Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Senate Intelligence Report is Out, and Its Bad

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 9, 2014, 5:58 p.m. EST by turbocharger (1756)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Absolutely disgusting and shameful.

To everyone that just put their names behind the DNC and RNC, this is what you are endorsing. So please shut the fuck up with those who see no other choices besides what this report entails.




Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23646) 7 years ago

War crimes.

[-] 4 points by turbocharger (1756) 7 years ago

A mindless, out of control government.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Absolutely. Why did Bush 43 administration ignore the experience of Israel in torture that it was ineffective? Deliberate incompetence like letting 9/11 happen under its nose or targeted vengeance? The U.S. should have gone into high alert after the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 10/2000, even beyond the transfer of administration. We got Bush'it!

[-] 4 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 7 years ago

"Let us be clear : Torture can NEVER be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument OF terror" - Kofi Annan but with my emphasis & also perhaps consider this 'cross-link' from April. '13 :

It's time to APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR & spare a thought for https://twitter.com/JohnKiriakou unjustly imprisoned for honesty & integrity because he blew the whistle on CIA Torture !! Solidarity@JK !

respice, adspice, prospice ...

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 7 years ago

US launches 20 airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria, Iraq

If only, torture could have saved lives

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 7 years ago

a foreign people cannot be repressed unless they fear the US government

torture is a method to curb discent

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

With regard to your request that we "shut the fuck up": The answer is no.

For as long as I have the right to vote, I will vote for the lesser evil and encourage others to do the same.

By the way, 99% of the Republicans voted for the Iraq war compared to 50% of the Democrats. The Democratic support dropped considerably that same year. They were almost entirely against 'enhanced interrogation' from day one.

They are the lesser evil.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 7 years ago

How many Democrats voted to reinvade this year?

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

Still checking on the vote count for renewed military support/intervention. In the meantime, read this:

A word for the utterly predictable Obama bashing partisan puppets.

Obama haters. Those of you who feel that because Obama can't resolve conflict outside of his own borders, he must be incompetent. He is far from it. The problem is that you die-hard partisans misinterpret everything you see, hear, and read. Your stubborn partisan mentality has literally prevented you from absorbing the truth. Not just any truth but truth well documented. Obama's credibility and ability to consider complex issues in detail are a matter of formal record.

The truth I refer to is this:

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Naive my ass. Incompetent my ass. Inexperienced my ass.

As predicted by Barrack Obama, the Iraq War did in fact prove to be about as dumb as wars get. Not necessarily the concept but certainly the effort under the circumstances at that time. Virtually the entire Republican party from the state level all the way up to the highest office was proven dead wrong on the issue. Roughly 1/2 of the Democratic party was proven dead wrong as well (The other 1/2 were proven right.).

Barack Obama was one of the exceptions. The man is a critical thinker. You utterly predictable Obama bashers would realize this if your own die-hard partisan puppet ideology didn't prevent you from absorbing any knowledge which does not re-affirm that ideology. You simply filter it out. This is pure cowardice.

You die-hard partisan puppet Obama bashers also fail to realize that because of a growing world population, greater demands on life-sustaining resources, economic instabilities, record high economic disparities, obsessive competition, the profound and corrupt influence of the private sector on virtually every politician, corrupt world leaders, and your own determination to separate as many people as possible by political party, it has become more difficult than ever for an American president to effect anything remotely resembling widespread or long term stability outside of the American borders.

Damn right mistakes have been made by the Obama Administration. In my opinion, they haven't been anywhere near as profound or costly as the mistakes made by the Bush Administration but then again, Obama hasn't been challenged by the likes of Hussein or Bin Laden. At least not as president. For that reason, it's a difficult comparison to make. What I do know for sure is that significant mistakes were made by the last administration. They have been made by this administration. They will be made by the next administration and the one after that and the one after that. This will be true regardless of which political party is in power at any given time. It is an absolute certainty.

The issue of foreign policy is far too engulfing and complex to define by your small minded die-hard partisan Obama bashing ideology. It will never be understood in any real detail by the masses, the partisan pundits, or virtually anyone outside of high ranking office and without access to classified information.

The painful reality is that in this post 9/11 world with a growing population, a warming climate, limited resources, and all of the complications which arise from competition, no American President could ever hope to have anything but a somewhat positive but very limited effect on global stability. In fact, any President would be lucky to break even. Still, you die-hard partisan puppet Obama bashers live by some outrageous Fantasy Land pipe dream that your own partisan puppet heroes could ever do significantly better.

I'm telling you they can't. Their failure to do so is a matter of formal record.

The Bush Administration failed to anticipate 9/11 as it was being planned by Al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and America. Because of that failure, we lost over 3000 civilians in one day. The Pentagon was severely damaged. The subsequent effort in Afghanistan did produce results but it was clear by 2006 that some of the progress made was being lost. More losses were taken in 2007 and 2008. The effort had become less effective and more costly in terms of resources and lives. Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11, was able to elude the Bush Administration full term. He was not held accountable for any of it. Saddam Hussein defied a number of UN resolutions under Bush. He did so with blatant arrogance. He had virtually the entire intelligence community including that of the US fooled under Bush. He did not have the weapons of mass destruction. The initial invasion of Iraq was based in large part, on false US intelligence. That initial invasion was a success but the Bush Administration failed to anticipate the civil war and related complications that would arise from the sudden loss of a very effective, although brutal dictator. We lost over 4000 US troops in Iraq under Bush. Tens of thousands were severely injured. Over 150,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives under Bush. Russia invaded Georgia under Bush. Iran was already in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under Bush. Syria, North Korea, ect. All of these foreign policy issues were brewing long before Obama took the office of President.

I'm telling you die-hard partisan puppet Obama bashers that by disregarding the growing complexities of foreign policy, demanding that any US President or political party somehow overcome them, and trying to place excessive blame for their failure to do what no US president or political party has ever done, you make blithering idiot fools of yourselves.

For the record, I am not a Democrat. I would never lower myself to affiliation with any political party. I do oppose Obama on a number of issues and I support the opposition on several. However, I will not stand by and let you utterly predictable die-hard partisan puppet 'low information' Obama bashing ideologues dumb down my fellow citizens with shallow, misleading, terribly spun, or blatantly false information.

It will never be anywhere near as simple as you claim it to be.

By the way you flat-footed FOX loving fxxx wad. If you have the nerve to claim that Hussein had the WMDs that he was accused of having by the Bush administration, then explain to us which of those WMDs in his arsenal at that time fell under the definition given to justify the Iraq war. Then explain why he didn't use them to defend his empire even as it was being crushed before his eyes. Then rate the accuracy of the pre-war intelligence assessments regarding those WMDs made under the Bush administration on a scale from 1-10.

Ready, set, GO!

And this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-support-president-obama-on-iraq-more-than-democrats/article/2552313

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Obama is and has been Lightyears better than Bush 43 overall. The world is an extremely complex and contradictory place so foreign policy failures by the Obama administration are to be expected. Bush 43 squandered American strength and treasures in Iraq on false premise, ignored 9/11 brewing, cut taxes for the wealthy while TWO wars were going on, and harped about the "ownership society" built on top of a gigantic bubble (that burst like a doomsday WMD).

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 7 years ago

someone get this thing a bib lol

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 7 years ago

"For as long as I have the right to vote, I will vote for the lesser evil and encourage others to do the same."

No one said shut up about your own horrific voting record. But please shut up about the people who don't see anything else at least somewhat moral on the ballot, or have come to the conclusion that the parties are not the problem, its the system.

Listen, you literally put your name behind this shit. If you think the same shit isnt still going on, you are horribly naive or quite possibly the most loyal human being on the planet.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

The fact that our president is hated doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is that most of those who hate him do so from a position of blithering-idiot head-in-the-sand die-hard 'low information' partisanship. They continue to fly around in die-hard partisan Fantasy Land high on some pipe dream that all would be right with the world if only their partisan heroes were in control. Koo koo! Koo koo!

I present to you yet another piece of evidence which they refuse to acknowledge.

'Recalling the deadly 1983 attack on the Marine barracks

Jim Michaels, USA TODAY 5:10 p.m. EDT October 23, 2013

A Hezbollah bomber struck a U.S. Marine base outside Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983.

Thirty years ago today, Americans were devastated by the news of a massive terrorist attack in Lebanon that killed 241 American service members.

Early on a Sunday morning terrorists drove an explosive-laden truck into the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers. Moments later 58 French paratroopers were killed in an attack on their barracks.

It was the deadliest single day for the U.S. Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima during World War II.

Americans were shocked at the devastation, but at the time few grasped the significance of the deadly bombing. It marked the emergence of a deadly new form of terrorism never seen on this scale.

"It really was a watershed in international terrorism," said Matthew Levitt, author of Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. "This was something new."

"The world we live in and what we knew of the future security environment was forever changed," Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, said at a memorial ceremony.

"It was a new way to attack the West," Amos said. "It was a cowardly attack on freedom."

Western authorities soon learned that the Oct. 23, 1983, bombing was the work of Hezbollah militants acting under Iranian direction.

"There was a recognition that Iran has more or less declared war on us," said Michael Rubin, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "It shook the Reagan administration."

The Americans were in Lebanon as part of a peacekeeping mission in an effort to bring stability to war-torn Lebanon.

"They came in peace," President Obama said in a statement Wednesday to honor the fallen. Obama called the attack a "despicable act of terrorism."

President Reagan withdrew the American forces from Lebanon in the wake of the bombing. Terrorists the world over drew their own lessons from the devastation.

Al-Qaeda leaders have cited the bombing as an example of how to succeed against Western powers.

As an organization Hezbollah has continued its attacks on the West. The organization, which over the course of its history has switched between global and regional objectives, has returned to pursuing high profile terrorist attacks and is helping the Iranian-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

"Now we are seeing a return to much as they were 30 years ago," Levitt said of Hezbollah.'

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 7 years ago

hey smc - i hope i am not included in this group - 'What bothers me is that most of those who hate him do so from a position of blithering-idiot head-in-the-sand die-hard 'low information' partisanship". - i don't really hate obama but i am very unhappy with his performance. i think he had a chance to change the world and he chose not to take it. i imagine you disagree with that assessment but we can debate that another dayif you like. anyway i would like to know that you do realize we can have honest differences on this - and that i am not 1. uninformed - 2. a fan of the right - or 3. crazy - i would hope you can agree with that. if not one of us should not be in occupy

[-] -3 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

It is good that some of us still remember. Reagan calmed down Gadhafi for decades. Obama calmed down Osama bin Laden forever.

[-] 6 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

But to blatently invade into another country, and execute a man without any trial or other jurisprudence, to personnally watch the execution via video while it is being carried out, to then have a body dis-membered and thrown to the sea, and then to gloat to the world about it; that is just psycho-crime!

Even the Nazi's were given a trial.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 7 years ago

right on man - they don't want to say anything bad about our government - unless a bush is running it. and grapes - wtf - he is happy we killed gadhafi's infant. applauding reagan on ows - wow. our country is sick. the "liberals" are often the ones standing in the way of real change sadly.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago


You were accusing me of undermining the evil Dems but am I not defending the execution of Osama bin Laden here by the evil Dem administration?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 7 years ago

well i am not surprised but you have confused me with the factless one. yes both ids begin with f but that is the extent of the similarity. i am not surprised to find that you are not really twisted but just plain dumb.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Yes, indeed, I was just plain dumb. Well, I must be somewhere in the center or nowhere at all if I am accused of being on both evil sides at the same time. I think it was actually due to "Two countries. One party."

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 7 years ago

Two countries one party. Very good. You didn't come up with that on your own did you? The only thing in the middle of the road is white lines and dead armadillos - Jim Hightower

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

I used "Two countries. One party." for describing the very American response to the challenge from China's "One country. Two systems." As far as torture is concerned, I am sure that Chimerica will be the one party joined in bestiality.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Those who do not respect trials or jurisprudence get no trials or jurisprudence, as they wish. That is just backup justice being in reserve. Were you describing 9/11/2001 airplane crashes and people learning to fly down a tall inferno for the first time in Manhattan? Was it Infinite Justice in action? I missed the dismemberment part or the sodomizing part. Please kindly post the links for any videos or audios thereof for the enjoyment of the world.