinton noted, that's why he
> favored the "Iraq thing" as he put it."
>
> Is someone missing something?
Yes, I was in a hurry this morning when I wrote that response without
taking the proper time to read what you posted. I hastily read about
the "drum beat" of war two years before the invasion of Iraq, and
missed that it was before 9/11, not after. I knew I was in a hurry,
and shouldn't have responded so hastily.
But having said that, now that I've had time to to read the rest of
the post, I noticed this:
[excerpt] In 2001, Britain and the US were committed to a policy of
containing Saddam, through economic sanctions, restricting his oil
sales through the oil-for-food programme, and the imposition of no-fly
zones in southern and northern Iraq.
The two diplomats told the inquiry that the containment policy was
failing in 2001, but that it could have been been viable if the United
Nations had agreed a new "smart sanctions" regime in July 2001.
The new sanctions regime would also have thwarted those in the US who
were arguing for a more confrontational policy towards Iraq.
The new sanctions regime “would have certainly satisfied us”, Sir
William said. “It would have been arguable even against the hawks in
Washington.”
But Russia refused to back the new sanctions, because of its
commercial interests in Iraq. “The Russians were being given lots of
contracts. It was virtually impossible to change the Russian view,”
Sir William said. [end excerpt]
The "drum beat" of war at that time was coming from people within the
U.S government who were concerned that Saddam would eventually get the
sanctions lifted, which would have allowed Saddam to accelerate the
rebuilding of his WMD programs. That was later determined to be
Saddam's goal.
>
> This is not for discussion. It is a post regarding the now open
> enquiry. Why discuss it..let the enquiry do that..we can then examine
> the results.
My first response was in response to your title for this thread. I
wanted to show you that we've already had such an inquiry. But I'll be
very interested to see what sort of revelations your country's inquiry
is able to find.
Steven Douglas
>
> I can't really understand just why you believe anything a politician
> says. They all have their own agenda..they will say anything to curry
> favour with their President.
Uh, those guys were not worried about currying favor with President
Bush. They believed the WMD intelligence, and believed Saddam Hussein
was a threat. Your country's intelligence also believed Saddam had
those weapons.
>
> Democracy is a joke. A very bad joke.
It's the worst form of government there is -- except for all the
others.
Doc
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70105935-4899-43df...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
that should be learned from the UK�s involvement in Iraq to help
future governments who may face similar situations.
"To do this, we need to establish what happened. We are piecing this
together from the evidence we are collecting from documents or from
those who have first hand experience. We will then need to evaluate
what went well and what didn�t � and, crucially, why.
"My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are
apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine
the evidence. We will approach our task in a way that is thorough,
rigorous, fair and frank."
Sir John said that although the majority of the hearing would be held
in public, some witnesses would be heard in private where matters of
national security were being discussed.
He stressed that as well as hearing from live witnesses, the inquiry
had also combed through "mountains of written material" from
Government departments.
The first round of public hearings will run until early February next
year, before taking a break to consider written material and returning
"in the middle of 2010".
Sir John went on: "Once we have collected all the evidence we need, we
will be in a position to draw conclusions and make recommendations. We
plan to report by the end of 2010.
"It is not in our, or the country�s, interest to delay the process.
Our objective, however, is to produce a thorough analysis that makes a
genuine contribution to improving public governance and decision
making. If that takes a bit longer, I hope people will bear with us."
He said the inquiry would begin by taking evidence from senior
officials and military officers who developed advice for ministers in
the run-up to the war, before hearing from the ministers themselves.
"We will learn the reasons why particular policies or courses of
action were adopted, and what consideration was given to alternative
approaches," he said.
"We remain, as we have been from the outset, open minded. What we are
committed to, and what the British general public can expect from us,
is a guarantee to be thorough, impartial, objective and fair."
But, he added: "No-one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or
innocence. Only a court can do that. But I make a commitment here that
once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making
criticisms where they are warranted."
Here, here!!
I'm so happy to hear of this important development in your government.
It's a crying shame a similar rigorous impartial enquiry isn't being planned
here.
We certainly need it.
The final report which is slated for the end of 2010, may very well lead to
more public/congressional pressure to open a comprehensive examination here.
There may be 'bombshells' in that report, and it may intensify the already
heated ideological environment in America.
I'm looking forward to its findings!
I think many Americans want to know why Blair entered the war, on what
pretext, the evidence, etc.
Doc ;))~~
Doc
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4005295-90a4-424c...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
That enquiry was being done in a totally different political/social
environment of widespread public support for the war, with the Congress
controlled by conservatives.
And years have passed since then, and much more is likely to have occurred
that could alter the conclusions.
You focus on the intelligence itself, but we liberals know that is not where
the entire story rests.
It is the political machinations, the propaganda that we need to have laid
bare for all to see.
And I'm sure some of it would be embarassing.
The Warren Commission was touted in 1964 as effectively laying the
assassination conspiracy theories to rest, but in 1978, a House
investigative commission found some disturbing counter-evidence, and left
open the possibility of at least one or two others involved in the murder.
Doc
Doc
Werewolfy
I would imagine that Bushlickers and Cheneyass eaters will not be feeling
very secure all next year, as one of 'em here is already frittering around
with a commision's old findings, trying to get us to believe that's the
final word.
Investigations into various actions in Viet Nam produced revealing,
embarassing goof-ups and corruption in high military command, and some
unsavory political intrigue was involved, too.
Doc
Doc
Do you think your reliance on this report will preempt the findings of the
UK investigation, junior?
You seem rather...nervous and reactionary.
Hell, it hasn't even begun yet there.
LOL!
Worried about it may find, junior?
Doc
Doc
And do you not think that PASSION in the midst of a war that was popular in
2003-2004 wouldn't influence a bunch of politicos' findings, or that someone
hasn't carefully hidden something embarassing, or that they conducted an
infallible investigation?
LOLOLOL!!
Dense as a fence post.
Doc
Dense as a brick.
LOL!
Of course, politicians court the public popularity of any fucking issue.
That is the gist of politics, junior, its life blood, heart and soul.
And isn't it interesting that the bipartisan commission you mention also
found no causal working relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden's group,
and couldn't find a link between the Taliban and Al Queda's strike on NYC?
After it was restarted in 2006, the public had turned against the war and
its starter, Bush.
And then the findings became more critical ,didn't they?
The findings, while not pinning anything directly on the administrations'
machinations, began to show there was 'something fishy' implied in the RUSH
to get this nation believing that the war was justified on evidence that
should've been more carefully reviewed, rather than thinking it was 'slam
dunk' proof.
The fact is, junior, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and others,
painted a most dire situation of great urgency, and threatening our
security, if not the world's, and did all this promotional work without
telling the public that the data might not be 'slam dunk'. Every effort was
made to make it appear it was 'certain' that such weaponry existed or the
technology was far advanced, ready to deploy very, very soon.
It is that fact that you shitheaded conservatives refuse to face, distract
from, and tell us such horseshit as prominent democrats went along with it
all, ignoring the political reality that they're in a super-heated
anti-muslim public furor and fearfulness all over the media, and that, as
politicians, they'd rather err on the side of caution, than be found later
to not have (over) reacted. They all overreacted, junior, and they were all
fucking wrong.
Nearly 5000 American service people are now dead, at least 30,000 Iraqi
civilians, tens of thousand injured or disabled for life.
We need a full investigation here, and I hope to fucking hell this UK
enquiry helps push us toward it.
Doc
Doc
The new sanctions regime �would have certainly satisfied us�, Sir
William said. �It would have been arguable even against the hawks in
Washington.�
But Russia refused to back the new sanctions, because of its
commercial interests in Iraq. �The Russians were being given lots of
contracts. It was virtually impossible to change the Russian view,�
Sir William said. [end excerpt]
The "drum beat" of war at that time was coming from people within the
U.S government who were concerned that Saddam would eventually get the
sanctions lifted, which would have allowed Saddam to accelerate the
rebuilding of his WMD programs. That was later determined to be
Saddam's goal.
>
> This is not for discussion. It is a post regarding the now open
> enquiry. Why discuss it..let the enquiry do that..we can then examine
> the results.
My first response was in response to your title for this thread. I
wanted to show you that we've already had such an inquiry. But I'll be
very interested to see what sort of revelations your country's inquiry
is able to find.
I'm writing all my states' reps and senators and asking that they study the
UK commission's findings, when they are finally available, and urge them,
again, to open a full congressonal enquiry into the Iraq War.
And I hope it will lead to criminal pursuit of key leaders.
Doc
Doc
Werewolfy
Oops! It's not 'torture', Wolfy...it's 'rendition.' LOL!!
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> That enquiry was being done in a totally different political/social
> environment of widespread public support for the war, with the Congress
> controlled by conservatives.
Robb-Silberman was an independent and bi-partisan commission, having
nothing to do with Congress.
Steven Douglas
>
> Do you think your reliance on this report will preempt the findings of the
> UK investigation, junior?
> You seem rather...nervous and reactionary.
You think pointing out established facts makes me seem nervous and
reactionary? Why?
Steven Douglas
>
> I'm writing all my states' reps and senators and asking that they study the
> UK commission's findings, when they are finally available, and urge them,
> again, to open a full congressonal enquiry into the Iraq War.
Keep hoping, Doc. But don't expect it to happen. And since the people
you'll be writing to are Americans, you might want to ask them to open
a full congressional inquiry rather than a full congressional enquiry.
>
> And I hope it will lead to criminal pursuit of key leaders.
For what? For believing the Clinton-appointed CIA director when he
said the WMD intelligence was a slam dunk? For getting permission from
Congress to use military force against Iraq, and then using it? What,
exactly, are you talking about?
Steven Douglas
>
> Oops! It's not 'torture', Wolfy...it's 'rendition.'
Rendition began during the Clinton administration. Will your letters
ask for an "enquiry" and "criminal pursuit" of Clinton, too?
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Naughty British.....As compared to your upright,
> honest and fair minded soldiers who have 'God on
> their side'.
Nobody mentioned any "God" but you, and if you really
need me to spell it out for you:
Dressing as Arabs and planting bombs in a covert
effort to destabilize Basara __IS__ morally beneath
the conduct of the average U.S. service man. Yes.
Absolutely.
...and it kind of makes you wonder about other
"Convenient" bombing in Iraq...
You know, like when those "Mad Dog" terrorist went
after the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights,
killing him with truck bomb?
Funny how those terrorists killed the one man on the
planet who might actually address so-called abuses
perpetrated AGAINST Iraqis...
And how did these terrorists even know who he was,
never mind were his office was and when he would be
in it?
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Werewolfy
> � � ...and it kind of makes you wonder about other
> "Convenient" bombing in Iraq...
Oh, there's lots of things we, the public, don't know, JTEM.
Including why their was an invasion in the first place. The true
reason, that is.
Werewolfy
Doc
I'm wondering why you find it so necessary to launch into reviewing an old
study's findings on simply news that a UK enquiry will be conducted next
year.
I'd think that if you weren't concerned about the possible conclusions and
evidence that would contradict the US commission's findngs, you'd merely
shrug your shoulders, and take a wait and see approach.
Instead, as you often do here, you find ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY stain
your vaulted leaders' pants, the US militarys', or your's, is reason enough
to preempt the study with a barrage of well-known US commission findings.
We've all been through quite enough, junior, for the past fucking 8 years
since 9-11, of assholes like you attempting to paint a perfect picture of US
administrative policies under Republicans, distribute blame as if doing
something stupid and wrong smells better that way, attempting to make the
military into saintly saviours, and denying you had your dick up Bush and
Cheneys' asses all through the seamy mess.
Here you are, again, like the good damned publicist you always attempt to be
for the elite scumballs of that adminstration, embroiled in a fantasy
mission of counter-fire to score some mythical propaganda victory for the
far right.
Ridiculous reactionary shit from you as usual.
Why don't you just wait and hold back on your forked tongue until the
commission's findings are made in the UK, rather than regurgitating the
findings here as if they're so correct and complete that nothing more can be
discovered?
HUH?
Running back and forth from foxhole to foxhole and then to your bunker
(changing your ID there), ain't gonna change the hard realities, junior.
There's much mystery to this war, and we all need to find out more, and I'm
sure there is more to find.
Doc
Doc
It has everything to do with politics, junior. That enquiry never
investigated how the administration manipulated the intel to serve their
purposes, and one of those was to gain or maintain public support not only
for the assinine invasion and occupation, but to help get Dubya re-elected.
Since democrats went along with the invasion for the most part, they'd not
want to check into the political manipulations of the intel data, for it
would tend to negatively reflect back on their pro-invasion positions.
Politics is a filthy fucking business, junior, and you're really not up for
it. It's even dirtier than you are.
Face it. You're out of your league, or you're so fucking naive as to make a
turkey seem like Einstein.
Doc
Fund falsely claimed Robb-Silberman found president had not "misled" on
intelligence
November 15, 2005 5:47 pm ET
9 Comments
On the November 14 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Wall Street Journal
columnist John Fund falsely claimed that former "Democratic Senator Chuck
Robb [VA] headed a commission which looked into whether or not the president
misled and manipulated the intelligence data" relating to Iraq. According to
Fund, the commission concluded that "it didn't happen." In fact, the
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding
Weapons of Mass Destruction -- co-chaired by Robb and Republican attorney
and former judge Laurence Silberman -- did not investigate whether the Bush
administration misled the public about intelligence. Nor, for that matter,
has any other governmental entity to date. Rather, the Robb-Silberman
Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or
change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the
buildup to the Iraq war, a conclusion that has been disputed by some senior
intelligence officials.
Fund's claim came in response to a comment by Democratic strategist Julian
Epstein, who referred on Paula Zahn Now to "all of the revelations about the
intelligence being manipulated." While it is not clear what Epstein and Fund
meant by "manipulated," Fund's assertion that the Robb-Silberman Commission
found that the Bush administration had not "misled" is false. In its March
report to President Bush, the commission noted: "[W]e were not authorized to
investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received
from the Intelligence Community." Indeed, Bush's February 6, 2004, executive
order establishing the commission limited the scope of its investigation to
the production of intelligence:
[T]he Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's
intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare
it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or
organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of
Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition,
possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use,
or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery.
Similarly, the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments
on Iraq determined that intelligence assessments were not tainted by
political "pressure." But the committee postponed until after the 2004
presidential election analysis of whether the Bush administration misused
that intelligence, pledging to include it in the second -- as yet
uncompleted -- phase of the report.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, even the conclusion of
these two reports that analysts received no "pressure" in gathering
intelligence has been disputed by some senior intelligence officials,
including W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of the Middle East office of the
Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and Richard Kerr, a onetime
acting CIA director who led an internal investigation of the CIA's failure
to correctly assess Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
From the November 14 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:
EPSTEIN: But I think that the crisis that the president is involved in
right now is not just related to Iraq. I think this president has basically
lost credibility. The Scooter Libby indictment, all of the revelations about
the intelligence being manipulated, the failures in Katrina, the fact that
there is no domestic agenda right now. We're not doing anything on Social
Security, or on --
PAULA ZAHN (host): John Fund --
FUND: Sure.
ZAHN: You get the last word. You get 10 seconds.
FUND: Democratic Senator Chuck Robb headed a commission which looked into
whether or not the president misled and manipulated the intelligence data.
He concluded, along with every other commission member -- bipartisan -- it
didn't happen.
Doc
I can tell you that you stupidly argued for years here that the USA didn't
use torture, and that waterboarding could not be regarded as such.
Preferring to call torture of a human being something else is always a good
indication you feel the need to deny the ugly reality of our immorality and
hypocrisy.
When will you fucking get human, junior, and properly identify it as
torture?
Does someone need to pour a lot of water over your ever-flapping lips for
your clarifying education?
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> I'm wondering why you find it so necessary to launch into reviewing an old
> study's findings on simply news that a UK enquiry will be conducted next
> year.
> I'd think that if you weren't concerned about the possible conclusions and
> evidence that would contradict the US commission's findngs, you'd merely
> shrug your shoulders, and take a wait and see approach.
> Instead, as you often do here, you find ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY stain
> your vaulted leaders' pants, the US militarys', or your's, is reason enough
> to preempt the study with a barrage of well-known US commission findings.
I do not have the power to preempt a UK investigation, Doc. They're
free to conduct investigations as they see fit. My point was that
we've already had TWO investigations (since there was a congressional
investigation that came to the same conclusions the independent
commission did) that show there was no political pressure to alter the
intelligence that was produced by the Clinton-appointed CIA director's
agency. The British Butler Report has already come to that same
conclusion about its country's intelligence. So I'm not really sure
what this new investigation is supposed to find. But I supposed we'll
find out in time.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >On Nov 24, 8:42 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That enquiry was being done in a totally different political/social
>>>environment of widespread public support for the war, with the Congress
>>>controlled by conservatives.
>
> >Robb-Silberman was an independent and bi-partisan commission, having
> >nothing to do with Congress.
>
> It has everything to do with politics, junior.
No one questions the accuracy of that commission, or the congressional
investigation that came to the same conclusion. And before either of
those, there was David Kay, who said the same thing. He could not find
an intelligence analyst who said he was pressured to alter the
intelligence. David Kay said the intelligence was wrong. That's not
Bush's or Blair's fault, no matter how you try to make it so.
>
> That enquiry never
> investigated how the administration manipulated the intel to serve their
> purposes,
They did NOT manipulate the intelligence! That's a lie of the left,
which was dismissed by both the Robb-Silberman Commission and a
congressional investigation. And David Kay before either of those.
>
> and one of those was to gain or maintain public support not only
> for the assinine invasion and occupation, but to help get Dubya re-elected.
Really? Then why did he have so much support from Democrats such as
the House Democratic Leader, the Democratic ranking member of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, the (then) future Democratic Vice-
Presidential candidate, the wife of the former Democratic President,
and many other Democrats who went public with their views of the
threat Saddam posed to this country?
>
> Since democrats went along with the invasion for the most part, they'd not
> want to check into the political manipulations of the intel data,
There was no manipulation, and you'd know that if you read the Robb-
Silberman Commissions' report. And you'd know that if you read the
British Butler Report.
<snip remainder of waste of time, unread>
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>Oops! It's not 'torture', Wolfy...it's 'rendition.'
>
> >Rendition began during the Clinton administration. Will your letters
> >ask for an "enquiry" and "criminal pursuit" of Clinton, too?
>
> I can tell you that you stupidly argued for years here that the USA didn't
> use torture, and that waterboarding could not be regarded as such.
Show the post where I said that, liar. [note to Woods: notice that I
used the word "liar" to refer to a specific point made about me -- do
you understand that now? Probably not]
In fact, Doc, I have said I did not approve of waterboarding. It was
used on *three* terrorists.
<snip, remainder of the liar's blathering unread>
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh, there's lots of things we, the public,
> don't know, JTEM.
No argument there.
> Including why their was an invasion in the
> first place.
Again, full agreement.
> The true reason, that is.
I completely agree.
Doc
On Nov 25, 7:17 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering why you find it so necessary to launch into reviewing an old
> study's findings on simply news that a UK enquiry will be conducted next
> year.
> I'd think that if you weren't concerned about the possible conclusions and
> evidence that would contradict the US commission's findngs, you'd merely
> shrug your shoulders, and take a wait and see approach.
> Instead, as you often do here, you find ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY stain
> your vaulted leaders' pants, the US militarys', or your's, is reason
> enough
> to preempt the study with a barrage of well-known US commission findings.
I do not have the power to preempt a UK investigation, Doc.
Fuck, that *news* to me! LOL! No, you often act like your posts defending
the status quo is somehow gonna change people's minds, and, thus,
miraculously turn around the 'negativity' into something you can feel good
about. Obviously, it if it had worked, you would've shut up by now.
They're
free to conduct investigations as they see fit. My point was that
we've already had TWO investigations (since there was a congressional
investigation that came to the same conclusions the independent
commission did) that show there was no political pressure to alter the
intelligence that was produced by the Clinton-appointed CIA director's
agency. The British Butler Report has already come to that same
conclusion about its country's intelligence. So I'm not really sure
what this new investigation is supposed to find. But I supposed we'll
find out in time.
Yeah, yeah, you keep saying that, and, hell, we all acknowledge it, junior,
but what you just keep sidestepping is in an article I posted from 2005. The
Iraq commission was never assigned to analyze, comment on, any political
manipulation of the intel information as public propaganda fitted to serve
Bush's or corporate needs.
If it can be shown by documented, verified evidence, rather than widespread
suspicion and beyond circumstantial evidence, that Bush or any
administrative official deliberately altered the intel as public information
to sell that fucking war down our throats, and gotten lots of people killed,
and that they KNEW that the intel wasn't a 'slam dunk', something that was
less than the sure thing they presented to the public, then they've
committed a gross crime against humanity, our constitution, against everyone
that has any modicum of morality in this world. Now, how they could be so
fucking naive as to believe that it was a sure thing, is beyond any common
sense, any sanity.
Historically, intel data has rarely been that fucking massively wrong, and
they had plenty of time to gather and analyze it, for christs' sake. How
other intel agencies could've missed it, too, has been assininely
rationalized as a very cunning, if not ingenious, Saddamn Hussein that
fooled the fuckers, all of them.
Now, anyone who believes the clumsy oaf that couldn't conduct a decent
military thrust into Iran, and had numerous command problems, intel screw
ups, and even had attacked a US Navy ship by "accident" (LOL!), well,
junior, you'd have to think that all the best minds of the West in intel,
and all the highest officials, couldn't accept that the WMD intel wasn't
accurate, that it was just nigh impossible the data was flawed.
No one came forward from a high position and told the public, "Well, the
intel could be in some error." No, instead, it was sold by Bush and his pals
as something we had solidly and we needed to act on it quickly or suffer
nuke devastation.
Now, either they were all as fucking inept and stupid and deluded as they
appear to have been, or they got together and presented a common propaganda
front to sell a war down our throats.
Either way, by ineptness or design, they're fucking responsible for all
those dead and disabled, and huge amounts of public misspent.
And if that goddamn UK study shows any evidence Bush and his gang knew this
intel was faulty or that they were the stupidest assholes ever, I want our
congress to start an enquiry and go after each and every fucker if it takes
years to get them all.
Goddamnit.
Doc
Doc
On Nov 25, 7:30 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >On Nov 24, 8:42 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That enquiry was being done in a totally different political/social
>>>environment of widespread public support for the war, with the Congress
>>>controlled by conservatives.
>
> >Robb-Silberman was an independent and bi-partisan commission, having
> >nothing to do with Congress.
>
> It has everything to do with politics, junior.
No one questions the accuracy of that commission, or the congressional
investigation that came to the same conclusion. And before either of
those, there was David Kay, who said the same thing. He could not find
an intelligence analyst who said he was pressured to alter the
intelligence. David Kay said the intelligence was wrong. That's not
Bush's or Blair's fault, no matter how you try to make it so.
>
> That enquiry never
> investigated how the administration manipulated the intel to serve their
> purposes,
They did NOT manipulate the intelligence! That's a lie of the left,
which was dismissed by both the Robb-Silberman Commission and a
congressional investigation. And David Kay before either of those.
YOU STUPID FUCK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THE INTEL WAS
PACKAGED AS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA, THAT THEY TOOK WHAT THEY NEVER TOLD THE
PUBLIC THEY HAD ONE LITTLE FUCKING DOUBT ABOUT THE INTEL ACCURACY, BUT KEPT
TELLIN G US IT WAS ACCURATE, A SURE THING, AND THAT WE HAD TO ACT ON IT OR
DIE A NUKE DEATH. OVER AND OVER, WE WERE TOLD HOW WE'D BE NUKED AND WE JUST
KNEW SADDAM HAD THAT CAPABILITY, AND IT WAS VERY CLOSE TO ACTIVATION. NOW,
HOW MANY STUPID PEOPLE DOES IT TAKE TO BELIEVE SUCH HORSESHIT? DO YOU THINK
THAT GATHERING UP MORE POLITICIANS THAT PUBLICLY SAID THEY BELIEVED IT,
WILL MAKE BUSH AND HIS FUCKERS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR EITHER BEING INCREDIBLY
NAIVE, OR INEPT, OR THAT THEY MANIPULATED THE PUBLIC INTO A WAR THAT THEY
NEVER HAD THE FUCKING UNSC VOTE TO GO FOR, THAT SADDAM WAS NEVER A DIRECT
THREAT TO US MILITARILY, THAT WE HAD NO CAUSUAL WORKING LINK TO BIN LADEN TO
JUSTIFY IT...THAT THIS NATION OF MUTHERFUCKING IDIOTS LIKE YOU, AND BUSH,
ARE MORE INTERESTED IN WASTING HUMAN LIFE ON A HUNCH OR IN ANGER, OR SOME
SUSPICION, OR FEAR, THAN HAVING THE FUCKING SLAM DUNK EVIDENCE TO ACT ON.
THAT GOING TO WAR IS JUST A MATTER OF BEING STUPID, OR REACTIONARY, OR THAT
WAR IS SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KEEP GOING TO GET YOUR FUCKING DRIED UP NUTS
BUZZING.
EVERY TIME WE MAKE A FAT FUCKING MISTAKE, AND SO MANY DIE, AS THEY DID IN
VIET NAM, WE HAVE YOU FUCKING REVISONISTS AND APOLOGISTS SLINKING AROUND,
RATHER THAN JUST FACING THE FACT WE GOOF THE FUCKING UP, JUNIOR. LIKE IT'S
NOT NEWS TO ANY MATURE PERSON ,THAT WE DO.
BUT IT'S FUCKING INCREDIBLE TO NAIVE NUTBALLS LIKE YOU.
WE FUCK UP, JUNIOR, AND LOTS OF FOLKS SUFFER AND DIE FOR FUCKING NOTHING,
AND THEN WE HAVE FUCKERS LIKE YOU COME ALONG AND SIT THERE IN YOUR PISSED
PANTIES, SNAPPING YOUR TONGUE, THAT WE NEED TO JUST REVISE IT ALL AROUND SO
THAT WE DON'T FEEL BAD ABOUT FUCKING UP.
I SEE IT WITH YOU WITH THE GODDAMN ECONOMY, WITH EVERYTHING THAT COMES UP
HERE. YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THE SIMPLE FACT THERE IS CORRUPTION EVERYWHERE, GREED
ALL OVER, LIES GALORE, SELF-INTEREST RULING THE PLANET, OR THAT FO RSHIT
FUCKING SAKES, YOU'RE A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.
HELL, YOU CAN'T EVEN ADMIT TO THAT.
GET YOURSELF A WHISTLE, JUNIOR, A LOUD SHRILL ONE, AND STUFF IT UP YOUR ASS,
AND EVERYTIME SOMEONE SAYS WE'RE FUCKING UP AS A NATION, BLOW IT AS LOUD AS
YOU CAN.
Doc
LET ME UNEQUIVOCAL HERE WITH YOU, STUPID.
Every time we have documented evidence of torture by your fucking military
angels, you dismiss it as 'minor', as you dismiss racism in the military as
insignificant, as you dismiss anything with a uniform, a badge, a three
piece business suit, a smock, etc., as being unable to be human, make grave
mistakes.
Your inhuman world of weaponry, regimentation, war dominance, corporate
elitism, greed, corrupted officials, fucking stinks to high hell, you moron.
Your pristine neighborhood where all the Arabs get along with the white
folks is a fucking fantasy, junior. You miss the goddamn reality of the
social veneer, and walk past it every time, preferring to believe in what
people project beyond their phony interiors.
And that is precisely because you're a fucking phony. I've seen a shitload
of your phony crap, your manipulations, your stinking narcissism.
And I'm up to my ears with your suffocating little narrow view of this
world -- an ant colony, to you. Every ant does is job for the Queen, and all
is well. Any ant that detours, gets the holy staph up his ass.
I'll say one thing positive about shitheads like you, though -- it makes me
feel great that I never went down the shitty path you took, junior. Never
wanted to have some asshole tell me what to do every day, dress like all the
others, and believe leaders no matter how fucked up they prove to be.
You rationalize that Iraq War mess until it pops outta your ears,but you're'
just another ant to me. An insect that shies away from emotion, because
you'er a sucking, fucking psychotic.
And that I am sure of.
Go kiss an Arab in your neighborhood today.
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 25, 7:36 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >On Nov 24, 9:18 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I can tell you that you stupidly argued for years here that the USA didn't
>>>>use torture, and that waterboarding could not be regarded as such.
>
>>>Show the post where I said that, liar. [note to Woods: notice that I
>>>used the word "liar" to refer to a specific point made about me -- do
>>>you understand that now? Probably not]
>
> >In fact, Doc, I have said I did not approve of waterboarding. It was
> >used on *three* terrorists.
> ><snip, remainder of the liar's blathering unread>
>
No. You're a liar. I never expressed that I approve of waterboarding.
I never said I don't consider it torture. You're a liar.
Doc
Then call it for what it fucking is -- not rendition. That is an avoidance
tactic to 'sugar coat' the horror and cruelty of US government policy.
Unless you're running for some goddamn high office, there's no reason to
call it anything else.
You spend so much time and effort countering everything that is critical of
your vaulted view of your leaders, that you automatically slip into using
terminology to soften the ugliness of what they approve.
Fuck you, you elitist dicklicker.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >I never said I don't consider it torture. You're a liar.
>
> Then call it for what it fucking is
I have, more than once.
<snip, remainder of liar's lies unread>
Doc
Oh, the holy shit of your perfect lil' soul, you asshole. You lie like a
rug, play mind games, distort, distract, dodge, deny, diddle with
hand-selected news bits, read biased rightwing horseshit, fear leftists,
elevate yourself morally over them, obsessively defend any authority you
suck on, nitpick at the authority you don't suck on, pass around rumors,
engage in narcissism to the tenth degree...LOL! well, I just love being
lectured by such fuckers. LOL! And you can't admit to something as benign
as your general age group, which you once stated, but deny insanely, asking
for proof. Proof of fucking what? That you're a fucking idiot and psycho? I
need none.
LOL!!
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 27, 7:10 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > No. You're a liar. I never expressed that I approve of waterboarding.
> > >I never said I don't consider it torture. You're a liar.
>
> > Then call it for what it fucking is
>
> I have, more than once.
> <snip, remainder of liar's lies unread>
>
> Oh, the holy shit of your perfect lil' soul, you asshole. You lie like a
Doc
On Nov 28, 8:34 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 27, 7:10 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > No. You're a liar. I never expressed that I approve of waterboarding.
> > >I never said I don't consider it torture. You're a liar.
>
> > Then call it for what it fucking is
>
> I have, more than once.
> <snip, remainder of liar's lies unread>
Truth hurts like fucking hell. Especially raving psychotic hypocrisy. LOL!
>
> Oh, the holy shit of your perfect lil' soul, you asshole. You lie like a
<snip, remainder unread>
You used the term 'rendition' many, many more times than you used 'torture',
and every time your opposition used that word against Bush, you resorted to
using the term, rendition.
No one has to explain psychiatrically what that means, junior.
It is simply you not wanting to use a term that more vividly describes the
acts of cruelty, violence, of sadism, that is approved by those you support.
And then those folks use that term as well when they defend themselves,
arguing that 'rendition' has been shown to be an effective intel-gathering
tactic. But, of course, the flipside is that anyone being tortured will want
to admit to or say anything to end the torture pain.
You're not fooling me, you weasel.
Steven Douglas
>
> You used the term 'rendition' many, many more times than you used 'torture',
Rendition and torture are two entirely different things. What the hell
are you talking about?
Doc
wrote:
LOL! As if you didn't know. Fucking asshole. This is why, once again,
snake in the grass, you're not liked by many here, and those who
engage you, find out quickly you are as dishonest in your exchanges as
are the assholes you support in power.
(Extraordinary) Rendition: Persons suspected of terrorist activity may
be transferred from one State (i.e., country) for arrest, detention,
and/or interrogation..
and in the process of, uh, um, "interrogation", the waterboarding, the
torture, occurs.
In the cloak of the term 'rendition', is the attempt by the Right to
obfuscate the reality of torture and it being sanctioned by what they
want to believe is a morally correct leadership and nation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Extraordinary_rendition
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the
victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then
pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing
the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and
water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of
drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal
experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the
treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9]
military judges[10] and human rights organizations,[11][12] although
other current and former U.S. government officials have stated that
they do not believe waterboarding to be torture.[13][14][15][16]
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water,
waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[17] While
the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it
can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage
from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken
bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological
damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[3] Adverse physical consequences
can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological
effects can last for years.[7]
In 2007, it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United
States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[18][19] a
revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda
suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[20]
[21] To justify its use of waterboarding, the administration of George
W. Bush issued classified legal opinions that argued for a narrow
definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which
it later withdrew.[22][23][24] According to Justice Department
documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided the
U.S. government with information about a potential 9/11-type attack on
Los Angeles.[25]
In January 2009, President Barack Obama banned the use of
waterboarding. In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense refused
to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE)
purposes.[25][26]
Steven Douglas
> On Nov 28, 9:57 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 9:28 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You used the term 'rendition' many, many more times than you used 'torture',
>
> > Rendition and torture are two entirely different things. What the hell
> > are you talking about?
>
> LOL! As if you didn't know. Fucking asshole.
What makes you think I'm going to read anything you wrote after that
introduction?
Doc
Oh, so you can call me an ignoramus, a high school dropout, a
sleazeball, a pervert, a racist...etc...but you're so sensitive about
the 'fucking asshole' label??? LOLOL!!
As soon as I get over laughing fucking ass off, I'll continue this
post...................
..........................okay..................it's
subsiding.............haven't had such a good belly laugh in weeks.
I like to start off that way with you because it's a fundamental truth
of
your character when you use smarty avoidance tactics, proposing that
rendition are 'two different things', when, in fact, one is contained
within
the other.
And you haven't said a thing about your very limited use of the word
'torture', and your more frequent use of the word, 'rendition.' News
stories, leaders, civil rights folks, etc., all directly link
'rendition'
(extrajudiciary) action to acts of torture.
Rightwingers like to emphasize the word, and even using it out of
context,
to cloak, sugar-coat, or diminish the horror and cruelty of
waterboarding.
You can find hundreds of articles where 'rendition' has been a
'substitute
term' to imply torture, which is of course part of the interrogation.
Obama chose to continue 'rendition' as a legal maneuver, but made it
clear
under his watch, it would not include waterboarding.
You diddle around arrogantly with your opposition here, and you
deserve to
be name-called for it.
No one likes such smart-assery, junior. You know perfectly well how
'rendition' denotes 'torture' as a highlighted topic these days. And I
know
perfectly well how it is a term of avoidance of the sick reality Bush
approved of such interrogation tactics until liberals brought it out
for
public scrutiny.
Again, go fuck yourself. Now, snip that off.
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 28, 11:24 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 11:10 pm, Doc <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 9:57 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 9:28 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You used the term 'rendition' many, many more times than you used 'torture',
>
> > > > Rendition and torture are two entirely different things. What the hell
> > > > are you talking about?
>
> > > LOL! As if you didn't know. Fucking asshole.
>
> > <snip, remainder unread>
>
> > What makes you think I'm going to read anything you wrote after that
> > introduction?
>
> Oh, so you can call me an ignoramus, a high school dropout, a
> sleazeball, a pervert, a racist...etc...but you're so sensitive about
> the 'fucking asshole' label??? LOLOL!!
> As soon as I get over laughing fucking ass off, I'll continue this
> post...................
Have fun. I won't be reading it.
Doc
Oh yes you did. Liar. LOL! Anything about you, you're sure to read.
Narcissist. LOL!!