Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture
 

Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/wa...th&oref=slogin

You realize this means they feel that this it is acceptable for US soldiers to be treated in these ways.
We are now the enemy.
You ARE your tactics.

Fuck the waterboards... this scares the hell out of me. WTF?

You didn't hear that before?

I was the only person whose head exploded?

(near quote, from memory--fuggedaboutit... skimmed this from slate.com)

Shoot the fucker... do it now. This asshole should not be allowed out on the street, let alone in office.

As usual, trying to win the war gets short shrift with you guys. One thing I am certain of, Bruce, RKzen, V: none of you could win this war. You've not thought how, you know no method nor strategy that would succeed better, yet look how bloody willing you are to -- demonstrate that. I'd thought better of all of you.

We don't want Bush to win the war against the rule of law.

UG, you're right; none of us could win it.
However, bush has proved to everyone in the world except the most die-hard, blind, resolute, blinkered republican fanatics, that he can't either.
Personally, i doubt that it CAN be won, beyond simply redefining failure as success.

It's being won right now, you're just not hearing anything about it.

What is winning the war in Iraq? I seriously haven't heard a good definition.

The new definition is returning to civil society and rule of law by Iraqis, in order to keep most of the country out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

I don't know if the war is being won, but we've shown how quickly the natives settle down to a normal routine, if they perceive they are safe.

ROTFLMAO! You have a point. We should just chop off the heads of those we capture. I am all for it! Treat them like they treat us, maybe we could get somewhere if we did that.:D

Which is only because your definition of a "good definition" is a) not mentioned, and b) not good for the Republic or shrinking the Non-Integrating Gap areas of the globe. I won't get into how often you've ignored my answer on this very point, and wholly without reason, except to say I think I've told you what victory in the Iraq campaign would be about three times. Somehow, you think you know better than that. I do not understand why you do.

Sure, I'm open to honest differences of opinion -- but where the hell are they?

Wrong... I said we now feel it is RIGHT for ours to be treated this way.
We are our tactics.
Therefore, we are stating that this behavior is ok for others to treat ours in the same way.

Yes, well, FWIW I personally would feel that it is okay for them to make our soldiers climb into human pyramids, scare them with dogs which are safely tethered, verbally and symbolically insult them, tear up copies of the Bible in front of them, and even waterboard them on occasion. If multiple journalists will willingly take part in it to "find out how bad it really is," it can't be that horrific.

Things I am not okay with them doing to our soldiers are the things they actually do to both them and civilians: burning, cutting, dismembering, disemboweling, and cutting off heads. (You go ahead and let me know when someone from Al Jazeera lets Al Qaeda cut off his head so he can report back to his viewers how bad it really is.)

How about...propping up the Iraqis so that they wouldn't even be threatened by the likes of al-Qaeda, somewhat like Saddam used to do.

piercehawkeye45 has asked for the strategic objective. Keeping a country out of Al Qaeda's control is not a strategic objective just as 'search and destroy' and body counts were not strategic objectives.

Whereas creating a stable Iraq might be a strategic objective, details for that definition are required. That was an earliest point made even by Petraeus. We cannot win this war because we cannot accomplish the strategic objective. Or as one Captain so bluntly put it maybe one year ago: he could not win this war; he could only win battles.

That is the lesson from Nam. Americans won most every battle - and lost the war. American provided peace and safety in all major cities; and lost the war.

Also noted repeatedly was no phase four planning. What happens in the first six months following cessation of violence determines victory or defeat. Why? Again, what is the strategic objective - which is why phase four planning was so critical? What was in the second wave on D-Day? People to execute phase four planning. What is our strategic objective? Allies in WWII summarized that objective in a soundbyte called "unconditional surrender". What is that strategic objective in Iraq? One need only review Nam where major tactical victories resulted in a lost war. Or in Israel's two largest invasions of Lebanon (especially the last one) where major tactical victories resulted in no strategic victory. Israel did not even get back the kidnapped soldier. So what was their strategic objective? Why did bombing cities even in the most northern parts of Lebanon contribute to a strategic objective?

What is the strategic objective in Iraq? What details define a victory? Why has America entered "Mission Accomplished" without even first defining a strategic objective? Without a strategic objective, then victory cannot be achieved. It’s basic military doctrine. Achieving security in the cities? America did that in Nam where no strategic objective also existed. In Nam, a corrupt puppet government also was being protected. Sound familiar?

What about it is not strategic, and what about it is not an objective.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No different than winning in Nam by simply wiping out the VC. That was not and is not a strategic objective. It is not a viable tactical objective either. Control is not wrestled from anyone. The mythical international conspiracy labeled Al Qaeda is not something to be defeated - is not even the problem. In Iraq, the enemy of Iraqis are Iraqis and the people who created this mess - Americans. Iraq is a civil war.

Even a tactical objective cannot be achieved since neither the objective nor enemy is properly defined. Iraq has a complex civil war created by American who remain almost as much in denial as in 2003. At best, America can only provide Iraqis time to settle their own conflicts. Even that Captain understood this problem. Unhelpful are Americans who invent Moriarity hiding behind every corner.

Completely undefined is a strategic objective as demonstrated by Americans who still don't understand what Iraq is - a civil war. George Jr will not say that. George Jr needs Moriarity for political purposes.

Never forgot what George Jr's campaign machine must do - make sure "Mission Accomplished" is not lost under their watch. Invent boogeymen if necessary to confuse the issue - protect a political agenda. And so there is no strategic objective.

You're about six months behind.

You mean George Jr finally admitted the world wide terror organization called Al Qaeda really does not exist? Are we now fighting SPECTRE? I thought James Bond wiped them out?

No but Bill Cliton certainly pretended like they did not exist for about 8 years.

Six months behind, tw. The fighters in Iraq say they're al Qaeda. bin Laden says the fighters in Iraq are al Qaeda. The victims of their violent "rule" in Iraq say they're al Qaeda -- and want them out.

If I label my hamburgers as MacDonald’s, then what I am selling will also be more desired. Trademark infringement.

Actually the word being used is 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' so as to separate a Muslim Brotherhood movement from something completely different called Al Qaeda. There is no Al Qaeda in Iraq. There are Muslim fundamentalists. Oh. And they amount to almost none of the combatants - estimated at numbers between 300 and 1000. So near zero as to be considered zero – except where George Jr (Cheney) hypes lies and fears.

Iraq is in civil war among many groups with political interests. Al Qaeda has almost nothing to do with so many parties vying for control of the country. Those groups will never go away. All are waiting for 'their time'. Most agree with on only one thing - they don't want Americans except when Americans are in their town protecting their town from other political militias.

Al Qaeda is the expression to hype a mythical enemy. If we don't stop them there, then they will come here. Only problem with that reasoning - they are not the big bad mythical Al Qaeda that George Jr uses to promote ravenous 'mouth dripping' support from Urbane Guerrilla.

Sorry bro, The Muslim Brotherhood is something completely different.

The Iraqis want the Americans to protect them from other Iraqi's and the National Police force.

The Muslim Brotherhood you are defining is completely different from the Muslim Brotherhood that includes everything from bin Laden's Al Qaeda to Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya.

Iraqis want Americans when Americans are in town and providing security. But Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq completely when not in their town. Just another example of reality. A concept too complex for those who only know everything from their party's soundbyte propaganda.

So what is Al Qaeda? A domestic definition has little in common with what is described in Iraq. And so we have this new expression "Al Qaeda in Iraq". The two expressions have about as much in common as Hasidic Jews and Fundamentalist Christians.

One reason why America cannot conquer Iraq is an administration that even lies about who the enemy really is. Notice how many brainwashed Americans still remain in denial. Iraq is a civil war. A war created by wacko extremist American stupidity (as this poster has been accurately noting for four years now - see the many contentious discussions between tw and MaggieL). A war that is not solvable by America (as defined by an America who mislabels all adversaries as Al Qaeda and cannot even define a strategic objective).

But then how anti-American are these George Jr supporters? They will not even answer the most basic question that any patriotic American would ask: when do we go after bin Laden?

Same people must confuse a civil war - an insurgency - with a mythical 'Moriarity' called Al Qaeda.

You have to keep thing simple for most Americans. 80% most likely could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood is an old age organization of Egypt. It was the spark for many radical movements in the Middle East including Hamas.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."—Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher. The Brotherhood asserted itself as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the caliphate system of government that had united Muslims for hundreds of years. Al-Banna emphasized the comprehensive nature of his faith. Islam was not only a religion, but a fundamental force in society and politics.

The Brotherhood grew as a popular movement over the years. It blamed the Egyptian government for being passive against "Zionists" and joined the Palestinian side in the war against Israel (1948). The Muslim Brothers also performed terrorist acts inside of Egypt, which led to a ban on the movement by the Egyptian government. A Muslim Brother assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, on December 28, 1948. Al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February, 1949.

In 1954, Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf, a Brotherhood activist, attempted to assassinate the widely popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and was executed, along with five other Brothers. Four thousand Brothers were also arrested, and thousands more fled to Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Although officially banned by the Egyptian government since 1954, the Muslim Brothers have captured 17 seats in the Egyptian Parliament running as independents in recent years, in addition to holding important offices in professional organizations (syndicates) in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is similar to what the IRA was in Northern Ireland. Both have political wings. The IRA morphed into its political arm. Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is (for all practical purposes) an illegal political party and a sometimes violent revolutionary movement.

Although related, other movements also called Muslim Brotherhood threatened Saddam, Assad of Syria, and Hussein of Jordan. Assad has a simple way of (probably) saving his secular government from that Muslim Brotherhood. Assad is alleged to have surrounded Muslim Brotherhood towns and massacred 10,000 people - everyone including women and children.

Hamas (not to be confused with Hezbollah), bin Laden's Al Qaeda and another complete different entity called “Al Qaeda in Iraq” are more versions of a larger fundamentalist movement by the same name - called Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas, for example is completely different. Hamas has a fundamental rule to not harm Americans.

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

Remember Zarqawi? Read the section on alleged links to al Qaeda. Read Michael Yon's entries. Read Michael Totten's entries.

Zarqawi was a major amir of AQI, yeah. He also had ties to the Osama bin Ladin network, along with just about every other sunni terrorist organization in the middle east. Zarqawi was about as connected to Osama bin Ladin as Muqtada al Sadr is to Ahmadenijad.

Tw is very much correct in stating that the AQI in Iraq simply uses the name and is about as connected as the PLO and Hizballah. They might work against a common enemy but they're by no means sisters. He's also right in that they've never been a very big threat in Iraq and are now dwindling into near extinction.

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

The Sunni and Shia were all set for civil war anyway. The Shia used the golden mosque bombing as reason to really go after all the Sunnis, including Sunnis who happen to be members of al-Qaeda.

And now Shia and Sunni are uniting against AQI, having found their rule to be repugnant and unacceptable.

The only reason we *know* that is the same wacko extremist propaganda by George Jr's administration. It is not known who did most of what. But we do know from reporters that the actual war is not what American extremists promote.

From the Wall Street Journal of 31 October 2007 entitled "In Baghdad Neighborhood, A Tale of Shifting Fortunes": As the report demonstrates, Baghdad is mostly 'ethnic cleansed' of Sunni. Al Qaeda had near zero responsibliity for that. In America, all this was instead blamed on Al Qaeda - since Americans so easily believed George Jr propaganda (even six months ago) rather than learn what reporters have actually been reporting. Fewer remaining Sunnis means diminished violence. Does that mean the civil war is ending? Does that mean Americans are stopping this war? Apparent are no American actions to halt or change this onslaught before or during the 'surge'. And yet evidence repeatedly says otherwise. Maliki's government has even quashed investigations on government corruption. What is America doing when protecting and financing Maliki's government? Again, Americans had no choice but to go along with another plan that really does not solve anything. Whereas murder rates across Baghdad decrease during 'a surge' (since most neighborhoods were finished being ethnic cleansed), in Sayalia, deaths increased during the 'surge'. What caused the reduction of street deaths? Ethnic cleansing has completed in most of Baghdad. Where ethnic cleansing is not, violence has been increasing - despite the 'surge'.

Meanwhile where is this world wide Al Qaeda enemy that would threaten America (according to our extremist who promote fear, orange alerts, evil Muslims hiding in America to kill us all) or be responsible for all that violence? Al Qaeda is just another almost irrelevant insurgency group representing just another faction in a multi-party civil war. Of course, many still believe our president's propaganda. But facts about Al Qaeda say otherwise. Each Al Qeada is simply another small militia of fundamentalists who kill who? Shiites. Why does George Jr and the propaganda forget to mention who these Al Qeada really target?

But again, "Mission Accomplished" is a civil war; not a threat to America as our wacko extremists still promote it.

This Wall Street Journal report is a story of the past two years. During that time, American wacko extremists in the US government and in the Cellar have repeatedly posted fears of an 'all consuming' Al Qaeda. Rush Limbaugh rhetoric of fear and hate is still widespread in America among the American 20% that rabidly supports a mental midget. These same Americans who so love violence will even misrepresent Al Qaeda as some worldwide international threat. And yet observe what Al Qaeda really is - in Sayidia.

A trivial Al Qaeda is just another insurgency in the "Mission Accomplished" civil war. Also apparent is how little Americans have influence over this civil war. Even an American puppet government apparently supports Shia 'ethnic cleansing' at the expense of Sunni. So who are Americans really protecting? Americans are stopping Al Qaeda? Yes, just as Sherlock Holmes was stopping Moriarity.

Nothing new here. This summary is what Iraq was three years ago when America created this problem and denied what "Mission Accomplished" was really about. Contrary to so many posts in The Cellar, Al Qaeda is not this massive threat so hyped by wacko extremist. Ethnic cleansing would be a more accurate appraisal. But that would make the mental midget appear to be a liar.

Since when does one bombing constitute 'the main insurgency?'

Did I miss a major part of the war? When was AQI in charge? When did they ever have the people's support?

AQI has never held much sway over the Iraqi people, and for the most part succeed in few successful attacks or IEDs. Every time AQI goes up against another insurgent group, they lose. Every time AQI goes into a new town, they are sold out to the US (if the US is there). Every time AQI moves out of an area, the people are happy.

AQI is to the Iraq war as Italy is to WWII. They're involved, and need to be considered, but are in no way a central threat.

By the beginning of this year, homegrown but foreign-led, foreign-funded AQI controlled most of the cities in Anbar and elsewhere; basically half the area of non-Kurdish Iraq, through a program of extreme violence and fear.

Don't take my word for it. There are only two things you have to read. I beg of you to take my little homework assignment and report back to the thread your thoughts.

Read the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq's Prospects for Security as excerpted by the New York Times.

And then read Michael Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children.

I don't mean to be contrary (and I will likely read Yon's book... it's in my queue ;) ), but all my coworkers and I laugh when people (or new guys) say AQI 'controls' a city. Usually that simply equates, in real terms, that AQI has a presence there. In any city with any significant Shiite population at all (and no or limited US), JAM or a similarly organized group is usually the one providing security, the one that actually has 'control.' Most places, AQI guys can't move about freely during the day because they'll get shot. You don't much control a city if you can't walk outside, IMHO.

AQI tries their best, they set up checkpoints and flee when anyone with a gun approaches. They did have some tribes working with them for a few months, but they never had a viable claim of land or resources. The ONLY reason they still exist as a threat at all is because no one can secure the damned borders, so they continuously get resupplied and new manning. (yet another argument for put out sufficient troops or get out...)

I'm not contesting that AQI can pull of large scale attacks on civilians. I'm contesting that they're a threat to US forces, and that they are Al Qa'ida. So, if the reason we stay is 'to eliminate Al Qa'ida strongholds,' we can leave. In sincerity, as soon as we walk out the door, AQI will be completely eradicated.

If we want to win this ugly war, we need to pick a friggin goal and work toward it. If the goal is creating a peaceful prosperous nation, we're simply not going to be able to do it unless we take our efforts up about 10 notches. If our goal, as it's now stated, is to make sure that Al Qa'ida doesn't have a foothold... we never needed to stay.

Which brings us right back to the question that UT could never answer. What is our strategic objective?

This is some sort of appeal to authority I don't understand. Your coworkers are whom I should give a fuck about? Apparently they take a counter-opinion to the National Intelligence Estimate you couldn't be bothered to take my homework of. Can you ask them on what basis, and report back to the thread, or something?

Maybe we can ask for membership cards before we kill them.

They killed everybody in the town, if you'd have bothered to read my links.

They killed everybody in the town.

Does anyone ever get the feeling like the only reason we don't pull out of Iraq is to save face? We went there on the premise of disarming WMD's and after we discovered there was none we would be admitting being wrong by leaving. It's like almost tripping when you're walking and acting like it was all part of your plan, maybe doing a spin and and scoring that invisible 3 pointer.

My coworkers (and I) are military intelligence collectors and analysts, and fluent arabic linguists (among other things).

The fact is, while I do make a point of reading about this subject A LOT, so much of the things I've read distort the information they receive or receive previously distorted information. A lot of the time we're told by some local schmo 'those al-qa'ida guys over there are killing everyone,' and it turns out to be some other group. A lot of the time, we never get a chance to verify the information before we, well, kill everyone that's shooting.

The number of attacks on US forces that can be verified to come from Al-Qa'ida are slim to none. We're talking single percentage points. The number against civilians is somewhat higher, which is why I say if we're actually trying to stabilize the country we do need to count them amongst our enemies. But, that being said, they have a pretty tedious hold on what little ground they actually DO control, and the whole of Iraq is against them.

Oh cool. So why do you think it is they disagree so strongly with the National Intelligence Estimate?

With all your voluminous reading, did you get to that one yet? It's not that long.

Learn from history. The summary of a 2003 NIE said Saddam definitively had WMDs. But the classified full text NIE said something completely different. Never forget what happened to reality when rewritten by White House lawyers. Why do you believe a declassified excerpted summary that is first vetted by whom?

Anything from the White House is automatically a lies until otherwise first proven by independent sources. Your NIE has no credibility as demonstrated previously in 2003. George Jr's administration routinely justifies lies by their political agenda.

Your NIE is in direct contradiction to too many other and far more trustworthy sources. First, you must prove that the White House did not subvert the NIE. Why? This administration has a long history of being that corrupt - even rewriting science to fit their political agendas.

Let's see. The science repeatedly demonstrated there was no proof of Saddam's WMDs. So why did the NIE say otherwise. Deja vue WMDs. How often do we ignore these lessons from history?

This is George Jr. Anything from this adminstration is a lie until proven otherwise. A fact so well proven in these part seven year history.

I *did* read it, it's required if you want to know what's NOT true. Look, if we wanted to make it look like the Badr corps controlled the entire southern third of the country, we could. Not going into specifics (which is annoying as hell, for all parties involved) the intelligence business is kind of fluid, in that you get a lot of contradictory evidence. You can see this from any sensationalist or newsworthy attack, everybody and their brother claims to have done it.

The problem is, when al-Qa'ida claims every damned attack in Iraq, we could technically attribute it to them. On a tactical level, we would NEVER assume that someone who claims responsibility IS the actor without extra or collateral info. But, on a strategic level, the lists are given in a way that just about any conclusion can be made if you look for it. While tw here is over reaching about deliberate large scale changes by an administration, picture this:

Your boss tells you, find all the attacks on our troops in the last year, and tell me who did them. When you've got 100 incidents, 60 of which are CLAIMED by AQI, that's the number you give, with a little caveat saying "sorta.' It goes further and further up the chain and in each little report it gets edited re-edited, comments get added and deleted, etc. The problem is, when you're LOOKING for attacks made by al-Qa'ida four steps up the chain, you'll find a lot more than are actually there. So when each person in the chain is looking for AQI attacks, the number gets inflated and inflated.

It's a big problem with big intelligence, but rumor has it (I wouldn't know personally) that it got really bad *about* when Rumsfeld got the keys to the pentagon. Apparently he would go from person to person until someone found the supporting evidence he wanted and give THAT person a promotion. So, every general went from person to person, every colonel did the same, so on and so forth.

Once again I'd like to point out that AQI are bad dudes who've done some major things (like the mosque in Samarra), they do help to destabilize the country, and they do have ties to the 'big' al-Qa'ida. They're just not NEARLY as major as they're made out to be.

OK cool, thanks.

I back my thoughts up with the direct words of people honestly reported last year and the year before, who are there right now bringing back what they personally see and hear. The afore-mentioned Michael Totten, who predicted the breakout of the Lebanese war a month ahead of time by simply going there and talking with both Hisballah and Israel forces. And Michael Yon, who made the call of civil war in Iraq right at the peak of that violence graph, by embedding and watching who was fighting and why, and with intelligent discussions with mid-level military.

Their articles are dispatched directly from Anbar and Ramadi and Baghdad and Fallujah. The mid-level military guys are referring to al Qaeda. The people on the street are referring to al Qaeda. I was skeptical at first but those guys are getting their info directly. If it was just Yon alone I wouldn't buy it, but I was reading Totten even before he decided to devote his time to the M.E., and he's always been a very sensible, honest gent.

But I'll add your own skepticism to my "pool of trying to vainly understand how things might be". All data points are of interest to me, unlike tw who openly admits to dividing the facts and throwing away the half he doesn't like. Create your own reality, it's easy if you try.

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.
B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

You are correct. George Jr did not *specifically* say Saddam conspired for 11 September. He insisted to Richard Clark on 12 September that Saddam must have been complicit. The people that George Jr praises as closest allies - ie Ahmad Chalabi - said Saddam was complicit even in the 1993 WTC attack. Wolfovich would routinely declare both before and after 11 September, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." The threat was always redirected at Saddam. Some White House theories even proclaimed two Ramzi Yousefs; the second created and trained by Iraqis just to attack Americans. Even the Abu Nidal death in Iraq was really part of Saddam's world wide terrorism campaign - that only existed in White House fantasies.

George Jr gave a 2003 State of the Union address where 11 September, Saddam, and bin Laden were all interlaced in the same paragraph. It was no accident as Urbane Guerrilla always forgets. George Jr never said specifically that Saddam was complicit. He just said enough so that wacko extremists would believe it. George Jr was echoing opinions of his major policy makers - especially Wolfovich, Feith, and Cheney - that Saddam must have been complicit; therefore he was. Also stated was that 11 September could not happen without support at a national level - another specific reference to blame Saddam.

George Jr said enough so that wacko extremists would believe Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks. It is only silly semantics that he did not specifically say it. George Jr did everything necessary to create that myth. As his own Sec of the Treasury stated in his book, George Jr stated up front that he wanted excuses to attack Saddam.

I am rather surprised Urban Guerrilla admits, "Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all". Of course. Saddam was doing everything possible to restore his American ally status. But that is not in the confused and partisan rhetoric from George Jr. Bottom line conclusion is therefore correct: Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by George Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. He just did not say so directly. It’s called propaganda - how to manipulate weaker minds - how even Hitler justified threats and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Meanwhile Urban Guerrilla confuses the issue. Fact remains that the 2003 NIE summary was rewritten to make claims that did not exist even in the classified NIE document. UT is citing another NIE summary as proof that Al Qaeda is the major enemy in what is really only a civil war. This world wide Al Qaeda conspiracy does not exist. But it does exist where myths were also promoted of Saddam and bin Laden as co-conspirators. None of those myths would exist without George Jr and his administration pushing them.

Anything from the George Jr administration is a lie until first proven otherwise. His credibility (and those who support the mental midget) are that poor.

A war cannot be won if the enemy is not first defined. That is called "Making of a Quagmire" or "A Bright and Shining Lie". Since a political agenda is more important, then this administration will not even admit that it created “Mission Accomplished” – an Iraqi civil war. Instead we have this all but mythical monster enemy called Al Qaeda. Since the political agenda is more important, then this administration will do everything possible so that the war is not lost under his watch. How strange. Nixon wanted and did the same thing including myths that Nam was actually war with Russia and China. At what point do we first move to the truth so that a war can be won? That NIE comes from the same people who even (lied) rewrote a previous NIE summary to promote a political agenda.

Well, I know what you meant, though it isn't what you said.

What we're really engaged in, whether we say it or not, is an effort to draw a country out of the Non-Integrating Gap, and conduct it into an era of developing global connectivity. Dictatorships and undemocratic social orders tend to put nations under isolating bell jars.

I doubt you could read any measure of contempt into his remarks -- he's too much the experienced politician. It doesn't require the example of the President I like so much I voted for him twice to bring up contempt for those opposed to this war in any case: they are so wrongheaded they champion undemocratic fascism over any description of democracy, which is simply perverted and perverse, and only engaged in by people who should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed enough to undergo a drastic revision of their entire philosophy of life in order to escape a quite legitimate charge of fascist sympathies.

And then made it up to him with major leg surgery?

Why? Basically because dictators are, sooner or later, stupid. Occupational hazard. Saddam was no strategist, nor general, nor chessplayer. He didn't figure his interests rightly.

Get rid? Mmmmaybe. Saddam's Bomb Maker details how WMD projects were not suspended but put into abeyance in a biding of time. Not too dissimilar to the likeliest action of a certain neighboring country with four letters in its name. And there's still that mystery convoy of heavy truckloads of something from Baghdad to Syria in April '03. Any of our people who know what that was aren't talking. And don't forget the large amount of twinned-agent Sarin the Jordanians intercepted being trucked from Syria (not a known producer of such weaponry, but I understand Iraq was) to Amman, in aid of Allah knows what.

Heh heh. And that tactic bit him right in the ass, didn't it? Couldn't happen to a lovelier nor more deserving fellow. Again, getting stupid is an occupational hazard of dictators -- and their dictatorships. That's why I'm such a determined partisan of democracy, and of course why I'm annoyed so few of my opposition here can claim the same.

I can't buy any argument that starts with the premise that this administration employs genius-level subtle communication.

Except for: the $25,000 each to Palestinian bomber families; the connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; support of MEK; monetary support to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines; the housing of the Abu Nidal Organization; and the training facility at Salman Pak.

There is no need to torture, we have won.
Has everyone forgotten that the mission has been accomplished?
Hell, we had a big ol' party on an aircraft carrier to announce it!
They are just there puttering around now... time to come home.

While I am not MI and never have been, I did work for 1/4 of my 20 with an organization which utilized their assets on a regular basis. The tenet of MI is, "The first report is always suspect." I must say that I have experienced everything you just stated, I saw it first hand and more so as I moved up the chain. Thanks for your service, you guys do great work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4UkEX3Y9R0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ6Uk9swcAo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70sgV-Wynp0

Can't see any youtube vids. What are they?

A French man who was subjected to water-boarding describing it.
It is torture, only torture and if we employ it we are no better than terrorists.

I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By MALCOLM NANCE

Wednesday, October 31st 2007, 10:52 PM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print
Email
Suggest a Story
Be Our Guest

Last week, attorney general nominee Judge Michael Mukasey dodged the question of whether waterboarding terror suspects is necessarily torture. Americans can disagree as to whether or not this should disqualify him for the top job in the Justice Department. But they should be under no illusions about what waterboarding is.

As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.

The lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threatened with its use again and again. Call it "Chinese water torture," "the barrel," or "the waterfall." It is all the same.

One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American.

Is there a place for the waterboard? Yes. It must go back to the realm of training our operatives, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - to prepare for its uncontrolled use by our future enemies. Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of Americans may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora's box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name ofprotecting America.

Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured.

Our own missteps have already created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda's own virtual school for terrorists.

I agree with Sen. John McCain. Waterboarding should never be used as an interrogation tool. It is beneath our values.

Nance is a counterterrorism consultant for the government's special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies. A longer version of this essay appeared on www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...__because.html

The full text of the article above is here:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...torture-perio/

NPR interview with Mr. Nance:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15844677

Exhaustive historical account of waterboarding to include historical interviews from POW's:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/...t_20061016.pdf

This is horseshit. The human body will not allow, pint after pint, to enter the lungs.