Friday, April 24, 2009

typical liberalism

so Obama releases memos about how we get information from terrorists. He says we will not do anything like this anymore.
This is supposed to be good for the United States.
Liberals really dont understand human nature or really anything, do they?
Terrorists are never going to stop torturing whomever they want whenever they can, no matter what we do.
So all we did was make America less safe.
Many officials and experts have since stated that many horrific attacks were thwarted because of these "terrible" torture techniques.
But I guess liberals would rather be nice to terrorists and let whole cities be blown up...so I guess terrorists rights are more important than American lives.
Obama has given our enemies ammunition that will be used against us for the next 50 years.
I would love to see a liberal actually debate this issue, but you can't. If anyone even responds it will be some sort of "joke" or a smart ass comment that doesn't address anything.
Obama once again greatly hurt our country by doing this.
Explain how doing this helped anything?
Now we will not get vital information on the war on terror and Obama is turning our intelligence agencies into the inept wastes of space they were when they couldn't stop 911.
Now the world can take these memos and doctor them and change them and pass them around, which will make us look even worse.
What was the up-side again?
Oh ya, we want people to like us.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Serious queston - why was Richard Clarke ignored by then-NSC chair Condi Rice? Why were the interagency meetings he'd been running suddenly mothballed? Here was a man who'd been tracking al qaeda operatives since Khobar Towers and was urging the new administration to make this a top priority...and he was basically told his opinions didn't matter.

If you're going to rail on how what Obama's doing is making this country "unsafe," it's worth noting that the Clarke-model of interagency law enforcement and preemptive strikes (when plausible) is the sort of approach Obama is taking.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is uncool regardless of who does the yelling.

Jim said...

Terrorists are never going to stop torturing whomever they want whenever they can, no matter what we do.This is beside the point.

So all we did was make America less safe.Not the least bit demonstrable.

Many officials and experts have since stated that many horrific attacks were thwarted because of these "terrible" torture techniques.No not many officials, but a few. Not many horrific attacks-one or two. And the officials lied about it. See LA plot and KSM. Dates prove it's a lie.

terrorists rights are more important than American lives.Nothing in this whole discussion is about terrorists' rights. It's a straw man.

Obama has given our enemies ammunition that will be used against us for the next 50 years. Not the least bit demonstrable.

I would love to see a liberal actually debate this issue.

We debate, you deny.

Obama once again greatly hurt our country by doing this.Not the least bit demonstrable.

Now we will not get vital information on the war on terrorUntrue. All the best information from Zubaydah was gained with conventional, non-torture techniques.

Now the world can take these memos and doctor them and change them and pass them aroundCan you possibly make up something more stupid than this?

The Game said...

well, ya tried Jim...you didn't really debate most of it...

The one that is the most ignorant is the when you don't see how these documents will be doctored and used against us for many many years...
I have a bad memory, but when they do, you have to take me out for all you can eat crab legs, and pay for my air fare...

blamin said...

Anon, Jim, you people never cease to amaze me!

First your puppet-masters redefine the definition of torture, then you try to some how draw a correlation between how suspected terrorist are questioned versus captured armed combatants. Then you proceed to get all gooey-eyed and self righteous.

Let me awake you to a stark reality. If you were to get any cross section group of Americans together in a room and say, “we’ve got this guy over here, who has knowledge of an attack that’s going to kill at least eleven American children, how do you wish us to proceed?” 95% of the Americans in that room are going to say “do whatever you need to do, to stop the attack.”

The fact is JIM, that when people are faced with the loss of their own, they’re willing to do just about whatever it takes to defend that innocent life.

You know what? If you don’t have the stomach, well I’ve got enough for the both of us, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to defend my family, and I’ll defend yours also, leaving you all the time you need to defend your delicate sensibilities.

Jim said...

The one that is the most ignorant is the when you don't see how these documents will be doctored and used against us for many many years...Doctor them how and why? What kind of nonsense are you suggesting? "Use them against us" in what way?

And what would it matter if they were doctored when the originals are a matter of public record?

This is really silly.

Jim said...

The problem, blamin', is that this is a fictitious scenario. It's all from TV and movies.

How would the CIA know that someone they are interrogating "has knowledge of an attack that’s going to kill at least eleven American children"? Can you show an example of anything like this occurring in real life? No? It's fiction.

Jim said...

First your puppet-masters redefine the definition of tortureNope. The definition has not changed. What has changed is that YOUR "puppet masters" have said it's OK to do it now.

Anonymous said...

"If you don’t have the stomach, well I’ve got enough for the both of us, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to defend my family, and I’ll defend yours also, leaving you all the time you need to defend your delicate sensibilities."

Hardly the sort of banter you'd get from someone who actually bothered to defend this nation in uniform. Spoken like an honest to goodness hee-haw warrior.

blamin said...

Nope, no, & nada.

Unfortunately when an innocent victim dies, said victim is someone’s mother, father, or brother, sister, or son, or daughter.

As an American citizen we reserve the right to demand of our government that first and foremost when formulating any type of policy that the “common defense” of our citizens is the fundamental job of the government.

Say what you will about water-boarding. Boiled down to its essence it was nothing more than frightening a potential person that would do harm to our citizenry.

And I repeat, if your libweenie ass self has a problem with that, go to Starbucks and discuss your discomfort with like minded weenies. Wring your hands and flap your loose wrists to your hearts content.

Luckily for you there are still patriots who are willing to do what is necessary to provide for the common defense. No thanks to pansies like you.