LAUER: He was waterboarded. By the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, according to most reports, 183 times. This guy was waterboarded more than 80 times. And you explain that his understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation up to a certain point and waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold and fulfill his religious duty and then cooperate. And you have a quote from him. "You must do this for all the brothers." End quote.What do you think really happened? Was Abu Zabeta's quote fabricated? Was it real, but some kind of sarcastic taunt? Perhaps it was his way to justify himself, after he'd caved to pressure, by saying that under his principles, he'd done his duty. Bush seems to interpret it to mean that the detainees would appreciate being waterboarded until they broke so they could fulfill their duty.
BUSH: Yeah. Isn't that interesting?
LAUER: Abu Zabeta really went to someone and said, "You should waterboard all the brothers?"
BUSH: He didn't say that. He said, "You should give brothers the chance to be able to fulfill their duty." I don't recall him saying you should water-- I think it's-- I think it's an assumption in your case.
LAUER: Yeah, I-- when "You must do this for--"
BUSH: But…
LAUER: …"All the brothers." So to let them get to that threshold?
BUSH: Yeah, that's what-- that's how I interpreted.
That got me thinking about John McCain. This is from his 2008 speech accepting the GOP nomination:
A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.No one would wish to be tortured/subjected to enhanced interrogation, but, after the fact, human beings find ways to process the experience. It's generally known — isn't it? — that at some point everyone breaks, and the standard answer to the shame of breaking is that you held out as long as you could. Both Abu Zabeta and John McCain understood their experience that way. I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. How much of the rest of McCain's thoughts were mirrored in the mind of Abu Zabeta?
When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me.
I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.
Posts
227 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227bagoh20 said..."One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong."
So you're operating under the premise that the "torture" has to be more related to pain...to actually be torture?
And if our enemies used waterboarding on our own soldiers...you wouldn't consider it to be torture?
Is that your point?
Alex and Bag O'Shit - So both of you feel it would be okay for an American soldier to be waterboarded...and wouldn't consider it to be a form of "torture"...since it doesn't involve "breaking bones, shocking genitals, cutting off body parts, pulling fingernails, drilling holes, cutting flesh, beating, or hanging by limbs?
And that we were wrong to convict several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war?
Is that what you're saying?
bagoh20 said..."Some of us were asleep, others were on drugs, but we all had a Democrat Congress. That's them people who guard the purse strings."
The Democrats only held Congress for the last two years of little Georgie's tenure.
Were you asleep then, too?
Dunce.
In 2008, CIA Director General Michael Hayden stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003,
Surely Hayden cannot speak about agencies other than the CIA, and he was careful to name only two years.
Consider that a fourth Gitmo prisoner, captured in 2001, Murat Kumaz, claims to have been waterboarded in our Kandahar detention facility. But this could have been done in 2001, or it could have been done by some agency other than the CIA (possibly Germany's KSK) etc.
"He also said, without qualification, that waterboarding was "torture," and that Bush simply wanted to "justify what he did to the world."
Well, that certainly sounds like he has no axe to grind. Very fair assessment...for me to poop on.
"The Democrats only held Congress for the last two years of little Georgie's tenure."
That's right, but they were the good years, all the way through 2010 it's been like paradise.
I don't really need you to help make my point, but thanks.
bagoh20 said..."I don't really need you to help make my point, but thanks."
You have no point, except for the one on the top of your little head.
Once again, instead of admitting you're full of shit, you act as if you've proven something by ignoring the facts at hand.
Bush was in charge during the run up to the economic meltdown, and the recession began over a year before Obama even took office.
That is a fact.
Bag O' Shit For Brains - "Well, that certainly sounds like he has no axe to grind. Very fair assessment...for me to poop on."
Didn't take the time to read this part of the article?
“I don’t think there was any doubt there were real plots,” Howells told the BBC Radio 4 Today. “Where I doubt what President Bush has said is that this, what we regard as torture, actually produced information which was instrumental in preventing those plots coming to fruition. I’m not convinced of that.”
"Bush was in charge during the run up to the economic meltdown, and the recession began over a year before Obama even took office."
Well thanks for that, I was under the mistaken idea that Congress had something to do with spending. I had no idea that Bush had the checkbook. Thanks. I'm sorry for doubting your insight.
I was under the mistaken idea that Congress had something to do with spending. I had no idea that Bush had the checkbook.
Congress should have stood steadfast against the Bush tax cuts, and denied any funding to the war on Iraq. But their $700 billion Medicare drug benefit didnt help, that's for sure.
"And if our enemies used waterboarding on our own soldiers...you wouldn't consider it to be torture?"
No, because that wouldn't change the fact of what waterboarding is. If our enemies want to waterboard our soldiers, I volunteer to take their place. I've seen it done by college students, reporters, and various other pussies. They laugh afterward. I suggest that anything you can laugh about having done to you is not torture. Where are the charges against the perpetrators. There are videos of these heinous acts on line. Why aren't the authorities on this.
Look Jeremy, I'd agree to be waterboarded for $100 bucks. I'm cheap, and maybe you would want more, but I bet the price would not be too high. I doubt any amount of money would get you to agree to be actually tortured. Clearly the word does not fit both things. That's all there is to it.
Hey, Jeremy, I don't think it's okay for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen. Why, do you?
Jeremy wrote:
What was little Georgie doing when the warnings relating to the impending 9/11 attack came across his desk?
Dunce.
How many times do we have to debunk this. The report said Al Qaeda determined to attack us. It didn't say how or when. It said that federal buildings had been montired and that back in 1998 there was a thought that planes would be hijacked to rescue the blind sheik. There was no actionable intel, and the suspicious stuff (ie the monitoring of the federal buildings) actually had no bearing on 9/11.
How many times do we have to repeat this - there was no actionable intelligence. All it stated was that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us. Is this a shock? And at the time there were like 70 CIA investigations looking into the various threat assessments. What more do you want BUsh to have done?
Hey, heres something I read - Al Qaeda is determined to attack us now. Go thwart the attack.
Dumbass.
Jeremy wrote:
“I don’t think there was any doubt there were real plots,” Howells told the BBC Radio 4 Today. “Where I doubt what President Bush has said is that this, what we regard as torture, actually produced information which was instrumental in preventing those plots coming to fruition. I’m not convinced of that.”
Note the word doubt. That implies uncertainty. HE doesn't think there was any doubt there were real threats, but does he know what they are? No, beucase he would otherwise have said there was threat x,y,z or there was no threats. Saying there was no doubt that there were threats means that he assumes there were trheats even htough he doesn't know for sure.
Then he doubts that BUsh's statement that waterboarding helped stop attacks is true. Again, he doesn't think it's true. Ok. Does he know for sure or is he guessing? He's not convinced, but I'm not convinced that he is a very reliable source. Ot that there is no doubt.
Prediction: George W. Bush will become the most popular former president of all time.
Highlights of the report that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us:
• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
An attack with explosives? Did that happen? Well maybe those were the super secret explosives that brought down 6 WTC, though if Islamists did wire the WTC you'd think someone would notice. But no, there were no explosives used on 9/11. Bzzzttt.
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
Hijack planes to secure the release of the blind sheik. Did that happen? No. Bzzzztt.
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
Ok, now we're talking. Except look. He was determined to attack us from 1997 to 2001. That's an awfully large window. So which target was going to be attacked in that four year time frame? Any info? No? Bzztttt.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country
Now this may actually be true, and in fact law enforcement had multiple investigations open looking into these very points. But does that say that there will be an attack on 9/11? No? Bzzttt.
And if this were in fact true, that there were operatives travelling into the US determined to attack us, you'd think the left wouldn't have attacked Bush for implementing the Patriot act, or for trying to tap phones of suspected terrorists, or the Times wouldn't leak the super secret work behind the scenes to follow the terrorist money trail. All things that would be used to actually deal with these sleeper cells.
If you can find the details in the memo that shows how the 9/11 attack was in any way known, please provide it. Otherwise, for the last time, shut the hell up.
Here's a link to the memo Jeremy. I want you to find the actionable intel in the memo and quote it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-10/politics/august6.memo_1_bin-conduct-terrorist-attacks-abu-zubaydah?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Can you do that?
The stuff in the interview was unsurprising to me. It's exactly what I assumed Bush would do: be practical and save lives. He would seek legal counsel because he wouldn't want people serving the country to be put into an indefensible position because of his orders.
The remark from Abu Zabeta provides a very important insight into the thinking of religious zealots. He is a terrorist because someone had convinced him that this is what God expects him to do. He seems to be motivated by a desire to fulfill his religious duty, and he somehow identified the point of coercion where his duty was met.
This concept of God is so alien to Westerners it's astounding. Liberals who oppose war generally cannot understand this kind of thinking and assign such people as Abu Zabeta to "wogdom." "Well, you can't expect barbarians to understand how to be as nuanced and clear as we liberals are." Therefore, any treatment which would be unconscionable if done to an animal, is also abhorrent if done to a barbarian.
From Zubeta's point of view, however, his goal is to go to the Garden of Paradise by destroying infidels, and he seems to have an idea that there is a point at which his efforts and suffering have been enough. It's all about the fine points of martyrdom.
Bag O' Shit For Brains - So, if Clinton or Obama or any Democrat was in charge during the run up to the economic meltdown you'd blame it on Congress?
Defending Bush and his administration is a waste of time.
Bag O' Shit For Brains - "Look Jeremy, I'd agree to be waterboarded for $100 bucks."
That's the same thing Hannity said...right up until they were going to do it.
Talk is cheap when it's someone else who's being tortured.
You sound like someone with little if any education.
jr565 - Re-writing history to support Bush's lack of action is a waste of time at this juncture.
There's plenty more to the copy-cut-and paste from Wikipedia you didn't include.
If Obama let something like that slide across his desk you and the other teabaggers here would be screaming to high heaven...and you know it, too.
Stop defending Bush...you make yourself look even dumber than you sound already.
Needy - "Prediction: George W. Bush will become the most popular former president of all time."
Well, he's got a ways to go, considering how popular Reagan and Clinton are right now.
But then again, why would anyone listen to another teabagger predicting anything about about a loser like little Georgie...other than another teabagger?
You and others are the reason he stole the election once and won the 2nd time around...and look what it got us.
Two wars, 1,000's of dead and wounded Americans, a massive debt, a failing economy and of course the teabagger movement lead by that mental giant, Princess Sarah, and the other wingnut dolts who follow her expertise posted on...Facebook.
Duh.
I'm sure to be lost in the 200+ obstuse comments on nearly every subject other than Ann's original post.
"Abu Zubaydah, described in the memos as the "third or fourth man in al-Qaida" managed the selection and dispatch of recruits to the Khaldan terror training camp in Afghanistan and instructed recruits on how to resist interrogation. He had studied American and Russian interrogation manuals and had interviewed other terrorists to analyze the most severe methods used by the Russians and Egyptians.
In U.S. custody, Zubaydah laughed off noncoercive methods of questioning and, according to one memo, "Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it' in the face of psychological and physical hardship."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09144/972098-109.stm#ixzz14ptLQIYy
It is a Muslims duty to tell the truth, but taqqiya is also a duty. A jihadi does not betray the cause lightly and at the same time the goal of the jihadi's cause is world acceptance of Islam which is for him a foregone conclusion - Islam will rule over all men. The choice to withhold throughout all toture is a non-Islamic idea. Since Allah is going to win no matter what the jihadi admits under duress, he may as well submit to the torturers after minimal toture to fulfill his duty of taqqiya and resistance to evil at the same time.
What galls partisan Democrats and Obamatons like Jeremy is that, unlike their cult of personality social movement which began to fizzle out upon Obama's election, the Tea Party phenomenon is a truly Thoreauvian democratic grass roots political movement that is not led by any one person. The Obama movement depends on Obama continuing to inspire his followers and pumping them up with zeal and fervor. The Tea Party movement relies only on the principles of personal responsibility and liberty and the concept that "government is best which governs least."
Jeremy wrote:
here's plenty more to the copy-cut-and paste from Wikipedia you didn't include.
If Obama let something like that slide across his desk you and the other teabaggers here would be screaming to high heaven...and you know it, too.
Stop defending Bush...you make yourself look even dumber than you sound already.
I provided the link to THE document that supposedly shows a dereliction of duty on Bush's part. So in that exact document you should be able to establish the points where any aspect of the 9/11 plot was revealed. All that's there is the intent of Al Qaeda to attack us, and any lay person could tell you that without bothering to read the document.
Yet you an your lefty compadres keep citing this document over and over and over as PROOF that Bush should have known about 9/11.
So please Jeremy, don't say there's more to the memo, show us with quotes from the memo that I provided that you say shows Bush knew about 9/11 and be very specific in your quotes.
Can you do that?
If not, it's you who sounds like the idiot. But not only an idiot, but a demagogic liar of the worst kind.So,
back up your charge with a quote from the document that you say showed Bush ignored 9/11 or knew about it ahead of time or should have known.
If not, then shut the hell up.
Jeremy,
Just in case you don't want to go back to the link I provided only a few comments above, I'll post it AGAIN because I'm sick and tired of having to counter this charge again and again. It's especially annoying because you guys keep referring to this particular briefing because of its title "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US". This link, if you look at the title is called "Transcript: Bin Laden determined to attack in the US", meaning that it contains the entirety of the briefing, minus the redacted portions.
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-10/politics/august6.memo_1_bin-conduct-terrorist-attacks-abu-zubaydah?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Last time, put up or shut up.
The Obama movement depends on Obama continuing to inspire his followers and pumping them up with zeal and fervor.
Right, it's like the Reagan Revolution. Liberals should have hijacked the Democratic Party back then, rather than let the Dem Establishment put up wussies and pukes like Mondale and Dukakis.
Post a Comment