CIA chief admits waterboarding

[countezero]

I notice you totally ignored two or three points of yours that I completely debunked. Am I to take it that you accept the foolishness of the statements and have tacitly chosen to agree with my ripostes?

Gee, I hope so...

I know that such an accounting has not been admitted, and there is no sign that any such analysis has ever been made, or that the people doing this shit have the wisdom to make it.

Bullshit. The CIA writes detailed reports on just about everything they do. The agency management, the president and the NSC sees sanitized versions (that remove no relevant information) of all these reports. The Senate and House committees see versions, too. They are also orally briefed about ongoing operations, lest those operations would not be funded. What you seem to be aching for is a PUBLIC accounting, which will never happen, no matter what administration is in charge.

To reiterate points I've made in other posts, it's amusing to me how the Democrats whine and moan about things when they are brief on them and many of the practices in place were executed by Bill Clinton. That's right. Rendition didn't start with a tyrannical George W. Bush...

You, for example, have no information on which to base your ignorant and poorly considered personal speculative opinion that torture has had any net benefit whatsoever

Bullshit again. I've reports from Bryan Ross and Seymour Hersh, I have the testimony of several former CIA officers who have gone public, so why do you insist on saying something as dishonest as what you have here. You know I've posted links bolstering everything I said. And you know this, because the links I posted were all in threads that you were participating in. So please, don't lob these stupid attacks at me, pretending that I'm just pulling shit out of my ass. "Personal speculative opinion" is your modus operandi, not mine. I base my conclusions on evidence and facts.

Remember this?

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

I've posted it before...

- and you are deliberately ignoring plenty of circumstantial evidence that it has had large costs.

I've acknowledged the problems the practice has created and questioned its overall morality several times on this site. You know this, because you participated in the discussions where I made such remarks. I've also said I haven't reach any conclusion about how I feel about the technique because the evidence is very contradictory, which makes reaching a final decision about it difficult. See, I base my conclusion on reality. I don't just respond to things based on an ideology, and as I said before, if you look at the evidence honestly, making up your mind about the practice should be a fairly complicated ordeal. But for you it isn't. I'd wager your ease of decision rests on the fact you rarely look at anything honestly and without bias.

You found the eyewitness FBI accounts unpersuasive, the various connections with Abu Ghraib and Bagram dismissable, the belated discoveries of ghost detainees hidden from observers (such as the Red Cross)unsymptomatic, the interrogation manuals (prior to recent rewriting) uninformative, Yoo's and Gonzalez's legal manueverings unindicative, the various testimonies of lawyers involved untrustworthy, the rate of confession and silence agreements in released captives unworthy of note, the newspaper photos of new arrivals held in painful stress positions blindfolded under the Cuban sun not at all revealing, Hersh's articles undependable, and so forth.

No, I said I didn't know much about it, and the few reports I'd seen weren't persuasive. Before reaching a rationale decision, I'd have to review all the material you referenced.

That isn't the point, with Gitmo type operations - it could be you, is the point.

And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists. So please, spare me the "it could be you" crap, as if a black helicopter is going to swoop down on me in Suburbia and whisk me away from the Starbucks. Much as you would like to pretend otherwise, the USA is not some Orwellian nightmare...

Apparently, they can't take five minutes to edit the obvious foolishness out of a major, headline, President-requested press release. OK. How did it get into the press release ?

These are fairly easy questions to answer. I mean, on the one hand you accuse the president of manipulating pre-war intelligence, and now you play dumb and pretend like he can't order raw intelligence to be leaked to the Media. The KSM stuff reads like unprocessed intelligence. That means a lot of the garbage was still in there. It hadn't been scrutinized by analysts, corroborated by operators, etc.

No photos ever got loose from the rooms the FBI agent observed at Gitmo. So no problems.

I never said no problems, and I'm not defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. My only point is that the CIA was not involved there, to my knowledge. You seemed to claim they were. And, as usual, you have nothing to back that claim up, other than you hope they were, because it fits your template.

 

[pjdude1219]

And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists. So please, spare me the "it could be you" crap, as if a black helicopter is going to swoop down on me in Suburbia and whisk me away from the Starbucks. Much as you would like to pretend otherwise, the USA is not some Orwellian nightmare...

um the us has grab random people and sent them to gitmo in fact a large percentage of the people who are there were detained in large sweeps

 

[iceaura]

I notice you totally ignored two or three points of yours that I completely debunked.

Haven't seen any debunkings. Lots of claims and brags and personal insults - - - life is short. I respond to those on a quota basis.

What you seem to be aching for is a PUBLIC accounting, which will never happen, no matter what administration is in charge.

I have yet to see the slightest sign of awareness, from the CIA or the oversight committes or the administration, of the opportunity and side costs of torture as policy. Any analysis of torturing that took these into careful account would do.

I have heard the Abu Ghraib defendents described as the "six people who lost the war" - but only in the context of blaming them.

And I know the CIA doesn't have much experience in interrogations - that has never been one of the CIA's functions. What they have published, as intelligence gained by torture, is garbage. Am I supposed to just assume they know what they are doing, in the face of every piece of evidence available to me and their history of continual fuckup and blowback ?

so why do you insist on saying something as dishonest as what you have here. You know I've posted links bolstering everything I said.

Your wild, speculative claims of net benefit are not supported by your links or your arguments. I can't even tell if you've recognized the problems. None of your links consider the matter at all, and you misrepresent every post of mine on the topic, so - - - .

You keep posting shit like this:

Remember this?

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

I've posted it before...

Which I responded to, trying to avoid sarcasm about the "intelligence" from Zubaydah and the bullshit sense of urgency he confesses, the first time you posted it. Apparently you regard that as some of the "contradictory evidence" that confuses you:

I've also said I haven't reach any conclusion about how I feel about the technique because the evidence is very contradictory, which makes reaching a final decision about it difficult

The short version is: there's no factual evidence bearing on anything I'm talking about, in that link. Some CIA guy thinks torture is occasionally necessary - so? Christ, I would hope there were at least a few CIA guys who think it's necessary - if they've just been doing it for entertainment it's time to break out the torches and pitchforks.

And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists.

People "suspected of cooperating with terrorists", is it? Like I said - it could be you. Most of the detainees at Gitmo appear to have been innocent, after all.

It's interesting that the one of the first guys tried was a white Australian on whom they had dubious evidence, mostly confession. Funny they didn't choose somebody they had dead to rights and who looked scary Islamic, to start the ball rolling and improve their image, eh?

My only point is that the CIA was not involved there, to my knowledge. You seemed to claim they were.

No, I specifically and explicitly avoided claiming the CIA was involved with Abu Ghraib. I "seemed" to not.

The commander of Gitmo was involved with Abu Ghraib, though. He advised the interrogators there on techniques - based on his experience at Gitmo.

 

[sandy]

We're charging 6 terrorists held in Club Gitmo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sept_11_trial

The death penalty would be way too lenient for these vile scum.

 

[countezero]

um the us has grab random people and sent them to gitmo in fact a large percentage of the people who are there were detained in large sweeps

Sorry, that's just not true.

Haven't seen any debunkings. Lots of claims and brags and personal insults - - - life is short. I respond to those on a quota basis.

You spoke of the govt. setting up a "clandestine torture agency." This has not happened, and I pointed it out.

You talked about the Taliban being made up of people who fought as Mujihadeen in the Soviet/Afghan war. That's not an accurate statement, and I pointed it out.

You talked about POW status for Taliban fighters, etc. I pointed out the US never recognized the Taliban as the official govt. of Afghanistan, nor did the UN or the vast majority of nation states. My point, not voiced, is that this makes it difficult to claim POW status, given that the Talibs were never a part of any officially recognized army.

You challenged none of these assertions.

I have yet to see the slightest sign of awareness, from the CIA or the oversight committes or the administration, of the opportunity and side costs of torture as policy. Any analysis of torturing that took these into careful account would do.

It's true there has been no public analysis that deal with such costs, but as I already pointed out, or suggested, the fact this isn't happening publicly doesn't mean it isn't happening. Organizations such as the CIA routinely assess the effectiveness of their operations, because like anybody else, they don't want to continue to invest time and energy in something that isn't working or is creating more problems than it is solving.

I suspect you're looking for some sort of political theater or a moral court of public opinion, wherein this is all parsed over and reviewed and commented on by politicians and pundits alike. That's not going to happen. If this frustrates you, you need to consider why it is the oversight committees bitch about the OPS they continue to approve and reach the obvious conclusion: Their bitching is largely posturing for political purposes.

And I know the CIA doesn't have much experience in interrogations - that has never been one of the CIA's functions.

I suspect they know how to run an interrogation, though perhaps not one that involves force. You need to modify your remarks. These people interrogate their own employees every five years. I mean, for Christ's sake, are your really this daft?

What they have published, as intelligence gained by torture, is garbage.

Some of it is garbage. All of it is not. We have numerous sources that talk about plots that have been disrupted and foiled thanks to the intelligence the agency has gleamed from KSM and others. But yeah, I guess they're all just a bunch of fucking idiots up there in Langley, right?

Am I supposed to just assume they know what they are doing, in the face of every piece of evidence available to me and their history of continual fuckup and blowback ?

I reject the subjective premise embedded in your question — the whole "continual fuckup and blowback" part. Given how little you seem to know about the history of the organization and its successes and failures, based on our past discussions, I hardly think you're qualified to make this kind of claim. You should try reading about the CIA sometime. It would help.

Your wild, speculative claims of net benefit are not supported by your links or your arguments. I can't even tell if you've recognized the problems. None of your links consider the matter at all, and you misrepresent every post of mine on the topic, so - - - .

First of all, I never said "net benefit." Not once. Never. The only thing I have claimed, and I've been consistent in doing so, is that what you call torture has produced useful intelligence. I've provided numerous links to bolster this claim, which you insist on calling "wild" and "speculative," apparently, because like a child, you think that if you say something enough times, people will believe you. Grow up and deal with reality. You might not like what the CIA is doing, it might generally be ineffective, but it's not nearly the cut and dried issue you continually try to make it, and if you were honest, you would see this.

You keep posting shit like this:

Yes, it's shit. It's direct testimony from a CIA officer involved in the interrogations who is familiar with the results. What "shit" that is. Perhaps in the future I should avoid people with direct knowledge of what's going on in the world and just speculate and post my opinion. After all, that's what you do. No, wait. I have a better idea. From now on, I will ignore the principals and base all my arguments on WHAT ICE THINKS. After all, you KNOW, don't you?

Which I responded to, trying to avoid sarcasm about the "intelligence" from Zubaydah and the bullshit sense of urgency he confesses, the first time you posted it.

You've posted nothing that directly refutes this story. Nothing. All you've done is offer your opinion, which I'm not bound to accept as meaning all that much, when I compare to this report — and numerous others — that come from sources who actually know what the fuck is going on and aren't some biased, loudmouth poster on a web site.

Apparently you regard that as some of the "contradictory evidence" that confuses you:

Yes, I do. And it's compelling...

Some CIA guy thinks torture is occasionally necessary - so?

That CIA guy also said we got good information that broke up plots and saved lives. That's not compelling enough to penetrate your thick skull and force you to think outside your preordained bubble? It should be...

People "suspected of cooperating with terrorists", is it? Like I said - it could be you. Most of the detainees at Gitmo appear to have been innocent, after all.

Really? Why do you say that?

 

[iceaura]

That CIA guy also said we got good information that broke up plots and saved lives. That's not compelling enough to penetrate your thick skull and force you to think outside your preordained bubble?

A CIA guy complicit in torture credits info from torture with breaking up plots and saving lives

with no actual evidence of these benefits, no argument comparing the benefits of more reputable and professionally endorsed interrogation techniques to whatever benefits were actually obtained, no visible consideration of the various costs of the torture as policy, and no acknowledgment of the inexperience of the CIA in the whole area in the first place

and somehow you find that not only relevant, but "evidence" of something ?

The only evidence in that link is of the existence of at least one CIA agent who thinks torture is necessary at times, or at least is willing to make that claim in public.

No one needs convincing about that, Count. Everyone you are responding to here has been assuming that all along.

First of all, I never said "net benefit." Not once. Never. The only thing I have claimed, and I've been consistent in doing so, is that what you call torture has produced useful intelligence.

Then why are you getting all heated up over my postings, which have never contradicted that claim ?

 

[pjdude1219]

Sorry, that's just not true.



You spoke of the govt. setting up a "clandestine torture agency." This has not happened, and I pointed it out.

You talked about the Taliban being made up of people who fought as Mujihadeen in the Soviet/Afghan war. That's not an accurate statement, and I pointed it out.

You talked about POW status for Taliban fighters, etc. I pointed out the US never recognized the Taliban as the official govt. of Afghanistan, nor did the UN or the vast majority of nation states. My point, not voiced, is that this makes it difficult to claim POW status, given that the Talibs were never a part of any officially recognized army.

You challenged none of these assertions.



It's true there has been no public analysis that deal with such costs, but as I already pointed out, or suggested, the fact this isn't happening publicly doesn't mean it isn't happening. Organizations such as the CIA routinely assess the effectiveness of their operations, because like anybody else, they don't want to continue to invest time and energy in something that isn't working or is creating more problems than it is solving.

I suspect you're looking for some sort of political theater or a moral court of public opinion, wherein this is all parsed over and reviewed and commented on by politicians and pundits alike. That's not going to happen. If this frustrates you, you need to consider why it is the oversight committees bitch about the OPS they continue to approve and reach the obvious conclusion: Their bitching is largely posturing for political purposes.



I suspect they know how to run an interrogation, though perhaps not one that involves force. You need to modify your remarks. These people interrogate their own employees every five years. I mean, for Christ's sake, are your really this daft?



Some of it is garbage. All of it is not. We have numerous sources that talk about plots that have been disrupted and foiled thanks to the intelligence the agency has gleamed from KSM and others. But yeah, I guess they're all just a bunch of fucking idiots up there in Langley, right?



I reject the subjective premise embedded in your question — the whole "continual fuckup and blowback" part. Given how little you seem to know about the history of the organization and its successes and failures, based on our past discussions, I hardly think you're qualified to make this kind of claim. You should try reading about the CIA sometime. It would help.



First of all, I never said "net benefit." Not once. Never. The only thing I have claimed, and I've been consistent in doing so, is that what you call torture has produced useful intelligence. I've provided numerous links to bolster this claim, which you insist on calling "wild" and "speculative," apparently, because like a child, you think that if you say something enough times, people will believe you. Grow up and deal with reality. You might not like what the CIA is doing, it might generally be ineffective, but it's not nearly the cut and dried issue you continually try to make it, and if you were honest, you would see this.



Yes, it's shit. It's direct testimony from a CIA officer involved in the interrogations who is familiar with the results. What "shit" that is. Perhaps in the future I should avoid people with direct knowledge of what's going on in the world and just speculate and post my opinion. After all, that's what you do. No, wait. I have a better idea. From now on, I will ignore the principals and base all my arguments on WHAT ICE THINKS. After all, you KNOW, don't you?



You've posted nothing that directly refutes this story. Nothing. All you've done is offer your opinion, which I'm not bound to accept as meaning all that much, when I compare to this report — and numerous others — that come from sources who actually know what the fuck is going on and aren't some biased, loudmouth poster on a web site.



Yes, I do. And it's compelling...



That CIA guy also said we got good information that broke up plots and saved lives. That's not compelling enough to penetrate your thick skull and force you to think outside your preordained bubble? It should be...



Really? Why do you say that?

yes it is without having a lot of arabic speakers the us has resorted to wide sweeps through areas when they get tips that someone they are looking for is in the area

 

[stretched]

We're charging 6 terrorists held in Club Gitmo

Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York executive director Vincent Warren said: "These trials will be using evidence obtained by torture as a means to convict someone and execute them and that is absolutely abhorrent to what we believe in here in America.''

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239099.stm)

Say no more. Rotten to the core.

 

[decantemix]

Who is doing unnecessary whining, the ones for torture, or the ones against it?

Misunderstood: I think it's too convenient the tapes were destroyed, right __Before__ the controversy flared.

It's some of the Elite, whom fled the desert when the 'Green Zone' got hit. Saw a lot of them around here.
You know, when Paula Zhan got fired for reporting on it incorrectly, and there was a "Surge" of 77% improvement out of nowhere for awhile.

Just whiners, trying to feel __BADDA**__, again. In my opinion.

 

[countezero]

yes it is without having a lot of arabic speakers the us has resorted to wide sweeps through areas when they get tips that someone they are looking for is in the area

First, the fact you just say this isn't enough for me to accept it.

Second, provide some context. You allege the US has grabbed "random people and sent them to gitmo." You need to define random for us and explain the nature of these "sweeps" that just grab whoever is about and funnel them across the world to a high-level detention center.

I mean, seriously, are you even considering the logistics of what you're saying. It makes no sense. I just finished Gary Bernstein's Jawbreaker, and in that book he talks about prisoner interogations and how thousands of Taliban fighters — not "random people" by any stretch — were simply let go because they were of little use to the US. Wasting time rounding up people is wasting time.

Third, consider the population of the detainees Gitmo is smaller than the population of criminals at my local jail. Again, context. We're not talking about a lot of people here.

A CIA guy complicit in torture credits info from torture with breaking up plots and saving lives with no actual evidence of these benefits, no argument comparing the benefits of more reputable and professionally endorsed interrogation techniques to whatever benefits were actually obtained, no visible consideration of the various costs of the torture as policy, and no acknowledgment of the inexperience of the CIA in the whole area in the first place and somehow you find that not only relevant, but "evidence" of something ?

His evidence would be admitted in a court of law. He has first-hand experience with the procedures and the evidence they produced. What the fuck do you have? Your bloviations? You say something is "garbage," where's your proof? Where's the CIA agent bolstering your claim? Where's anybody saying this? What's more you look more ridiculous because this officer's remarks jive with several other reports — by Ross, Hersh and others. This adds to its power. But yeah, reject it out of hand. After all, as I said earlier, in order for all your preordained views to be true, you have to reject all this other information and everyone has to be liar or be just flat out wrong. Is that rationale?

Look, you can disagree with the practice and think it produces "garbage," but you can't totally discount the testimony I've provided unless you have no real interest in being honest here.

 

[pjdude1219]

First, the fact you just say this isn't enough for me to accept it.

Second, provide some context. You allege the US has grabbed "random people and sent them to gitmo." You need to define random for us and explain the nature of these "sweeps" that just grab whoever is about and funnel them across the world to a high-level detention center.

I mean, seriously, are you even considering the logistics of what you're saying. It makes no sense. I just finished Gary Bernstein's Jawbreaker, and in that book he talks about prisoner interogations and how thousands of Taliban fighters — not "random people" by any stretch — were simply let go because they were of little use to the US. Wasting time rounding up people is wasting time.

Third, consider the population of the detainees Gitmo is smaller than the population of criminals at my local jail. Again, context. We're not talking about a lot of people here.



His evidence would be admitted in a court of law. He has first-hand experience with the procedures and the evidence they produced. What the fuck do you have? Your bloviations? You say something is "garbage," where's your proof? Where's the CIA agent bolstering your claim? Where's anybody saying this? What's more you look more ridiculous because this officer's remarks jive with several other reports — by Ross, Hersh and others. This adds to its power. But yeah, reject it out of hand. After all, as I said earlier, in order for all your preordained views to be true, you have to reject all this other information and everyone has to be liar or be just flat out wrong. Is that rationale?

Look, you can disagree with the practice and think it produces "garbage," but you can't totally discount the testimony I've provided unless you have no real interest in being honest here.

well its not entirely random but with the language barrier we have been grabbing more people. we might get more than one indentifacation for the same name and not being sure and not being able to communicate the us would apprehend all of them ass well as people around them just to be safe. in all honesty considering the language barrier and everything i would probably do it the same way but it does tend to net more innocent people than guilty

 

[sandy]

Not true. We don't just randomly grab suspects. We know who they are and what they've done. We often have audio/video evidence. We have much better things to do than grab innocents.

 

[spidergoat]

Sometimes we just want to look like we are doing something. Have you seen this evidence? Has anyone?

 

[pjdude1219]

Not true. We don't just randomly grab suspects. We know who they are and what they've done. We often have audio/video evidence. We have much better things to do than grab innocents.

do you watch any un biased or low bias news?

 

[sandy]

do you watch any un biased or low bias news?

I am often there when it is being made. I don't have to watch it on tv. In fact, I seldom do.

 

[countezero]

well its not entirely random but with the language barrier we have been grabbing more people. we might get more than one indentifacation for the same name and not being sure and not being able to communicate the us would apprehend all of them ass well as people around them just to be safe. in all honesty considering the language barrier and everything i would probably do it the same way but it does tend to net more innocent people than guilty

So in other words, you have no specifics to share with us that give proof and provide details about what you say is happening? OK. I figured as much...

 

[S.A.M.]

So in other words, you have no specifics to share with us that give proof and provide details about what you say is happening? OK. I figured as much...

Random detentions?

Human Rights Watch found that the U.S. government has held some detainees for prolonged periods without charges; impeded their access to counsel; subjected them to coercive interrogations; and overridden judicial orders to release them on bond during immigration proceedings. In some cases, the government has incarcerated detainees for months under restrictive conditions, including solitary confinement. Some detainees were physically and verbally abused because of their national origin or religion.

Some 1,200 non-citizens have been secretly arrested and incarcerated in connection with the September 11 investigation, although the government has not disclosed the exact number. The vast majority are from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and North African countries. The report describes cases in which random encounters with law enforcement or neighbors' suspicions based on no more than national origin and religion led to interrogation about possible links to terrorism.

At least 752 men were then held on immigration charges while the government continued to investigate them. Turning the presumption of innocence on its head, the Department of Justice kept them in detention until it decided they had no links to or knowledge of terrorism. None of the 752 men has been indicted for terrorist-related crimes. Most were ultimately removed from the United States.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/08/15/usdom4221.htm

 

[iceaura]

Haven't seen any debunkings. Lots of claims and brags and personal insults - - - life is short. I respond to those on a quota basis. ”
You spoke of the govt. setting up a "clandestine torture agency." This has not happened, and I pointed it out.

You talked about the Taliban being made up of people who fought as Mujihadeen in the Soviet/Afghan war. That's not an accurate statement, and I pointed it out.

You talked about POW status for Taliban fighters, etc. I pointed out the US never recognized the Taliban as the official govt. of Afghanistan, nor did the UN or the vast majority of nation states. My point, not voiced, is that this makes it difficult to claim POW status, given that the Talibs were never a part of any officially recognized army.

You challenged none of these assertions.

We are discussing the clandestine torture program of the CIA, among others - you claim it does not exist ?

I did not talk about the Taliban being "made up of" such people - I implied it included some, which is accurate. And the implication was tangential to the point, which you deflected.

Formal recognition as a government by an invading enemy is not required for POW status - the Taliban military and all native militias easily met the Geneva requirements for POW status.

Like I said: no debunkings. Brag and insult, mostly - waste of bandwidth, that.

His evidence would be admitted in a court of law. He has first-hand experience with the procedures and the evidence they produced.

His evidence of what, exactly, would be admitted ? None visible in that link is even relevant to what I've been talking about.

What the fuck do you have? Your bloviations? You say something is "garbage," where's your proof?

In the first place, I have an argument you are not dealing with, which has little to do with what that guy said - everybody assumes there's guys like him in the CIA. So what ?

But anyway: As you well know, a fair amount of the alleged "intelligence" publically presented as having been obtained from KSM was physically unlikely to (in a couple instances) impossible. The alleged fact that Zubaydah's info backed it up, allegedly, as well as providing more unlikelihoods of its own, expands the doubt. So do the accounts from Gitmo, and those of various other detainees released. You know this.

Now just a little bit ago you asserted that the CIA knew better than to believe the nonsense they were releasing to the public, and you offered the bizarre speculation that they just released unvetted PR handouts full of foolishness at the urgings of the White House. My point is that, regardless of where it came from, such PR is the only actual evidence we have of any intelligence results whatsoever from this torture business.

No one with sense is going to take the word of torturers for the value of their torture without evidence and argument and persuasive analysis - and this isn't even basic evidence, let alone a shadow of persuasive analysis. If they know better, and have this stuff figured out, or some awareness of what they're up to, or a clue, let's have at least a hint of that. Right now it looks horrible - procedures resembling one of Naomi's stages of fascist takeover rather than information gathering, recurrent stage-setting for more fuckup and blowback, implosion of actual intelligence operations in the pursuit of quick-buck degradations, disaster in all aspects.

 

[pjdude1219]

I am often there when it is being made. I don't have to watch it on tv. In fact, I seldom do.

bullshit you to much of a chickenhawk to go to iraq

 

[Buffalo Roam]

bullshit you to much of a chickenhawk to go to iraq

Really? have you gone? what exactly is your source of pontification?