Seven Wishes wrote:donnaplease wrote:I think you're missing the point, Daniel. It's not the killing of Bin Laden that anyone has a problem with, it's the hypocrisy of the position that it's ok to put 2 bullets in a man but it's not ok to scare him by pouring water over his face. Talk about a contradiction... sheesh! I'm glad our special forces got him, and while 'torture' is not something I condone, if it comes down to protection of me and mine then you're damned right I'm gonna be all for it!
Complete and total revisionism. Two ENTIRELY different things. Although most CIA personnel and military people will tell you waterboarding is counterproductive and leads to increased violence against American troops, the waterboarding (whether or not it led in some capacity to tracking down Bin Laden notwithstanding) was carried out for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF KILLING BIN LADEN. Do you really believe he could have or would have been taken alive? Do you think he would break under the pressure of interrogation? Of course he wouldn't. You wouldn't be saying a DAMNED THING if this had happened while Dumbya was President.
Oh, BTW...it's a well-known fact that the #1 recruiting tool for Al Quaeda the past seven years has been the "torture" (whether or not you choose to call it that) to which Muslims were subjected while in American custody. So that fact means that you're LESS SAFE AND PROTECTED if America uses waterboarding (which is a violation of the Geneva convention). So, I've not missed ANYTHING. You have.
Have you talked to most CIA personnel and military people? Just curious how you know what their viewpoints are... Seems there are pretty close to even numbers of folks talking about it in the news, and I have watched/listened to both sides of the political spectrum. I'm not saying that Bin Laden should have been taken alive, I think we would have been less safe if we had him in custody somewhere. I'm glad the prick is fish food, and applaud the administration and the special forces that carried it out. But you're right, I probably wouldn't have said anything if it happened under president Bush, but it's because there wouldn't have been a contradiction in the methods utilized and the administration's reaction to it. I'm sure I would have been as excited and unable to sleep because of it too, proud of my country and what we've accomplished. Does the Geneva Convention condone killing ?
As far as the #1 recruiting tool used by Al Quaeda, again I'll ask... where do you come up with these statistics? You don't honestly think that our special forces haven't been using secret 'methods' of interrogation on folks for years, LONG before Bush came into office, do you? The difference is that our intelligence personnel and their tactics weren't splattered all over the TV and internet. Haven't you ever watched "The Sum of All Fears"??? (joking!) While I believe transparency is a good thing in most circumstances, there are some things that we shouldn't be privy to, IMO.
My point is that once again, BO has shown that you really don't know what's involved in the job until you've walked a mile in the shoes of the president. He made lots of negative comments about the work of the Bush administration, and as of now, he's continued a whole lot of what he rallied against before he took office. Oh, and since my last post, I did a little checking on BO's comments on Abu Ghraib. Still can't find a lot about what he said when the controversy first erupted, but I did see that soon after taking office he decided against releasing more of those pics. Good for him.
What are you , 12 ?!
