Bush's book - Decision Points

[johnk5150]

"Vince Neil, skating? I gotta check that shit out!"

Heh. I finished coloring it last night. Good times.

[cantstopthemusic]

Yeah, I guess nothing at all was gained from KSM spilling his guts, especially.

And then there was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who the CIA asphyxiated 183 times after Bush so enthusiastically approved his waterboarding.

<------------------------ snip ----------------------------------->

Bush writes:

He disclosed plans to attack American targets with anthrax and directed us to three people involved in the al Qaeda biological weapons program. .He provided information that led to the capture of Hambali, the chief of al Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate in Southeast Asia and the architect of the Bali terrorist attacks that killed 202 people. He provided further details that led agents to Hambali's brother, who had been grooming operatives to carry out another attack inside the United States, possibly a West Coast version of 9/11 in which terrorist flew a hijacked plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

<------------------------ snip --------------------------------->

There seems to be little doubt that KSM provided intelligence of some value (along with a number of false confessions) -- although he might have done likewise (minus the false confessions) in the hands of a skilled interrogator using traditional methods.

But despite the lengths that the Bush White House, intelligence officials and various torture apologists have gone to over the past several years to help Bush make his case, there remains not the tiniest shred of evidence to support his assertion that KSM's torture -- or any other -- actually saved a single life.

As far as we know, none of the alleged plots that were allegedly disrupted was anything more than a fantasy. There is no evidence they presented an actual danger. There is not a single saved life they can point to. If they could, they would have.

Nothing that we wouldn't have gotten without whoring out our values and ethics.

Fixed your post.

LOL @ "whoring out our values and ethics."

He should have been shot, afterwards.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yeah, I guess nothing at all was gained from KSM spilling his guts, especially.

And then there was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who the CIA asphyxiated 183 times after Bush so enthusiastically approved his waterboarding.

<------------------------ snip ----------------------------------->

Bush writes:

He disclosed plans to attack American targets with anthrax and directed us to three people involved in the al Qaeda biological weapons program. .He provided information that led to the capture of Hambali, the chief of al Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate in Southeast Asia and the architect of the Bali terrorist attacks that killed 202 people. He provided further details that led agents to Hambali's brother, who had been grooming operatives to carry out another attack inside the United States, possibly a West Coast version of 9/11 in which terrorist flew a hijacked plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

<------------------------ snip --------------------------------->

There seems to be little doubt that KSM provided intelligence of some value (along with a number of false confessions) -- although he might have done likewise (minus the false confessions) in the hands of a skilled interrogator using traditional methods.

But despite the lengths that the Bush White House, intelligence officials and various torture apologists have gone to over the past several years to help Bush make his case, there remains not the tiniest shred of evidence to support his assertion that KSM's torture -- or any other -- actually saved a single life.

As far as we know, none of the alleged plots that were allegedly disrupted was anything more than a fantasy. There is no evidence they presented an actual danger. There is not a single saved life they can point to. If they could, they would have.

Nothing that we wouldn't have gotten without whoring out our values and ethics.

Fixed your post.

LOL @ "whoring out our values and ethics."

He should have been shot, afterwards.

Torture was never official government policy before then, and for good reason. If there was any credible proof, we would have seen it by now. He told them stuff they already knew and a whole lot of bullshit they wasted valuable resources investigating. You feel free to cling to the illusion that when we torture people, it's right and it works. Just remember, that's all it is. An illusion.

[cantstopthemusic]

If there was any credible proof, we would have seen it by now. He told them stuff they already knew and a whole lot of bullshit they wasted valuable resources investigating.

Your revisionist history is the only bullshit present.

Three people - in total - were waterboarded.

Three (KSM and 2 other terrorist fucks).

The "told them stuff they already knew" and "wasted valuable resources investigating" lines are absolute horseshit.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

If there was any credible proof, we would have seen it by now. He told them stuff they already knew and a whole lot of bullshit they wasted valuable resources investigating.

Your revisionist history is the only bullshit present.

Three people - in total - were waterboarded.

Three (KSM and 2 other terrorist fucks).

The "told them stuff they already knew" and "wasted valuable resources investigating" lines are absolute horseshit.

Unless I'm Dubya's ghostwriter, I've had nothing to do with any revisionist history.


Which were credible threats? Who did they save? There is a major distinction between a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building and a workable plan actually being implemented.

The simple fact is if you (or anyone else on Earth) were being waterboarded you would say anything to make it stop, be it truth or whatever the guy holding the bucket wanted to hear. That's why torture doesn't work.

I'm against torture on principle, not because I'm soft on a gang of homicidal psycho nutjobs willing to kill me for their god and his son. It offends my morals and it doesn't work.

[cantstopthemusic]

If there was any credible proof, we would have seen it by now. He told them stuff they already knew and a whole lot of bullshit they wasted valuable resources investigating.

Your revisionist history is the only bullshit present.

Three people - in total - were waterboarded.

Three (KSM and 2 other terrorist fucks).

The "told them stuff they already knew" and "wasted valuable resources investigating" lines are absolute horseshit.

Unless I'm Dubya's ghostwriter, I've had nothing to do with any revisionist history.

Those lines above, which you ATTEMPTED to attribute to the book, itself, have nothing to do with the book.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Unless I'm Dubya's ghostwriter, I've had nothing to do with any revisionist history.

Those lines above, which you ATTEMPTED to attribute to the book, itself, have nothing to do with the book.

I didn't attempt anything, you stupid fuck. Go back to the original article and read it yourself, dumbass, and tell me what I added to it. I quoted the relevant section of the article and highlighted the points the article author made, which I agreed with wholeheartedly. I do understand why you've decided to focus on this non-issue though. You can't provide a defense for torture no more than Bush can.

[cantstopthemusic]

I quoted the relevant section of the article and highlighted the points the article author made, which I agreed with wholeheartedly.

So, you share the views of a lying, uninformed idiot.

Got it.

Give yourself a big pat on the back for that, Sparky.

You're probably against "profiling," too.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I quoted the relevant section of the article and highlighted the points the article author made, which I agreed with wholeheartedly.

So, you share the views of a lying, uninformed idiot.

No. I think Bush is full of shit.

Got it.

Give yourself a big pat on the back for that, Sparky.

I will.

You're probably against "profiling," too.

No, actually I'm not. If Al Quaeda threatens to kill the Prez, they should keep an eye on Middle Eastern guys. If the KKK does, they should watch out for white guys. That doesn't mean they should hassle everyone who is 'one of those people'. That's why profiling has a bad name.

[Skate4RnR]

So, you share the views of a lying, uninformed idiot.

Got it.

Give yourself a big pat on the back for that, Sparky.

Paging The_Irony. Oh man, ha ha ha.



Thanks for the laugh, oh god I can't breathe ha ha.

[EvilMadman]

If there was any credible proof, we would have seen it by now. He told them stuff they already knew and a whole lot of bullshit they wasted valuable resources investigating.

Your revisionist history is the only bullshit present.

Three people - in total - were waterboarded.

Three (KSM and 2 other terrorist fucks).

The "told them stuff they already knew" and "wasted valuable resources investigating" lines are absolute horseshit.

Unless I'm Dubya's ghostwriter, I've had nothing to do with any revisionist history.


Which were credible threats? Who did they save? There is a major distinction between a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building and a workable plan actually being implemented.

The simple fact is if you (or anyone else on Earth) were being waterboarded you would say anything to make it stop, be it truth or whatever the guy holding the bucket wanted to hear. That's why torture doesn't work.

I'm against torture on principle, not because I'm soft on a gang of homicidal psycho nutjobs willing to kill me for their god and his son. It offends my morals and it doesn't work.

What is preventing a captured known terror suspect who is being "harshly interrogated", from lying just to end the interrogation? That's a good question.

Well, maybe the fear of possibly something even worse being done to them if he/she lies about a plot or something else? After lying to end the interrogation, they would still be in custody. It's not like they'd just be released immediately after the interrogation.

And doesn't the "workable plan actually being implemented" usually begin with "a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building"?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Which were credible threats? Who did they save? There is a major distinction between a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building and a workable plan actually being implemented.

The simple fact is if you (or anyone else on Earth) were being waterboarded you would say anything to make it stop, be it truth or whatever the guy holding the bucket wanted to hear. That's why torture doesn't work.

I'm against torture on principle, not because I'm soft on a gang of homicidal psycho nutjobs willing to kill me for their god and his son. It offends my morals and it doesn't work.

What is preventing a captured known terror suspect who is being "harshly interrogated", from lying just to end the interrogation? That's a good question.

It's a possibility but I'm sure I would lie my ass off to stop my own torture, just like you or anyone else would.

Well, maybe the fear of possibly something even worse being done to them if he/she lies about a plot or something else? After lying to end the interrogation, they would still be in custody. It's not like they'd just be released immediately after the interrogation.

Police here in the US get good information from interrogations every day from people they don't torture or let go. There's a reason why countries like North Korea use torture: people will do anything to make it stop. Anything.

And doesn't the "workable plan actually being implemented" usually begin with "a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building"?

If talking is all it takes to be dangerous, it's a good thing pot is illegal.

[cantstopthemusic]

You're probably against "profiling," too.

No, actually I'm not. If Al Quaeda threatens to kill the Prez, they should keep an eye on Middle Eastern guys.

I'm a little more concerned with the OTHER 300 million citizens, personally.

In the meantime, however, I'm sure treating millions of travelers at the airports as probable criminals - every single day - will weed out all the dangerous 80-90 year old Grandmas in wheelchairs and 6 year old kids who are "randomly selected" for a more thorough search as potential terrorists, instead.

Much better use of our resources than simple (logical) profiling.

We don't want to be accused of being discriminatory, after all.

[EvilMadman]

Which were credible threats? Who did they save? There is a major distinction between a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building and a workable plan actually being implemented.

The simple fact is if you (or anyone else on Earth) were being waterboarded you would say anything to make it stop, be it truth or whatever the guy holding the bucket wanted to hear. That's why torture doesn't work.

I'm against torture on principle, not because I'm soft on a gang of homicidal psycho nutjobs willing to kill me for their god and his son. It offends my morals and it doesn't work.

What is preventing a captured known terror suspect who is being "harshly interrogated", from lying just to end the interrogation? That's a good question.

It's a possibility but I'm sure I would lie my ass off to stop my own torture, just like you or anyone else would.

Well, maybe the fear of possibly something even worse being done to them if he/she lies about a plot or something else? After lying to end the interrogation, they would still be in custody. It's not like they'd just be released immediately after the interrogation.

Police here in the US get good information from interrogations every day from people they don't torture or let go. There's a reason why countries like North Korea use torture: people will do anything to make it stop. Anything.

And doesn't the "workable plan actually being implemented" usually begin with "a bunch of guys in a cave talking about blowing up some building"?

If talking is all it takes to be dangerous, it's a good thing pot is illegal.

Yes, I'm sure I'd also do anything to get it to stop, but would a captured known terror suspect under interrogation lie? Wouldn't they expect some kind of reprisal for supplying false info? I'd imagine they'd be concerned. But who knows. I wonder what the military/intel services do when someone who has been interrogated has given up bad information? Actually, probably the most effective way to deal with terrorism is with spying, infiltrations, wiretapping, double agents, bribery, assassinations, UAV strikes etc.

If talking is all it takes to be dangerous, it's a good thing pot is illegal.

Well, I think, depending on what is being discussed, just "talk" is enough to be considered a "danger". Try talking about plotting to bomb a building in front of any law enforcement with some of your friends. Bet anything that you all get arrested. Try doing that next time you're on a flight. Then you can say, "What's the problem, it was just talk?"

[EvilMadman]

I'm sure treating millions of travelers at the airports as probable criminals - every single day - will weed out all the dangerous 80-90 year old Grandmas in wheelchairs and 6 year old kids who are "randomly selected" for a more thorough search as potential terrorists, instead.

Much better use of our resources than simple (logical) profiling.

We don't want to be accused of being discriminatory, after all.

This.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

You're probably against "profiling," too.

No, actually I'm not. If Al Quaeda threatens to kill the Prez, they should keep an eye on Middle Eastern guys.

I'm a little more concerned with the OTHER 300 million citizens, personally.

In the meantime, however, I'm sure treating millions of travelers at the airports as probable criminals - every single day - will weed out all the dangerous 80-90 year old Grandmas in wheelchairs and 6 year old kids who are "randomly selected" for a more thorough search as potential terrorists, instead.

Much better use of our resources than simple (logical) profiling.

We don't want to be accused of being discriminatory, after all.

WTF?!?!?! You actually have no reading comprehension skills. Also, this idiocy might have been slightly more effective if you had used this excerpt instead:

That doesn't mean they should hassle everyone who is 'one of those people'. That's why profiling has a bad name.

No need to thank me.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yes, I'm sure I'd also do anything to get it to stop, but would a captured known terror suspect under interrogation lie? Wouldn't they expect some kind of reprisal for supplying false info? I'd imagine they'd be concerned. But who knows. I wonder what the military/intel services do when someone who has been interrogated has given up bad information? Actually, probably the most effective way to deal with terrorism is with spying, infiltrations, wiretapping, double agents, bribery, assassinations, UAV strikes etc.

I imagine they're not thinking too far beyond getting their next breath of air when they're strapped on that board suffocating.

If talking is all it takes to be dangerous, it's a good thing pot is illegal.

Well, I think, depending on what is being discussed, just "talk" is enough to be considered a "danger". Try talking about plotting to bomb a building in front of any law enforcement with some of your friends. Bet anything that you all get arrested. Try doing that next time you're on a flight. Then you can say, "What's the problem, it was just talk?"

Come on, you've got the internet. If talking shit was the same as a credible threat, they would need a full-time cop stationed at the Oslo Burger King.

[cantstopthemusic]

That doesn't mean they should hassle everyone who is 'one of those people'. That's why profiling has a bad name.

In other words - you're content with the status quo.

We already covered that.

Try to keep up.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

That doesn't mean they should hassle everyone who is 'one of those people'. That's why profiling has a bad name.

In other words - you're content with the status quo.

We already covered that.

Try to keep up.

[JStar]

He's a great storyteller..

[Fordtruckman]

got mine signed by W at a book store,got my pic with him on my FB page

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

got mine signed by W at a book store,got my pic with him on my FB page

Pix or it didn't happen.

[Skate4RnR]

Bookstore, that's hilarious. Even more hilarious is the thought of King George in a fuckin' LIBRARY.

[SmokingGun]

I downloaded it off the pirate bay as an MP3. Don't give him any more money!!! Haven't listened to it yet, I'm still reading Scar Tissue.

'and i went down the block to score some dope'

'i was doing dope when'

'for some reason i felt the need to go on a week long dope binge'

'i was totally fucked up on dope but'

'i got the dope and couldnt wait so i parked in an alley and got high'

it's still a good read!

[Heenan Snuka]

i wanna read this book...I think it would be a fast read

[Heenan Snuka]

got mine signed by W at a book store,got my pic with him on my FB page

nice!

makes sense...as a big land owner himself, he must like people with lots of land