The BBC is racist for bringing up this fact.

Condi Rice is the intellect that Obama doesn't have.

10-to-1 says Rice is CCW.

Between actions like this and Obama's musing about prosecuting former White House advisors this administrations ill-considered posturing is opening up a Pandora's Box that will polarize and cripple American politics for decades. Obama and his administration have about as much a clue on proper governance as that immobile ball of fur in my living room masquerading as a cat. I've seen elementary school student councils that have a better understanding of the principles of governing.

Obama and the Backroom Democrat gang are bringing up this issue as a part of their major strategy of diverting and destroying any dissent, questions and opposition to their agenda of a putsch against The American Way.

The Tea Parties concerned them; after all, it's barely three months into his regime, and The One is faced with an angry electorate, made up of more than a half million public protesters.

These people - both Democrat and Republican - publicly protest against his pork budgets, his massive deficits, his attack against the American middle class, his attack against individualism and entrepreneurship, his focus on increasing the size of a govt-dependent 'lower class' (all Democrat voters).

Obama has tried rabble-rousing, which he did when he supported the lynch mob hysteria against AIG bonuses - bonuses which were legal and were written in by his staff. That was quickly deflated when the truth came out.

Then, there's public bewilderment and anger at his trashing of America, his foreign trips where he belittles and apologizes for America rather than acknowledging its benefits; his moral relativism in his equation of dictatorships and democracies, and so on.

His constant refrain that he is a 'hapless victim' and that all ills are due to Bush, has been getting stale, but, it's been useful, and Obama and his gang are worried about the Next Tea Parties which are scheduled for Sept 12.

I suggest that this new campaign, a clear witchhunt against Bush, is yet another tactic to divert attention from criticisms about Obama and the Democrats. Obama will keep comng back to this basic tactic of his in his manipulation of the public - this tactic of Bashing Bush. Will it work this time? I don't think so.

Remember, these 'harsh interrogation tactics' were approved by Congress. That includes both Democrats and Republicans; it includes Pelosi.

Furthermore, to move into the sentimentalism that we must not harshly interrogate confirmed jihadists - who have a public agenda of killing as many of us as they can, who care nothing for their own death in this act - is to violate the government's Constitutional Duty to protect American citizens.

Is Obama going to set his Democrats up as people who refuse to protect Americans?

So, I see this as yet another Obama-Gang tactic to deflect and divert criticism. I think it will kick back on to him.

I've always liked Condi, and now I like her even more.
What a woman!

Barry has approval numbers that are weaker than George Jr's first admin...prior to 911.

Hope and change are as valuable as spit and snot.

Watch.

Syncro

"10-to-1 says Rice is CCW." - What the hell is "CCW"?

"Of course, it was Richard Armitage who "outed" Valerie Plame, a fact that quickly resulted in a complete media disinterest in further coverage of the "scandal""

Actually, I think if you have a second look, you will see that the media were still blaming Bush long AFTER it was known that Armitage was the leak while ignoring the factual information.

"10-to-1 says Rice is CCW." - What the hell is "CCW"?

Concealed Carry of a Weapon. Meaning she packs heat to defend herself. Something ordinary folk in the US are allowed to do(depending on where you live).

Not Canada.

"Condi Rice is the intellect that Obama doesn't have."

That aint saying much...a turd has intellect that Owebama doesn't have.

Disgusting though that both parties are willing to put their country at risk in the interest of low-brow politicking.

They won't be able to get to her if she goes to jail, like she probably should.

Preemptive concern for her safety should have absolutely no bearing on reporting this important fact to the American people. Her protection (and it's expense) is a burden they will have to bare so that justice may be served.

Interesting to note that even the Nazis had better standards when it came to interrogating POWs than the Americans:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/cheneys-standards-lower-than-the-luftwaffes.html

Germany was a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

Correct me if I'm wrong and point me to the appropriate place, but when did al-Quaeda sign the Geneva Convention?

"Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded more than 80 times"

....bet you he is breathing yet today and still has his head.

"Interesting to note that even the Nazis had better standards when it came to interrogating POWs than the Americans"

Tell that to the hundreds of murdered Canadian soldiers the 12th SS shot and bayoneted to death in Normandy in June and July 1944.

John wrote:

"Interesting to note that even the Nazis had better standards when it came to interrogating POWs than the Americans"

It would also be interesting to know if any of the POWs that the Nazis interrogating were known to be Jewish.

And then linking to something written by Andrew Sullivan and expecting us to believe it is credible????

When Condi was asked if she aproved waterboarding, she thought they meant wakeboarding, and said "Sure, I'm all for it".

And now you know the rest of the story.

John,

You pick and choose from one portion of the Nazi German military. The way the Luftwaffe treated POW's was withing their own jurisdiction. That's like saying "Grizzly bears are all soft fur" without mentioning the Teeth and claws.

Read about the SS, medical experiments conducted at Auschwitz, or even the rest of Nazi Germany. Then come back and comment.

Thanks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the grate "0" actions the same as most tin pot dictators? You know, put most of the former government in jail (or dead) and then stifle any opposition.

There almost seems to be a vindictiveness to all this. I guess truth is the first casualty of a Democratic Presidency of hope and change.

Ms. Rice supported Obama. Let's hope she doesn't pay the ultimate price for her mistake: she was a good person, a patriot.

Now we see O'bomb-a's "take-no-prisoners" policy in action. Neat and clean, eh?

If that is true, if Ms. Rice supported Obama, then it is imperative that she be allowed to suffer any and all consequences of that decision.

Let her sleep in the bed that she has made. And in 4 terms, when Obama is finally defeated in an election, maybe the Republicans can start throwing the Democrats in jail for pure political reasons.

What? You don't think this is part of a setup to install a "president for life"?

PS. Does Barrack have a brother named Raul?

don't ya just love stupid. i think cjunk said that stupidity is the possession of knowledge and the refusal to use it intelligently. i'd go one step further and say say stupid is having a brain and being unable to use it.

Wow, the Democratics aren't overplaying their hand at all, are they?

According to Rasmussen, 37% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. I guess this is why they want the show trials of their political enemies.

A Pelosi and Leahey going to be on trial too? They approved these methods.

Ms.Rice is a RINO. Much the same as Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. Of course she supported the big 'O'. She was much more of a Pali supporter than anybody in Bush's admin. Had she not been in the way, I believe Israel would already have dealt with Iran and also taken much more aggressive action in both Gaza and Lebanon.

A caller to Mark Steyn on the Rush show today had it all figured out. Big O's puppeteers are setting the stage for the 2010 Senate and House elections. Until then it will be "Bush, Cheney, and how they forced the poor, tortured, terrorists to do it in self defense," 24/7.

Speaking of scams, the politically correct idea of ambassador's wives being given well paid intelligence service appointments as "secret" station chiefs to make postings with hubby in third world hellholes a little more rewarding has apparently continued to increase in popularity with many foreign services. No doubt the total lack of interest displayed by the MSM helps a lot.

The Taliban are making further inroads into Pakistan...

I would say by years end, if the Pakistani government doesn't get its act together...the mission in Afghanistan will need a deep second sober thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?_r=2&hp&ex=&ei=&partner=

Good point Kevin L.

Okay, I stand corrected. The Nazis as a whole were pretty much as bad as you can get. So allow me to revise: The LUFTWAFFE had higher standards than the Americans. Fair? (Something to be proud of to be sure)

And for the guy who just wanted to dismiss Sullivan / wikipedia, that's fine. But whatever you do, don't cross-check. Wouldn't want to challenge your assumptions now, would we?

From the synopsis of a book about him on B&N:

Synopsis

This is the story of Hanns Scharff the master interrogator of the Luftwaffe who questioned captured American fighter pilots of the USAAF Eighth and Ninth Air Forces in World War II. This Intelligence Officer gained the reputation as the man who could magically get all the answers he needed from the prisoners of war. In most cases the POWs being interrogated never realized that their words, small talk or otherwise, were important pieces of the mosaic Hanns Scharff was constructing for the benefit of Germany's war effort. In the words of one erstwhile POW; "What did Scharff get from me? Nothing, yet there is no doubt he got something. If you talked about the weather or anything else he no doubt got some information or confirmation from it. His technique was psychic, not physical." Another POW commented, "Hanns Scharff could probably get a confession of infidelity from a Nun!" They are right. To this day ex-POWs fret and worry over what they said or even might have implied during their interrogations, and over what use Scharff may have made of their slip-ups. This book delves into the question: What was this magic spell or formula used by Scharff which made prisoners drop their guard and converse with him even though they are conditioned to remain silent? The tortures and savagery of the North Koreans and North Vietnamese caused prisoners to resist to the death. Hanns Scharff's methods broke down barriers so effectively that the USAF invited him to speak about his methods to military audiences in the United States after World War II. Raymond Toliver is also the author (with Trevor Constable) of Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe (available from Schiffer Publishing Ltd.).

So what is it you care to dispute? The bit about the USAF inviting him to speak about his methods? Nobody will be inviting the current batch of war criminals to speak, except maybe the North Koreans. They might be interested in the the US has to offer.

You guys are basically no better than the people who supported Nazis, or support Al Quada. In a nutshell... you (and they) are the problem. Not the people who oppose this sort of bullshit.

(O tOrtures Larry; Larry zzzzzzzz .... )
...-

"Larry Summers falls asleep while Obama talks'

For that or some other reason, as President Obama spoke to reporters inside the White House Thursday following a meeting with credit card company executives, Summers was photographed clearly asleep at the end of a table in the Roosevelt Room."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2236310/posts
(oversize pic)

Or the photo was taken when he blinked. But don't let that stand in your way!

Gee John, there seems to be a heck of a lot of blinking going on there. It isn't one picture but more like a dozen. And try to go easy on the koolaid too.

Didn't click through to see the gallery. sorry.

Yup. It shows a guy with his eyes closed in a number of shots. Is he sleeping? Maybe.

Or maybe he's the sort of person who shuts his eyes when he listens, or is concentrating. I don't know.

But again... don't let that get in your way. By all means, assume he is asleep at a very important meeting, because that clearly supports your belief in an incompetent administration.

But wasn't this thread about Condi Rice, and how her personal safety is supposedly a greater issue than adherance to American law and morality?

John - I don't see how this issue is about the security of Condi Rice as more important than adherence to American law and morality.

First, the statement that since Obama/the Democrats are openly mulling over possibilities of 'prosecution of the previous administration' for 'illegal actions of questioning of prisoners', this doesn't suggest that any jihadists are 'out to get her' but rather that those idealogues on the left in America, might attack her.

Of course, my own view is that this public suggestion is instead a tactic of the Obama/Democratic Gang to divert and deflect criticism of his own regime. One of Obama's key tactics of manipulation has been to differentiate himself from Bush and claim his own moral superiority.

Your outline of information picked up by 'trivial talk' during WWII is hardly relevant for such 'dropped hints' are not due to any expertise or skill of the interrogator but to a situation unique to being a POW. This is a situation where the POW is a member of a military unit, operating within a clear national agenda of,, e.g., taking all the roads to Berlin.

I don't think comparisons can be made between valid members of a national military unit and terrorists.

The war agenda of, eg, taking Berlin has nothing to do with dealing with someone who is a member of a non-national, private fanatical death cult geared to mass destruction - not taking Berlin but just mass destruction of civilians.

As for getting a nun to agree to infidelity, that's hardly a truthful confession, so what's the point?

What you are missing is the issue of ethics and morality and duty. These are clear. A nation and its leaders have the ethical, moral and legal duty to protect its citizens. Now, if your nation is confronted with a set of non-nationals, not a war but a set of private fanatical terrorists, who have no regard for human life - their own or that of any others..and whose agenda is to kill as many civilians as possible, along with their own death - then, what is your ethical, moral and legal duty as a leader?

To try and stop this agenda. How? By getting information on where/when/if they are planning their next mass destruction. When you capture a key agent, then, you can't sit down and chat about the weather, as you do with a POW.

Furthermore, you only apply these interrogation tactics with the key leaders. Not any and all POWs that you refer to or even any and all jihadists.

The plans of a terrorist aren't with any so-called "Ministry of Defense". In comparison the average POW doesn't know them - and all you can seek is the trivia of weather (Dover or Normandy?), guns, trucks etc. You already know that an invasion by the North Sea is planned.

But a jihadist plans are held among key figures, not a Ministry. So, if you capture a lead figure, then, you must find out the information. It is your moral and legal duty to protect people from their terrorist attacks. Therefore, if you have to use 'harsh methods', then these are morally justified.

This is the reality that you have to face and which you, for some reason, seem to ignore. To ignore your duty is to reject your ethical and moral and legal requirement to protect your people against attacks of mass destruction.

But wasn't this thread about Condi Rice, and how her personal safety is supposedly a greater issue than adherance to American law and morality?

John, I see those as mutually exclusive. You seem to be saying that, due to how you define and apply American law and morality, Condi Rice should be unduly exposed to danger through the publication of sensitive information.

On your other point, I agree. I also shut my eyes when I listen during meetings (especially after a late night on the town.) At least, that'll be my new story.

To John:

Excerpts from the book "Kriegie" by Kenneth W. Simmons, published 1960.

"At Dulag Luft each prisoner was studied by several psychologists in order to learn his likes, dislikes, habits and powers of resistance. The method of procedure was then determined, and the machinery was set into operation to destroy his mental resistance in the shortest possible time. If the prisoner showed signs of fright or appeared nervous, he was threatened with all kinds of torture, some of which were carried out, and he was handled in a rough manner. Others were bribed by luxuries. They were traded clean clothes, good living quarters, food and cigarettes for answers to certain questions. Those who could neither be swayed nor bribed were treated with respect and handled with care in the interrogator's office, but were made to suffer long miserable hours of solitary confinement in the prison cells."

and

"Of course we must remember that Hanns was the exception at Dulag Luft and there were other interrogators that were nothing at all like Hanns, whose treatment of the prisoners was more of a physical and threatening nature."

excerpted from http://www.merkki.com/new_page_2.htm

'nuff said

John:

"The LUFTWAFFE had higher standards than the Americans. Fair?"

No. The Luftwaffe was dealing with an organized, uniformed military force. The US treated German prisoners in a similar fashion. Go do some research and find out what the Germans did to saboteurs and to members of the civilian resistance.

"Go do some research and find out what the Germans did to saboteurs and to members of the civilian resistance."

Was it similar to what the Americans under Bush did? Because the British certainly didn't act that way when they were being bombed every few days.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article729216.ece

I guess expecting Americans to act at least as good as a Nazi officer is asking too much.

"Because the British certainly didn't act that way when they were being bombed every few days."

Are you retarded? Here, do some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

"I guess expecting Americans to act at least as good as a Nazi officer is asking too much."

I guess expecting you to act like a rational human being is asking too much.

Kate thinks the appropriate response to being attacked by barbarians is to adopt the methods of barbarians.

Then, when someone tries to restore the rule of law, whinge that it exposes the lawbreakers to the fury of -- oooH!--- the barbarians.

(BTW, what drivelling idiocy: as though Rice and the other architects of the illegal war weren't already in the crosshairs of barbarian lunatics)

Got to hand it to you guys,though: you're consistent. From the day of the attacks till now you've been pooping your pants with fear so bad that you've turned over all Western standards and values over to the barbarians, saying in effect: We give up.

Move over now and let the real patriots take over. 'Kay?

Hey bleet:

No. 1: barbarians did not sign the Geneva Convention.

No. 2: Nobody got beheaded, like Daniel Pearl.

No. 3: Beheading is barbaric.

Who's retarded? I was referring to WWII. (Thought that was obvious with the mentioning of Nazis and all.)

Clearly the British forgot the success they had during WWII. While the tactics listed during this 1971 operation don't sound as harsh as what the Americans have been using, it's clear that they didn't work any better, because the conflict when on for another 30 years. They probably made matters worse.

In fact the article you quoted states:

"The policy has been widely criticised by achieving the opposite of its desired effect as it helped increase support for Irish Republicans and further isolate the Nationalist community."

What ultimately solved the conflict in Ireland was political compromise on both sides.

(If I were you, I wouldn't quote something that kind of negates your key point, namely that torture works. It's kind of retard.)

Really John, 'even the Nazis had better standards when it came to interrogating '?

How do they do against communists?

Whoops. I actually should have included this in the bit I quoted:

"Following internment a serving officer of the British Marines declared, "It (internment) has, in fact, increased terrorist activity, perhaps boosted IRA recruitment, polarised further the Catholic and Protestant communities and reduced the ranks of the much needed Catholic moderates."

See the bit about "increased terrorist activity"?

Surely no-one believes that because/IF these memoes are published, THEN, Ms Rice will be exposed to violence. From whom? Al Qaeda? From the left?

Remember, a dozen and more members of Congress were briefed about these tactics and their results. So, are they all now to be targest of the Left?

No, John - the profound moral error you are making, and I do suggest it is a moral error, is one of a false analogy. To declare that one must follow a Universal Behaviour..or else one is unethical and amoral..is false.

Can one conclude that 'harsh interrogation' can, ethically, never, ever, be used - and that this is a Universal Axiom?

Or, if you are faced with Reality - the suggestion by some key terrorists whom you have captured that a 'next wave of massive attacks is on its way' - are you ethically obliged to deal with this Reality? No? Just ignore it? Allow the 'man-caused disaster' to occur? Is that moral?

Remember, you are dealing with jihadists who are dedicated to mass killings, who have no respect for life, including their own, and whose sole agenda is destruction. Does this mean that you should abandon all your ethical concerns, moral and legal duties and allow their terrorist act to proceed?

This is where you fail, john. You fail to protect the innocent. That's an ethical failure in itself. You've essentially allowed the terrorists to take over and do what they want to your people.

Therefore, the use of these interrogation tactics to get the information to stop the terrorist attacks is justified and required.

There is also absolutely no comparison with Al Qaeda and the Irish war, which was over a specific area of land and a specific right of governance. Al Qaeda isn't interested in any specific land base in the USA but in massive destruction of its population.

When the Allies fought the Axis, there were fighting a foe that was a far greater threat than a few Jihadist. Sorry, but it's a fact. These were terrifyingly well armed empires bent on the destruction of the West. They had spies everywhere, and were bombing cities daily.

And yet, we did not stoop to the level of using torture.

You have failed ethically, because you have embraced tactics that were once the sole practice of the "bad guys". These tactics have not produced one piece of useful information, unless you believe Cheney, who has been proven to be lying through his crooked teeth since day one. Unless of course he cares to prove it.

As for the Ireland comparison... dude, I didn't even bring that up. Blame the other dummy who thought he was being smart. But that said, where the comparison does work is this:

Torture doesn't yield useful information. And it serves to boost support for terrorist organizations because the millions of people who might be moderates see a nation like the US give itself over to using tactics that are usually the sole domain of dictators.

And what is truly pathetic about conservatives if the fact that they haven't got the balls to call it what it is. Torture. Instead they use mealy-mouthed euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation." Seriously. What a bunch of pussies.

Probably the biggest threat the world has ever faced is those damn Americans, right John?

Now try the purple Kool-Aid...

One would think that given the ineffectiveness of such methods of interrogation the procedures would be totally abandoned,, if for no other reason than the political consequences that might result. Perhaps Cheney is just a sadist though...

And what is truly pathetic is the level of stupidity of some 'liberals'.

John:

Nancy Pelosi voted in favour of enhanced interrogation in 2002.

Details are on drudgereport.com.

Step away for a while and try to use some facts to back your arguments.

john - these are all your opinions. Without any validity other than your emotional commitment to them.

You cannot assert with any validity that 'harsh interrogation' doesn't yield information. And no, I don't consider waterboarding, sleep deprivation or light/noise etc - to be torture. The Al Qaeda tactics, of blowtorching, eye removal, drilling hands, severing limbs and fingers etc - those are torture.

I can, you see, distinguish between torture and harsh interrogation tactics - the latter with no blood drawn, with doctors standing by, with no permanent physical damage. There's quite a difference between that - and torture. The fact that you can't differentiate - that's your problem.

Nor can you assert with any validity that Cheney is lying. Nor that those particular interrogations yielded no useful information and didn't prevent attacks. They say that they did; you, I feel, are obliged to prove them wrong in order to continue to assert your really quite adamant claims.

Your failure, again, is the refusal to protect people against jihadism. That's an ethical and legal failure. How would you accomplish such a task?

You are, yet again, making a false analogy. To try to claim that WWII was a far greater threat than a few jihadist is sheer nonsense. Both are vicious and equal threats - and to ignore that modern technology can enable two men with timers and miniscule bombs or ten men with kitchen knives in a plane to do what it would have taken a platoon and tanks to do a generation ago is invalid.

You cannot compare a terrorist style of attack, which is against civilians, with a declared war between nations, carried out by their military.

And don't call me 'dude'.

Condi approved of water boarding! SO what?

This would ONLY matter to a person with brains like room temperature Limburgher.......

Posted by: ET at April 23, 2009 8:59 PM

I was about to reply to John's nonsense, but you're pretty much said it all. Well done.

MoveOn wants O, a Democrat, to become the redux Joe McCarthy who was a Republican.

MoveOn wants a McCarthy-style witch hunt.

Joe flushed down the traitorous commies; O would flush down the loyal Republicans.

Imagine: Obamaism vs McCarthyism.
Joe must be laughing his head off.
LOL.

Suggestion for O: Ted the Kennedy is available to play Joe and The Rev. Sharpton would be a perfect counsel; bi-racial, you know.

O say, "I"ll ask Michelle about this. Get back to you.
...-

*"MoveOn.org, the powerful social advocacy group, has launched a television ad campaign demanding that Attorney-General Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration. “So far there's been no accountability for the architects of Bush's torture program,” the group says on its website. “We need a full investigation and real consequences for those responsible – it's the only way to keep this from happening again.”"
...-

Ibbitson at Globe& Mail:
*"Torture furor threatens to derail Obama agenda

Left and right each stake out positions, assail President"

Ibbitson also says:

"Perhaps the people who authorized the program should be held accountable, even if that means charging former president George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney."
urlm.in/cdyq

Rundown on the 'ethics' of 'set me free':

1. The barbarians didn't sign the Geneva Convention - hey, that means we don't have to adhere to it, either! We can act like Nazis! Yay!

3. We're better than the barbarians because we don't behead them. We only torture them using the exact same techniques the Nazis used! Yay!

4. Beheading is barbaric. But torture isn't. Us and the Nazis aren't barbaric. Yay!

Cool moral relativism, set you free.

Achtung.

bleet:

Why didn't Nancy Pelosi object?

Bleet ..demonstrating a limburgher brain in action.

PS ..... I've seen party games that were more intense than waterboarding......care to try?

Setyou free: always seeing things thru the partisan blinders, huh? And here I thought we were talking about morality & your moral relativism.

OMMAG - it's called waterboarding - not the 'golden showers' with which you're familiar.

According to the lefties - who have alligned themselves with the jihadis - anything that makes the terrorists uncomfortable is torture. This would include panties on the head or the offering of a ham sandwich. Waterboarding is not torture.
From the way they talk, Obama and his bots would have preferred thousands more Americans were killed in L.A.

Obama is setting America up for more attacks. He is practically inviting attacks on Israel and the U.S.

I get the impression he is doing this to gain street cred with the bloody leftie dictators he's been sucking up to. They have already called him weak and ignorant. We all know its all about Obama - not about keeping the country safe like Bush and Cheney did.

When Obama bowed to the Saudi King and the WH denied it, I think the right take was expressed on The Peoples Cube. He wasn't bowing down the WH said, he had to reach down to shake the Kings hand because his arms are twice as long as human arms.

bleet:

If Nancy Pelosi voted in favour of enhanced interrogation, who are you to question she who represented the Democratic Party at the 2002 hearings?

Obama's administration is about to drop this non-issue like a hot potato ... whether you like it or not.

A bit of unsolicited advice. Make sure you check your facts before coming on here and sounding like a buffoon.

set you free

Whether Obama drops it or not, or Pelosi did this or that, my issue was whether you and your pals here support Nazi-like torture techniques.

And you do. So much for the great western civilization you're all so big on defending.

So long, barbarian.

John wrote:
Torture doesn't yield useful information. And it serves to boost support for terrorist organizations because the millions of people who might be moderates see a nation like the US give itself over to using tactics that are usually the sole domain of dictators.

HAW HAW HEE HEE HAW HAW HEE HEE HAW HAW HEE HEE
Really???? That's because you are not doing it right.
It's been a while but I am sure I can make you devulge anything and be reasonably sure as to it's autheticity...just with a field telephone........

_
Really???? That's because you are not doing it right.
It's been a while but I am sure I can make you devulge anything and be reasonably sure as to it's autheticity...just with a field telephone........

Posted by: sasquatch at April 24, 2009 1:56 AM >>

sarge here while sarge is pretty sure that old herman goering probably said hee hee and even tee hee while squeezing the life out of cute little puppies sarge has a hard time thinkin old sasquatch ia anything but a bald pale and squishy computer commando sarge thinks the possibility of such a reject havin 1st hand experience with hookin a field telphone to someones yarbles in any context outside a ritzy brit sex club is remote har har har har

I see the trolls are trolling again. Without feeding any particular troll, let me just say you're a pack of liars and imbeciles, and worse yet you are being USED like a fricking kleenex by some really crooked people.

Nancy Pelosi was briefed in and knew ALL about it 'waaaaaaay back in 2002. She was there, she said -NOTHING-. Indeed, according to the article she continued to say nothing for several years. Until the Abu Grahib prison scandal gave her a chance to play pile on the rabbit, THEN she was all over it.

There's a word for that. Several words actually, but Kate's doodoo filter won't accept most of them. Lying sack of baboon excrement comes close.

There is nothing this woman won't say or do in her pursuit of power my troll-y friends. If you care a damn about your own personal freedom and security Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid and their whole flea circus of blood sucking Democrat vermin should scare you white.

Rice and the other architects of the illegal war
++++++++++++++++++

WOW it was. Funny I sure remember many dems voting for it.

We need a higher class of trolls around here.

The ones we have are too stupid to acknowledge the existence of.

"The ones we have are too stupid to acknowledge the existence of."

This has been another episode of Classics of Unintended Irony.

This is in response to John's comments: the Nazis didn't torture their POWs as cruelly:

I had (he's dead now) an uncle who was a POW in a Nazi stalag -- they broke his legs, they broke every bone in his hands (the man ended up not able to walk or write his own name as he got older due to his injuries), he was beaten with clubs, he was starved (to the point even some of the Russian prisoners took pity on him, and probably saved his life by giving him some of their meager rations -- and the Nazis didn't treat Russian prisoners so well); all sorts of hardship. And why did they do it? Not to extract information -- he was a lowly private, so they must have known he didn't have much to offer them; no, because my uncle had a very German last name, a looked the very part of a perfect German...but refused to renounce America.

I doubt he would have seen much similarity there; I know I don't.

And Andrew Sullivan? The man who made it a mission to "get to the truth" of who was the real mother of Trig Palin? That's where you get your info from?

And I completely agree with ET's response to you, John.

Americans are worse than Nazis? Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine as well, and somehow I think subjecting somebody to catepillars, Barney the Dinosaur singing, and water on their head doesn't seem quite so much torture as subjecting a perfectly innocent, unknowing civilian to the agony of deciding whether or not they should jump or be roasted alive. And somehow I never seem to hear the likes of you screaming bloody murder about other countries and their interrogation practices -- somehow I think the catepillars wouldn't be quite so bad as watching someone chop your child's fingers off, but that's just my opinion.